First, he asserts that the Masoretic Text should be viewed not as the original Hebrew text but as its final stage. As such, the Masoretic Text is a consolidation of the Hebrew text and reflects postbiblical interpretation of texts that are messianic in other ancient versions. Hence, the first task of the interpreter of the Hebrew Bible, particularly in messianic passages, is to establish the text through textual criticism.
Second, Sailhamer builds on the well-established fact that the medieval Jewish "peshat" simple interpretations of the text were designed as an answer to the Christian messianic interpretation of the Tanak. Through the rise and influence of Christian Hebraism, Jewish non-messianic interpretations slipped into the Protestant understanding of the Old Testament.
As a result, Protestant interpretation either denied messianic prophecy altogether or adopted alternative interpretations, such as dual, typological, and progressive fulfillment. The, the New Testament interpreted these passages according to the intertestamental Jewish method called midrash or pesher. Sailhamer clarifies the way interpreters should view the Masoretic Text by warning, "Evangelicals, in the desire to stress the verbal inspiration of the OT text, should be careful not to identify the 'original' Hebrew text with the MT.
The Masoretic Text reflects a consonantal text that was not clearly consolidated until the second century AD. Furthermore, the pointings and accents were not recorded until the ninth and tenth centuries AD. Although the Masoretic Text seeks to identify the original intent of the biblical autographs in a consistent fashion, and often does, it also has an interpretive tradition embedded in it. As Jewish scribes, the Masoretes faithfully transmitted the textual traditions that they had received. Thus, there is significant rabbinic theology embedded in the Masoretic Text's standardization of the consonantal text and its addition of accents and vowels.
As such, it reflects the theological perspective of post-Christian, rabbinic Judaism. Thus, there are several significant examples of the Masoretic Text interpreting Old Testament messianic texts in a distinctly nonmessianic. According to Tov, the suspended nun was a correction of "an earlier reading which ascribed the erecting of the idol in Dan to one of the descendants of Moses.
The addition can therefore be understood as a deliberate change of content. According to this reading, Balaam foresees a king from Jacob who would be exalted over Gog, the end-time enemy of Israel Ezek Thus, the passage links this prophecy with Messiah's day, when He will have victory over the eschatological foes of Israel. The "Gog" reading is supported by the context, in which Balaam says he is speaking of "the end of days" Num. Additionally, in Ezek , there is a recognition that Gog is known from earlier Scripture. There the Lord addresses Gog and asks, "Are you the one I spoke about in former times?
In the Masoretic Text, the passage contains five synonymous identifications of the author of these words. They come from David, who is the son of Jesse, who is "the man raised on high," who is "anointed by the God of Jacob," who is "the favorite singer [lit. This slight vowel difference results in a substantial difference in translation: These are the last words of David: the delcaration of David son of Jesse, and the declaration of the man raised up concerning the Messiah [Anointed One] of the God of Jacob, and the Delightful One of the songs of Israel.
Sailhamer aptly explains the significance of the different readings when he writes, "The effect of the difference in the length of the vowel is such that the title 'anointed one' is the Masoretic Text refers to King David, whereas in other, non-Masoretic versions of the text, David's words are taken as a reference to the Messiah cf.
Series: NAC Studies in Bible and Theology
In 2 Sam , David proceeds to describe the righteous reign of the king as "the one who rules the people with justice 2 Sam Most translations recognize the internal contradiction. Therefore, most English versions translate v. However, the problem with taking 2 Sam. Hence, it is unlikely that the phrase should be understood as a question. The Masoretic Text reads, " They will" [or "May they"] fear you while the sun endures, and as long as the moon throughout all generations.
The point of this reading appears to be to negate any thought of considering the child whose birth is described as deity. Additionally, the Masoretic Text reading is decidedly different from the New Testament rendering in Luke Barnes states that "perhaps the oldest extant reference to the. However, since the last kings of Judah were evil and not qualified to fulfill this promise, the nation would have to wait for another one who had the right.
Thus, von Rad writes, "Even the grievous harm done to the royal office by those who had last worn the crown did not vitiate the prophet's hope that Jaweh would redeem the promise attached to the throne of David, 'until he comes whose right it is'" Ezek 21; God will unite the nation once again under their messianic king. The masculine singular suffix " his ruins" refers to David not his booth, which is feminine. Since David is dead, Kaiser points out that this "must refer to that 'second David,' mentioned in Hosea God will raise up from the ashes of 'destruction' the new David, even Christ the Messiah.
This approach held by some medieval Jewish interpreters, takes the coming prophet to be a particular future prophet but not the Messiah. This is evident from the time notation in Judge There it says that the pagan priesthood begun by Moses' grandson Jonathan continued "until the time of the exile from the land. Roland Murphy has concluded that "the eventual canonization of the work. Robertson said, "Jesus found himself in the Old Testament, a thing that some modern scholars do not seem to be able to do. If Moses had not know of whom he was speaking, how could he accues those who did not believe him?
Imagine how illogical that would be--Moses accusing others for failing to understand what he himself did not comprehend. Moses had to understand that he wrote of Mesiah in the Torah or he would not be qualified to accuse those who did not correctly interpret the messianic hope in the Torah. Kaiser states that according to 1 Pet , the prophets were aware of five facts in their prophecies: They knew they were predicting that: 1 the Messiah would come; 2 the Messiah would suffer; 3 the Messiah would be glorified in kingly splendor ; 4 the order of events 2 and 3 was that the suffering came first, and then the glorious period followed; and 5 this message had been revealed to the prophets not only for their own day, but also for a future generation such as the church of Peter's audience v.
There Rachel was said to weep for her children. Obviously, the matriarch Rachel had been long dead when Jeremiah wrote. So Jeremiah did not use her name literally i. Thus Jeremiah states that Jewish mothers were weeping for their sons who had died in the war with Babylon and for the young men who were being taken to a distant land as captives.
Jeremiah was referring to the deep pain of Jewish mothers at the loss of their young men to Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians. So the question is, Since Jer refers to the Babylonian exile, how could Matthew cite the Slaughter of the innocents as fulfilling this text? It is based on rabbinic exegesis of a later time but substantially misunderstands how pre-AD 70 Jewish interpreters used biblical texts.
A second flaw in taking New Testament citations of the Old as creative exegesis in the form of midrash is that it misunderstands the true purpose of midrash.
What is Kobo Super Points?
The point of midrash is not to pull texts out of context. Rather, a more correct understanding of midrash is that it was to show the continuing relevance of Scripture to contemporary life. As David L. Cooper wrote, "Matthew simply applies the language of this prophecy to a similar situation of his day. And Rachel has continued to lament and has refused to be consoled for her children as they have been murdered by Crusaders, Nazis, and terrorists.
Sadly, this is a Scripture that has had continued relevance for centuries. Thus Matthew recognized that Jeremiah wrote of the suffering of Rachel, the personification of Jewish mothers, at the exile.
He, in turn, applied the principle that the Jewish mothers of Bethlehem still wept because of the suffering of their children at the hands of wicked Herod. He is using "Nazarene" as a term of derision and is summarizing the Old Testament teaching that the Messiah was to be despised. That "Nazarene" was itself a disparaging term in the first century is evident from Nathanael's reaction to hearing of a Messiah from Nazareth, objecting "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?
Moreover the only other place Matthew uses "Nazarene," it is used in a derogatory way Matt Thus, according to Matthew, the prophets taught that Messiah would be despised. Therefore, it is especially unexpected that so many who accept the authority of the New Testament and the deity of Jesus view Old Testament texts as having their fulfillments in historical figures rather than the future Messiah. Old Testament scholar Louis Goldberg noted this trend of interpretation and lamented that contemporary evangelical scholarship had begun to deny "any messianic message in key passages, i.
As such, Goldberg is shocked that these evangelical Old Testament scholars agree more readily with Jewish anti-Christian polemicists than with the Messiah Jesus' own explanation of the Old Testament. They stand for Peshat meaning "simple" and referring to the plain meaning of the text , Remez meaning "hint" and referring to an allusion to another teaching in a secondary biblical text , Derash meaning "search" and referring to the homiletical interpretation of the text in terms of relevance and application , and Sod meaning "secret" and referring to mystical interpretation.
Thus, the four basic Jewish interpretive methods were plain, allusion, homiletical, and mystical. According to the Talmud, peshat is the most foundational, expressed by the dictum, "A verse cannot depart from its plain meaning peshat. This means that Rashi would often rebut the Christian claim that a given verse was messianic and referred to Jesus by countering that it referred "to a biblical historical person or event. Moreover, Rashi frequently argued for the historical sense of a passage even if this meant that "he had to depart from traditional exposition.
Building upon Rashi's work, these scholars also used the historical sense to combat Christological interpretation and even emphasized this approach more than Rashi. Peshat was used as a tool to advance an antimessianic, historical interpretation of the messianic texts.
The Messianic Hope: Is the Hebrew Bible Really Messianic? - Michael Rydelnik - Google книги
Thus, the literal sense of the Scriptures became identified with the historical sense. Hence, when the Reformers borrowed literal interpretation from Rashi and other medieval Jewish exegetes,. David Kimchi even recognized [Gen. A few centuries later, reformer John Calvin followed Rashi's naturalistic approach, saying, "I interpret this simply to mean that there should always be the hostile strife between the human race and serpents, which is now apparent.
Rashi understood the text as having a historical referent, writing, "Our Sages [ Ber. As a result of Rashi's identification of God as the subject of the verb, the divine titles do not describe the Messiah but God Himself, thereby avoiding the Christian idea of a divine Messiah. Rashi breaks with the midrashic idea that the verse speaks of the Messiah and rather identifies the child with Hezekiah. This passage, the first of the famous Servant Songs, was recognized as messianic in the ancient Targum Jonathan , paraphrasing it as "Behold, my servant, the Messiah, whom I bring, my chosen one, in whom one delights.
- Chitter Chatter.
- Logos 8 Messianic Jewish Gold.
- Gramsci: Space, Nature, Politics (Antipode Book Series).
- The Great Glen Way!
Rashi, however, rejects the messianic interpretation of Isa and instead identifies collective Israel as the historical referent. Remarkably, Rashi is arguing that his view reflects the peshat, the simple meaning of the text, although Zerubbabel is nowhere to be found in this text. Is the messianic interpretation really exegetically untenable?
Did the author of this text intend it to be read only of the perpetual hatred between snakes and people?
The Messianic Hope
The trend in Old Testament interpretation is to answer these questions affirmatively. Chisholm Jr. Waltke and C. The word can also be used with an individual meaning as well. The only meaning in a given text is that which the author intended. To say the Holy Spirit meant something other than what the human author understood contradicts the very idea of biblical inspiration.
I believe this is similar ot the way the king of Tyre is addressed in Ezek followed by an oracle against Lucifer, the anointed cherub, as the power behind the throne cf. Ezek , yet with no textual indication of a change of addressee. Thus, when God proclaimed that the serpent would crawl on its belly, it does not mean that serpents previously had legs.
Rather, crawling would now forever be understood as a sign of defeat. Unlike the rest of creation, when the effects of the fall are reversed, the curse on the serpent will remain forever [Isa ]. In this way, the serpent will remain an eternal outward symbol of the spiritual defeat of the dark force behind the fall. Since in the context the tempter has taken the form of a serpent. And in the case of this animal, the Hebrew generally uses it to speak of a venomous and lethal snake.
Most likely, therefore, the text is speaking of two comparable death blows: the future redeemer will strike the head of the tempter and thereby kill it, and at the same time the tempter will strike the heel of the redeemer and kill him. This appears to be how the writer of Hebrews understood this verse.
At that time, Rezin, king of Syria Aram and Pekah, king of the northern kingdom of Israel, formed an anti-Assyrian alliance. They in turn wanted Ahaz, king of Judah, to join their alliance. When he refused, they decided to make war against Ahaz to force the issue Their plan would place a more pliable king on the throne and also put an end to the Davidic house. This thread provides a significant detail in understanding the passage. Ahaz, with false piety, refuses to test God [Isa. The disingenuous nature of his response is plain in that this is a kin who had so little regard for the Lord that he practiced idolatry, even offering his own son as a child sacrifice to Molech 2 Kgs ; 2 Chr Since the northern alliance was threatening to replace Ahaz with the son of Tabeel, the entire house of David was being endangered.
Were Syria and Israel to succeed, the messianic promise of a future son of David who would have an eternal house, kingdom, and throne 2 Sam would be demolished. This provides the need for a long-term sign of hope that despite the menace to the house of David, the Messiah would be born, with the sign of His coming being His virgin birth. He explains at length how the text reveals significant direct messianic prophecy when read in its final form. Users will find this topical study an excellent extension of the long-respected New American Commentary series. What would you like to know about this product?
Please enter your name, your email and your question regarding the product in the fields below, and we'll answer you in the next hours. You can unsubscribe at any time. Enter email address. Welcome to Christianbook. Sign in or create an account. Search by title, catalog stock , author, isbn, etc. By: Michael Rydelnik. Wishlist Wishlist. Advanced Search Links. Product Close-up. Add To Cart. Hardcover Book.
Related The Messianic Hope: Is the Hebrew Bible Really Messianic? (NAC Studies in Bible & Theology)
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved