Basic
Worldview:
104
Why Christianity?
Rabbinical
Judaism Accepts
Christian Interpretations (Part 4)
Judaism
and Christianity Introduction and History
History
of Judaism Continued
Scholarly
Objections and Historicity of Daniel (P. 1)
Historicity
of Daniel (P. 2) & Judeo-Christian Syncretism
A
Few Words on Gnosticism
Christianity
- A Sect of Judaism (P. 1)
Christianity
- A Sect of Judaism (P. 2) & Prophecy in Judaism
Is
Jesus the Jewish Messiah? (P. 1)
Is
Jesus the Jewish Messiah? (P. 2)
List
of Messianic Qualifications & the Resurrection of Jesus
(P. 1)
The
Resurrection of Jesus (Part 2)
Study
Conclusions and Overall Comparisons
Additional
Material
The
Sufferings of Eyewitnesses
Comparison
of Mystical Religions to Judeo-Christianity
Rabbinical
Judaism Accepts Christian Interpretations (P. 1)
Rabbinical
Judaism Accepts Christian Interpretations (P. 2)
Rabbinical
Judaism Accepts Christian Interpretations (P. 3)
Rabbinical
Judaism Accepts Christian Interpretations (P. 4)
Rabbinical
Judaism Accepts Christian Interpretations (P. 5)
Rabbinical
Judaism Accepts Christian Interpretations (P. 6)
Introduction | Section 1
| Section 2 | Section
3
(Continued)
7.
On The Messiah’s Divinity –
Typical
Perception of Traditional Judaism:
God
does not have a son and did not become incarnate. The Messiah
will simply be a man. The New Testament Christian assertion
that Isaiah 7 prophesies a virgin birth is a mistranslation
of the passage. Micah 5 is not a Messianic prophecy and, as
such, does not indicate the place of the Messiah’s birth.
Actual
Interpretations of Talmudic (or Rabbinic) Judaism:
The
Messiah is the same figure described in Isaiah as God’s suffering
servant, in the Psalms as the Son of God, and in Daniel 7
as coming on the clouds of heaven to judge and rule the Earth.
In Psalms the Messiah is called “elohim” (Hebrew for “God”).
In Isaiah 45 the Messiah is called “El Gibbor” (Hebrew for
“Mighty God”). As a result of such passages and others such
as Isaiah 52-53, where the Messiah is said to be higher than
the angels, the Messiah has been regarded as a divine, semi-divine,
supernatural figure. The Messiah is also described as existing
prior to his birth and having discourse with Old Testament
figures. (In accordance with Old Testament teaching, some
Hasidic Jews of Lubavitcher Hasidism claim that their deceased
Grand Rabbi is both Messiah and God and that he will be resurrected
from the dead and return.) The New Testament Christian view
of a virgin birth is a legitimate possible interpretation
of Isaiah 7 supported by the language of the text as interpreted
even by non-Christian Jewish scholars before the time of Christ
who translated the (Old Testament) Hebrew Bible into Greek
(called the Septuagint.) The language of the prophecy also
indicates something unique is occurring regarding the birth
and that this remarkable aspect is related to the impossibility
of the mother conceiving and bearing a child as a young woman.
Micah 5 is a prophecy of the Messiah and foretells of his
coming birth in Bethlehem.
24.
For now, however we will return to Psalm 2 in the Tanakh in
light of a homiletical Rabbinic commentary called Midrash
Tehillim. The midrash is addressing the words, “I will
declare the decree. The LORD said to me, ‘You are my son;
today I have begotten you.’” Which decree, the rabbis ask,
is being referred to here? First, it is answered, the text
refers to the “decree of the Torah,” Exodus 4:22, where God
calls Israel his firstborn son. In other words, just as Israel
was God’s son, so also the king was God’s son. Next, it refers
to “the decree of the Prophets,” citing Isaiah 52:13 (“Behold,
my servant will act wisely”) and Isaiah 42:1 (“Here is my
servant, who I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight”).
Now, what is interesting here is that neither of these verses
makes reference to the term son, yet they are among
the most famous Messianic prophecies in the entire Bible,
often pointed to by Christians with ultimate reference to
Jesus. And the madrash ties them in with the king being called
God’s son in Psalm 2:7! Next, the rabbis point to “the decree
of the Writings” (i.e., the remainder of the Tanakh), citing
Psalm 110:1, “The LORD said to my lord, ‘Sit at my right hand,’”
a verse quoted by Jesus himself to demonstrate that as Messiah,
he was more than just David’s son, since David in Psalm 110
called him “my lord” (see Matt. 22:42-45). And all this is
given in explanation of “the decree” proclaiming the Davidic
king as God’s son. But it gets even better. The final verse
cited is Daniel 7:13: “In my vision at night I looked and
there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the
clouds of heaven.” Thus, in light of this Rabbinic compilation
of Scripture the exalted figure coming in the clouds of heaven
is none other than the Davidic king, the Son of God! (Remember
this is Rabbinic midrash not New Testament commentary.)
From a Messianic standpoint, this verse in Daniel is of critical
importance...Now, let’s put this all together: According to
this Midrash, the justification for calling the king the son
of God is based on: (1) God calling Israel his firstborn son;
(2) prophecies from Isaiah referring to the faithful servant
of the Lord, clearly Messianic references; and (3) a royal
psalm in which God says to the king, “Sit at my right hand,”
and the glorious “son of man” prophecy from Daniel. If I didn’t
read this myself in the Hebrew Midrash Tehillim, I
would have thought that a Messianic Jew put these verses together.
They are some of the most common texts that we quote, all
with reference to Jesus the Messiah. And here the rabbis tie
them in with the Davidic king as son of God. In fact, Rabbi
Yudan states explicitly that the words “you are my son” refer
to the Messiah. – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to
Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 41-42
25.
In fact, according to Psalm 45 and Isaiah 9, this anointed
king was even called “God.” Let’s look first at Psalm 45.
To help you understand this psalm, spoken to the Davidic king,
I will leave the Hebrew word ‘elohim (“God”) untranslated
in the following verses:
You
are the most excellent of men and your lips have been anointed
with grace, since ‘elohim has blessed you forever…In your
majesty ride forth victoriously in behalf of truth, humility
and righteousness, let your right hand display awesome deeds…Your
throne, O ‘elohim, will last for ever and ever; a scepter
of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom. You love righteousness
and hate wickedness; therefore ‘elohim, your ‘elohim, has
set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil
of joy. Psalm 45:2, 4, 6, 7 [3, 5, 7, 8]
So
this royal descendant of David is called ‘elohim: “Your
throne, O God [‘elohim], will last for ever and ever”!
To attempt to translate the key verse with “your divine throne”
or “your throne is God” is force, to say the least. The most
natural and obvious meaning is, “Your throne, O God,” spoken
to the Davidic king!...To repeat this is the most natural
and obvious meaning of the Hebrew, and no one would have questioned
such a rendering had the entire paslm been addressed to God.
60 How then can the earthly king be called “’elohim”? – Brown,
Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological
Objections, p. 42-43
Footnote
60: There are at least two instances in Rabbinic literature
in which this verse, removed from its context, is explicitly
understood to mean, “Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever,”
and is cited to prove that God’s throne is eternal; see Otsar
HaMidrashim, Hekhalot, sec. 3; Shnei Luhot HaBerit,
Sefer Bamidbar-Devarim, Parashat Shofetim, Torah Ohr, 2.
This provides eloquent testimony to the fact that I have stressed
in my discussion, namely, that no one would ever question
the obvious and proper translation of this verse had it been
in a different context.
On
Isaiah 45:6-7 [5-6]
26.
Modern Jewish versions attempt to find different solutions
to the problem, 65 but the most obvious reading of the Hebrew
text – just as in Psalm 45 – is that the titles are descriptive
of the king himself, including “Mighty God” (‘el gibbor),
and this view is commonly found in the Talmud (b. Sanhedrin
94a) and later Rabbinic writings, 66 and is expressly supported
by the brilliant medieval commentator Abraham Ibn Ezra. In
fact, in section nine of the Huppat Eliyahu in Otsar
Midrashim, all of these names are given as titles of the
Messiah. 67 Ibn Ezra, reflecting view expressed elsewhere
in Rabbinic literature, explains the words as follows:
The
correct view in my opinion is that all these are names of
the child. 68 pele’ – because the Lord did wonders
in his days; yo’ets- such was Hezekiah [as it
is written], “And the king took counsel” [see 2 Chron. 30:2];
‘el gibbor – because he was strong, and the kingdom
of the house of David was prolonged because of him; [‘abi]
ad- the word ‘ad has the same meaning as “dwelling
in eternity” [in Isa. 57:15]; sar shalom- because
there was peace in his days.
There
is only one problem with Ibn Ezra’s interpretation: He explains
how the word gibbor (strong one, hero, warrior) could
apply to Hezekiah, but he fails to explain how the word ‘el,
“God” could refer to him. 69 – Brown, Answering Jewish
Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections,
p. 46
Footnote
66: According to Midrash Bereshit 97:6 and Midrash Ruth 7:5,
these verse speak of the six qualities of Hezekiah; see also
Pesikta Rabbati 46:4, which refers these titles to Hezekiah;
cf. also Otsar Midrashim, Yaakov Avinu, sec. 6.
Footnote
67: See also Otsar Midrashim, Rabbeinu HaKadosh, sec.
7.
79.
With regard to the divinity of the Messiah, it is true there
is not one traditional Jewish source that speaks of his divine
nature, but there are certainly important sources that speak
of his supernatural qualities to the point that scholars have
described these aspects of the tradition Jewish Messiah as
“semi-divine.” 258 – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections
to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 214
Footnote
358: This is actually the term used on the front flap on Lenowitz
volume: “The word ‘messiah’ meaning ‘anointed one,’ comes
from the Hebrew Bible where it refers to holy prophets and
priests as well as kings. In later Judaism it is associated
with a semi-divine figure whose future reign will usher in
everlasting justice, security, and peace.” For the more detailed
statements of Lenowitz, see ibid., 11: “The biblical accounts
of anointment make it clear that messiahs have a peculiar
relationship with the divine…Supernaturalism comes to enrich
the portrait of king-messiah, as the political necessities
of the Davidic dynasty demand theological validation.” For
his use of the term “quasi-divine” (ibid.), see above, n.
55.
80.
The Scripture verse reads, “See, my servant will act wisely;
he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted.” This
is explained in the midrash as follows:
Who
art thou, O great mountain? (Zech. iv. 7.) This
refers to the King Messiah. And why does he call him “the
great mountain?” because he is greater than the patriarchs,
as it is said, “My servant shall be high, and lifted up, and
lofty exceedingly” – he will be higher than Abraham, who says,
“I raise high my hands unto the Lord” (Gen. xiv. 22);
lifted up above Moses, to whom it is said, “Lift it
up in thy bosom” (Num. xi. 12); loftier than the ministering
angles, of whom it is written, “Their wheels were lofty
and terrible” (Ez. i. 18). And out of whom does he come forth?
Out of David (Yalqut Shim’oni 2:571). 359 – Brown, Answering
Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections,
p. 214
Footnote:
359: As translated in Driver and Neubauer, Fifty-Third
Chapter of Isaiah, their emphasis.
81.
Rabbi Don Yitshaq Abravanel, the illustrious Spanish Bible
commentator and philosopher, helps put this in context. 361
Noting that the midrash explains Isaiah 52:13 with reference
to “the King Messiah,” Abravanel states:
It
is extremely difficult to understand how any child of man
can be exalted above Moses, of whom the Law bears witness,
saying, “No prophet ever arose in Israel like him” (Deut.
xxxiv. 10); still more so, then, how any one “born of woman”
can assume a position higher than the angels, whose substance
admits nothing above it except the substance of the First
Cause: from the latter expression, in fact, Christian teachers
have attempted to establish their doctrine of the Divinity
of the Messiah. 362 – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections
to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 215
Footnote
361: Sometimes spelled Abrabanel, Abarbanel, or Abarvanel.
(Driver and Neubauer, Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah,
2:78).
Footnote
362: Ibid., 2:154.
82.
Just look at what Moshe Ibn Crispin (fourteenth century)
wrote about the Messiah’s exaltation above the angels:
Exceedingly
above the ministering angels, because that same comprehensive
intelligence will approach [God] more nearly than theirs.
For it is an exceedingly high privilege, that one whose nature
is compound and material should attain to a grade of intelligence
more nearly Divine than that which belongs to the incorporeal;
and so it is said of him that “his strength is greater than
that of the ministering angels,” because these have no impediment
in the exercise of their intellect, whereas that which is
compound is continually impeded in consequence of material
element in its nature. Accordingly the grade of his intelligence
being such as this, he is said to be “lofty exceedingly,”
and his strength to be “greater than the angels.”…And when
this “servant of the Lord” is born, from the day when he comes
to years of discretion, he will continue to be marked by the
possession of intelligence enabling him to acquire from God
what it is impossible for any to acquire until he reaches
that height whither none of the sons of men, except him, have
ever ascended. 365 – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections
to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 215-216
Footnote
365: Driver and Neubauer, Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah,
2:102-3, their emphasis; additional portions of Ibn Crispin’s
commentary, which next describes the Messiah’s sufferings,
are excerpted below, 3.23.
83.
When you couple descriptions such as these with other traditions
that speak of the Messiah’s preexistence (or the preexistence
of his name; see b. Pesahim 54a; Nedarim 39b) 366 or his coming
in the clouds of heaven (b. Sanhedrin 96b-97a), it is easy
to see that there are, in fact, Jewish traditions that recognized
the exalted, superhuman, and even semi-divine stature of the
Messiah. As we also pointed out at the beginning of this answer,
there are also important, religious Jewish texts dating to
the last centuries B.C.E. and the first centuries C.E. that
speak of a heavenly Messiah. However, because they are not
part of the main body of Rabbinic literature, most traditional
Jews are unaware of their content. John Collins offers this
analysis of some of these texts:
In
Jewish writings the emphasis on the heavenly character of
the savior king appears in the texts of the first century
CE, especially in the period after the failure of the first
revolt against Rome and the destruction of the Temple (4
Ezra, Sib[ylline] Or[acles] 5). We may suspect, then,
that it reflects a certain disillusionment with messiahs of
human, earthly origin. The disillusionment was not complete,
as can be seen from the messianic revolts of the early second
century. Also the hope for a heavenly deliverer, under God,
is attested in the early apocalyptic literature, notably Daniel
7, and the heavenly messiah of the Similitudes [of Enoch]
is likely to be older than 70 CE. What we find in the writings
of the first century CE, however, is a tendency to combine
traditions about Davidic messiah with the expectation of a
heavenly savior. There was, then, some flexibility in the
use of messianic traditions in this period. Daniel’s “one
like a son of man” could be understood either as a purely
heavenly figure (in the Similitudes) or as a messiah
who operates on earth to restore Israel (4 Ezra). Danielic
imagery could be applied to the Davidic messiah to give him
a more heavenly, transcendent character than is apparent in
other sources. 367 – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections
to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 216
Footnote
367: Collins, The Scepter and the Star, 189.
84.
We saw above (3.3) that the Midrash to Psalm 2:7 – in which
the Davidic king (i.e., King Messiah, according to Rabbi Yudan)
is called God’s son – joined several key Scriptural passages
together, interpreting them with reference to the Lord’s anointed
one. The verses were (1) Exodus 4:22, in which God calls Israel
his firstborn son, meaning that just as Israel was God’s son
so also the king was God’s son; (2) Isaiah 52:13, “Behold,
my servant will act wisely,” and Isaiah 42:1, “Here is my
servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight,”
364 equating the king with the servant of the Lord; (3) Psalm
110:1, “The LORD said to my lord, ‘Sit at my right hand,’”
a verse quoted by Jesus himself to demonstrate that as Messiah
he was more than just David’s son, since David in this psalm
called him “my lord”; and (4) Daniel 7:13, “In my vision at
night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of
man, coming with the clouds of heaven,” another verse applied
by Jesus to his own Messianic mission. Putting this Rabbinic
compilation of Scripture together, we see that the exalted
figure coming in the clouds of heaven is none other than the
Davidic king, the Son of God. – Brown, Answering Jewish
Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections,
p. 216-217
85.
According to the Talmud, there was a debate between some of
the leading sages concerning the meaning of “thrones” in the
plural:
One
verse says: His throne was fiery flames and another
verse says: Until thrones were places, and one that was
the Ancient of Days did sit [both of these citations come
from Dan. 7:9!] There is no contradiction: One [throne] for
Him and one for David [meaning the Messiah]. As it has been
taught: One [throne] for Him and one for David [meaning the
Messiah]. These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yosi the Galilean
said him: “Akiva! How long will you treat the divine presence
[Hebrew, shekhina] as profane! Rather, one [throne]
for justice and one for grace. Did he accept this explanation
from him or did he not accept it? Come and hear: One for justice
and one for grace; these are the words of R. Akiva (b. Hagigah
14a; note that in the ensuing discussion R. Elazar ben Azariah
rejects both interpretations, claiming that one throne
is for sitting, the other for a footstool!).
Could
it be that Rabbi Akiva’s first interpretation was correct
and that there was a throne for the Ancient of Days and a
throne for his Messiah? – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections
to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 218
86.
Sadly, in our own day thousands of zealous, devoted Jews continue
to proclaim that their deceased Grand Rabbi, Menachem Mendel
Schneerson, the Rebbe, is actually King Messiah (see also
below, 3.23, and n. 405). But it does not stop there. As Rabbi
Dan Cohn-Sherbok observers:
Some
followers of the Rebbe have even gone so far as to use incarnational
terminology in describing his mission. [The incarnation, as
you may recall from our previous discussion above, 3.2, refers
to God taking on human form. Now the Rebbe’s followers are
applying incarnational terminology to him.] During
his lifetime, the Rebbe was referred to as the “Essence
of the Infinite”; today some Lubavicher Hasidim [i.e., some
of the Rebbe’s disciples] talk of him as “Master of the Universe.”
376
Not
surprisingly, such claims have brought sharp rebukes from
non-Hasidic (but quite Orthodox) Jews, especially in Israel.
In fact, in response to the claims of the Lubavichers (known
as Chabad), followers of Rav Eliezer Schach, an active leader
well into his nineties, posted a large billboard in Hebrew
reading:
A
SHOCKING REVELATION
In
the words of Chabad themselves:
The
Rebbe Is the Messiah
and
Even the Creator of the World Himself
As
described by Samuel Heilman, beneath these words “was reproduced
the masthead of the Lubavitcher newsletter…and the following
paragraph from an article in it, circled and enlarged:
…the
Messiah at the time of redemption will be revealed to all
people to be made not of flesh and blood, not even flesh and
blood like our great teacher Moses, but rather to be the Holy
One, blessed be He, himself!
“Juxtaposed
to this was another quotation: ‘Soon indeed His Holiness,
our master, teacher, and rabbi, May He Live for Many Good
Days, Amen – the King, the Messiah, in all his glory and grandeur
will reveal himself.’ “Were the Lubavitchers saying their
rabbi was the Messiah, even God himself? Careful readers would
see in the Hebrew letters for ‘indeed’…- (English: M-M-S)
– the initials of the Lubavitcher Rebbe’s name. To opponents
like Rabbi Schach even this was appalling. ‘THIS PAINS US
VERY MUCH!’ The poster concluded in giant letters. ‘But we
cannot close our eyes to the facts.’” 377 – Brown, Answering
Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections,
p. 219-220
Footnote
376: Cohn-Sherbok, The Jewish Messiah, xvi.
Footnote
377: Heilman, Defenders of the Faith, 303.
111.
It is also interesting (and extremely well known) that the
Septuagint translated the Hebrew ‘almah with the Greek
parthenos (normally rendered “virgin”) more than two
hundred years before the time of Jesus. This has been cited
for the last two millennia as a further proof that ‘almah
really meant “virgin.” Otherwise, why would the Jewish translators
of the Septuagint render the Hebrew in that way before
Jesus was born? Anti-missionaries have recently countered
by pointing out that parthenos does not always mean
“virgin” either, as evidenced by the Septuagint’s rendering
of Genesis 34:3, where Dinah is still called a parthenos
even after being raped. 72 – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections
to Jesus, Volume 3, Messianic Prophecy Objections, p.
28
Footnote
72: According to Greek scholar Gerhard Delling, “In a special
instance parthenos can even be a girl who has been
raped, Gn. 34:3 for a na’arah (Hebrew],” Delling, “parthenos,”
in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed.
Gerhard Kittel for Gerhard Friedrich, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 5:833 (henceforth cited as
TDNT). Note also that the Septuagint renders ‘almah
with parthenos at Genesis 24:43.
112.
He actually left out Rashi’s closing comments on verse
14, in which that illustrious Jewish commentator said something
of great interest to Christians. As rendered by Rashi’s “official”
English translator, Rabbi A. J. Rosenberg: “And some interpret
that this is the sign, that she was a young girl [‘almah]
and incapable of giving birth.” So the birth itself was
unusual and perhaps even supernatural! 77 Does Rashi say that
‘almah means “virgin” here? Absolutely not. Does he
say that Isaiah prophesied a virgin birth? Not at all. Does
he apply the text to Jesus? Of course not. Yet despite his
strong dislike for Christian interpretations of Messianic
prophecy, he acknowledges that some Jewish commentators interpret
the text to indicate that God’s sign to Ahaz had to do with
the highly unusual nature of the birth: She would be an ‘almah
– a young girl – and for such a woman to give birth would
not be normal. 78 How interesting! Not only so, he also notes
that the plural ‘alamot in Song of Solomon 1:3 means
“virgins” (betulot). – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections
to Jesus, Volume 3, Messianic Prophecy Objections, p.
30
Footnote
77: Unless otherwise noted, all quotes from Rashi’s Bible
commentary are from Rabbi A. J. Rosenberg, Judaica Press
Complete Tanach with Rashi, CD ROM, ed. (New York: Davka
Corporation and Judaica Press, 1999). Stern, JNTC,
930, is actually more conservative in his translation of Rashi,
translating the key word r’uyah as “appropriate”: “she
was an ‘almah for whom it was inappropriate that she
give birth,” noting that “some interpret this to mean either
that it was improper for her to give birth (presumably because
she was unmarried, in which case what would be proper is that
she would be a virgin), or that she was too young to be physically
capable of giving birth (in which case, unless she had been
abused, she would be a virgin).”
Footnote
78: When Rashi says, “Some say” (litarally, “some interpret.”
potrin), he is citing a possible interpretation, otherwise
he would not quote it at all (or he would quote it to refute
it). In this case, he offers no refutation, but rather closes
with this comment. For more on Rashi’s methodology, see the
series by Avigdor Bonchek, What’s Bothering Rashi?
5 vols., to date (Jerusalem and New York: Feldheim, 1997-).
113.
The oldest Jewish translation of Isaiah 9:6 [5], found in
the Septuagint, understands all the names as referring to
the king, rendering this verse into Greek as follows: “For
a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government
is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger
of great counsel [Megale he arche]: for I will bring
peace upon the princes, and health to him.” 84 The Targum,
while explicitly identifying this as a Messianic prophecy,
renders the verse in Aramaic with an interesting twist, “…and
his name will be called from before the One who is wonderful
in counsel, the mighty God who exists forever, Messiah, because
there will be abundant peace upon us in his days” (translated
literally). – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus,
Volume 3, Messianic Prophecy Objections, p. 33
Footnote
84: As translated by Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton, The Septuagint
with Apocrypha: Greek and English (repr., Peabody, Mass.:
Hendrickson, 1986), 844.
114.
In this light, the commentary of Rashi on Micah 5:2 [1] takes
on added significance, since (1) he reads it as a clear Messianic
prophecy; (2) he makes reference to Psalm 118:22, which says
that the stone rejected by the builders has become the chief
cornerstone (a verse quoted several times in the New Testament
with reference to Yeshua, who was rejected by the leaders
of his people but chosen by God); and (3) he interprets the
end of the verse as pointing to the preexistence of the Messiah
(or, at the least, of his name) rather than pointing to Bethlehem
as the ancient city of David (which is made clear at the beginning
of the verse). Here is Rashi’s commentary (words in bold indicate
Scripture text):
1
And you Bethlehem Ephrathath when David emanated, as it
is stated (I Sam. 17:58): “The son of your bondsman, Jesse
the Bethlehemite.” And Bethlehem is called Ephrathath, as
it is said (Gen. 48:7): “On the road to Ephrath, that is Bethlehem.”
you should have been the lowest of the clans of Judah
You should have been the lowest of the clans of Judah because
of the stigma of Ruth the Moabitess in you. from you shall
emerge for Me the Messiah, son of David, and so Scripture
says (Ps. 118:22): “The stone the builders had rejected became
a cornerstone.” and his origin is from old “Before
the sun his name is Yinnon” (Ps. 72:17). 103 – Brown, Answering
Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 3, Messianic Prophecy
Objections, p. 39
Footnote
103: Note that Psalm 72 is widely recognized as a Messianic
psalm (at the least, based on principle 2 in the appendix),
giving added weight to the fact that Rashi cites it here,
especially since verse 17 seems to speak of eternal origins
(“before the sun,” meaning either literal preexistence or
conceptual preexistence). Interestingly, Rashi’s actual comment
on Psalm 72:17 in his commentary on the Psalms seems to contradict
his application of that verse in his commentary on Micah,
since he applies it to Solomon and explains, “before the
sun, his name will be magnified All the days of the sun,
his name will be magnified.” See also above, n. 86, where
it is noted that Yinnon is recognized as a name of the Messiah
in the Rabbinic writings.
Footnote
86: Cf. the following Rabbinic statements: “R. Yose the Galilean
said: “The name of the Messiah is Peace, for it is said, Everlasting
Father, Prince Peace” (Midrash Pereq Shalom, p. 101);
“The Messiah is called by eight names: Yinnon [see Ps. 72:17],
Tzemach [e.g., Jer. 23:5]; Pele [Wonderful, Isa. 9:6 (5)],
Yo’etz [Counselor, Isa. 9:6 (5)], Mashaich [Messiah], El [god,
Isa. 9:6 (5)], Gibbor (Hero, Isa. 9:6 (5)], and Avi’ Ad Shalom
[Eternal Father of Peace, Isa. 9:6 (5)]; see Deuteronomy Rabbah
1:20.
141.
There is also a Talmudic reference to Psalm 2:7-8 in b. Sukkah
52a, the famous section dealing the Messiah ben Joseph, which
is applied to Messiah son of David. It is written there:
Our
Rabbis taught: The Holy One, blessed be He, will say to the
Messiah, son of David (may he reveal himself speedily in our
days!), “Ask of Me anything, and I will give it to you,” as
it is said, “I will tell of the decree, etc., this day have
I begotten you. Ask of me and I will give the nations for
your inheritance” (Ps. 2:7-8). But when he will see that Messiah
ben Joseph is slain, he will say to him, “Lord of the universe,
I ask of You only the gift of life.” “As to life,” He would
answer him, “Your father David has already prophesied this
concerning you,” as it is said, “He asked life of You, and
You gave it to him [even length of days for ever and ever]”
(Ps. 21:4[5]).
This
text reminds us that the language of sonship is prominent
in this psalm, as proclaimed by the king himself – the Messiah
according to the Talmudic passage just cited – in verse 7b:
“I am obliged to proclaim that HASHEM said to me, “You
are my son, I have begotten you this day’” (Stone).
213 – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus,
Volume 3, Messianic Prophecy Objections, p. 112
Footnote
213: I cite the Stone edition here to emphasize that even
through traditional Jewish eyes, the Hebrew yelidtika
is rightly rendered, “I have begotten you.” See further vol.
2, 3.3.
149.
Commenting on the opening clause, Rashi’s explanation is translated
by A. J. Rosenberg as follows: “Your throne O judge
Your throne O prince and judge shall exist forever and ever
as the matter that is stated (Exod. 7:1): ‘I have made you
a judge…over Pharaoh.’ And why? Because ‘a scepter of equity
is the scepter of your kingdom’ that your judgments are true
and you are fit to govern.” This is highly significant, since
Rashi understands ‘elohim to be the description of
the king, following the most natural sense of the Hebrew.
According to this understanding, the phrase would be rendered,
“Your throne, O ‘elohim, is forever and ever.” The
question, then, is the meaning of ‘elohim, which Rashi
interprets in light of Exodus 7:1, where Moses is appointed
by the Lord to be ‘elohim to Pharaoh. This leads to
two important observations: (1) Even though we can assume
Rashi knew that Christians used this text to point to the
divine nature of the Messiah, he still interpreted it along
the same grammatical lines as did the Christians; (2) Rashi’s
interpretation, although highly unlikely and generally not
widely followed by later Jewish interpreters and translators,
reminds us that ‘elohim can have varied nuances of
meaning. 261 This is in keeping with Christian scholars who
have render the phrase as “Your throne, O divine one,” so
as to emphasize the Messiah’s divinity without suggesting
that his divinity caused God in heaven to cease to be God.
262 The Targum renders this passage as, “Your throne of honor,
Yahweh (abbreviated in the Targum], is forever and ever,”
reminding us that the meaning of the original text is clear
and straightforward. Other classical Rabbinic commentaries,
such as Ibn Ezra and Metsudat David, argue that the text means,
“Your throne is the throne of God,” or “Your throne is given
by God” (cf. also the rendering in the Stone edition; see
further vol. 2, 3.3). In their recent Psalms commentary, Rozenberg
and Zlotowitz translate this clause as “Your throne from God
is everlasting,” explaining, “The sense is that the king’s
throne has God’s approval because he renders justice from
it in accordance with God’s will. Ibn Ezra translates ‘your
throne is the throne of God,’ adding another ‘throne.’” 263
More interesting, however, is their next comment: “The Hebrew
could also be rendered ‘Your throne, O God, is everlasting.’
This would not fit the context, which requires the king to
be the subject.” 264 So, if not for the contextual difficulty,
the translation would be fairly straightforward. And what
is the primary difficulty? It is impossible for these commentators
to conceive that the human king could be called ‘elohim.
But if that human king is the Messiah, and if the Messiah
is divine, then there is no valid reason to reject the obvious,
clear rendering. – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to
Jesus, Volume 3, Messianic Prophecy Objections, p. 132-133
Footnote
261: Actually, in Exodus 7:1, ‘elohim does not
mean “judge” contrary to Rashi’s explanation; rather, as indicated
by the related passage in Exodus 4:16, and as rendered in
the NJPSV, ‘elohimin these passages means “in the role
of God.” The Stone edition renders ‘elohim in Exodus
4:16 as “leader” and in 7:1 as “master,” both of which fall
short of the mark.
Footnote
262: Cf. further vol. 2, 3.3, with special reference to the
rendering of H. J. Kraus.
Footnote
263: Rozenberg and Zlotowitz, The Book of Psalms, 274,
277.
Footnote
264: Ibid., 277.
152.
Let’s focus in on Zechariah 3:4, “Listen, O high priest Joshua
and your associates seated before you, who are men symbolic
of things to come: I am going to bring my servant, the Branch.”
The Targum renders this closing phrase as, “Behold I bring
my servant the Messiah.” The Branch – understood to be the
Branch of David – is the Messiah. Abraham Ibn Ezra provides
an interesting interpretation on the identity of the Branch:
He
is Zerubbabel, as it is said, “His name is branch” [Zech.
6:12], and the end of the passage proves it, [stating] “before
Zerubbabel” [Zech. 4:7]. And many interpreters say that this
branch is the Messiah, and he is called Zerubbabel because
he is from his seed, as in, “and David my servant will be
their prince forever” [Ezek. 37:25[. And I too can interpret
this homiletically [derek derash], for tsemach
[branch] by Gematria [i.e., numerically interpreted] equals
Menachem, that is, Ben Ammiel [in the Talmud Menachem Ben
Ammiel is a name for the Messiah; see b. Sanhedrin 99b, and
notes of Ibn Ezra that the numeric values for the Hebrew words
branch and Menachem are identical, both equal
to 138]. 291 – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus,
Volume 3, Messianic Prophecy Objections, p. 144
Footnote
291: Remember that Zerubbabel was of Davidic descent.
(Continued...)
