Jerusalem 1917-2017

[Nikud]

the NT is the law for an individual (spiritual Israel).

I was unaware of any new laws made in the Gospels. Please Clarify.

 

[Quartus]

the NT is the law for an individual (spiritual Israel).
I was unaware of any new laws made in the Gospels. Please Clarify.


Perhaps new “law” is a little difficult to justify, however, there is a new “commandment” which is of course
Joh_13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.

So the new commandment is about love. But love was always there, for Christ’s summary of the law is
Mar_12:33 And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.

This love for our neighbour comes out in many places, but I think a short answer maybe to imagine a political manifesto based on the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7) e.g.

Mat 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Mat 5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
Mat 5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
Mat 5:42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

Next, imagine the potential outcome of an election fought on those principles.

"You have heard it said by them of old time… but I say… " is a recurring theme through the Sermon on the Mount but this is a changed emphasis from what is necessary to defend a nation against its enemies in this age, or any other.

 

[IshChayil]

ב"ה​

Many of Yeshua's recorded teachings are points one reaches from deep study of the Law and the Prophets and are not at odds with the Law; the same teachings are recorded in the Talmuds or in the Tanakh but often attributed to Yeshua as something new.

Rabbi Hillel (slightly predates Yeshua) is recorded as having taught the gist of the Torah is "Love the L-rd your G-d with all your heart...the rest is commentary"-Talmud Shabbat 31A

A psalmist records "obedience is better than sacrifice..." (psalm 51 & Samuel somewhere)

Most if not all of the sermon on the mount is restatement of the Jewish sages or other bible passages. This does not diminish from the genius of Yeshua's presentation but I think it may show that His teachings are where many pious men who had the spirit of G-d in them concluded already.
I'd like to gather a collection of Talmudic and Tanakh references which predate Yeshua's teachings. Will try to post some clear examples this week-ish in the Messi/Hebrew roots section as time permits (quite busy these days).

To wet the appetite:
Rabban Gamaliel said, “whoever has mercy on other people will be shown mercy from Heaven, and whoever doesn’t show mercy to other people won’t be shown mercy from Heaven.”-Talmud Shabbat 151B

"He who regards a woman with an impure intention is as if he already had relations with her"
-Talmud Khallah 1

Lamentations 3:30a ‮יִתֵּ֧ן לְמַכֵּ֛הוּ לֶ֖חִי
"Let him give his cheek to the one who strikes it..."

 

[Quartus]

Many of Yeshua's recorded teachings are points one reaches from deep study of the Law and the Prophets and are not at odds with the Law;

Absolutely. I agree 100% with you on that.

Perhaps even John had trouble expressing what I was trying to say for in his gospel he recorded
Joh 13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another;
But in his epistle this has been expanded to:
2Jn 1:5 And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another.

The scripture cannot be broken so there is a meaning to be sought out. So are we to take the meaning as:
(1) a new commandment that was literally new?
(2) a new interpretation of an existing commandment?
(3) a new emphasis on the correct way to interpret the old commandment?
(4) a new way to apply the old commandment in our lives?
(5) something else?

It would be really fascinating to have more insight into existing Jewish thought in the times of Christ.

And one request concerning something you mentioned if you wouldn’t mind please as it’s one of a number of things that has been bugging me for some time:

"He who regards a woman with an impure intention is as if he already had relations with her"
-Talmud Khallah 1

The usual interpretation of this does not make much sense to me,
Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
I think this must be a married woman, or possibly a woman with whom marriage would be forbidden for any other reason, (Prov 7:5-27 as OT basis??) and if it is relatively easy to determine I would love to know whether the Rabbis limited this to women with whom lawful marriages could not be contracted rather than the prevailing view that it is any woman, marriageable or not.

 

[Nikud]

@IshChayil if I'm not mistaken it is referring to a bride without blessing right?

 

[Mojo]

I believe the answer lies somewhere in the original languages. Just as maiden is sometimes translated as virgin in OT, especially as it relates to prophecies regarding Mary. The original languages (Greek or Hebrew) have different ways to convey unmarried (i.e. virginal) women and married/committed women.

Someone want to double check that. I'm too lazy right now.

 

[Mojo]

ב"ה​

Many of Yeshua's recorded teachings are points one reaches from deep study of the Law and the Prophets and are not at odds with the Law; the same teachings are recorded in the Talmuds or in the Tanakh but often attributed to Yeshua as something new.

Rabbi Hillel (slightly predates Yeshua) is recorded as having taught the gist of the Torah is "Love the L-rd your G-d with all your heart...the rest is commentary"-Talmud Shabbat 31A

A psalmist records "obedience is better than sacrifice..." (psalm 51 & Samuel somewhere)

Most if not all of the sermon on the mount is restatement of the Jewish sages or other bible passages. This does not diminish from the genius of Yeshua's presentation but I think it may show that His teachings are where many pious men who had the spirit of G-d in them concluded already.
I'd like to gather a collection of Talmudic and Tanakh references which predate Yeshua's teachings. Will try to post some clear examples this week-ish in the Messi/Hebrew roots section as time permits (quite busy these days).

To wet the appetite:
Rabban Gamaliel said, “whoever has mercy on other people will be shown mercy from Heaven, and whoever doesn’t show mercy to other people won’t be shown mercy from Heaven.”-Talmud Shabbat 151B

"He who regards a woman with an impure intention is as if he already had relations with her"
-Talmud Khallah 1

Lamentations 3:30a ‮יִתֵּ֧ן לְמַכֵּ֛הוּ לֶ֖חִי
"Let him give his cheek to the one who strikes it..."

Pretty much how I see things. Thanks for writing all that.

 

[Quartus]

@ kevin @Mojo I'm really basing the 'adultery in the heart' on adultery and therefore it seems to me that the object of desire would have to be a married woman, or at least a woman unavailable for marriage to the man concerned.

 

[Nikud]

@Quartus according to some Rabbinical teachings in the Talmud say that without blessing a woman is unavailable for marriage therefore longing after her is "adultery of the heart".

Take it for what you will. I see the Talmud as the same as any Comentary on scripture whether it from the early church founders, the translator of a version of the bible or opinion you may read on this or any forum. Its the interpitation of men seeking to understand G-d's word not divinely inspired but a good historical reference for the mindset of the day.

That being said, It pains me to say this, I agree with the premise that without a blessing a woman is unavailable for marriage. There fore when I look at:

Matthew 5:27–28

“You heard it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman in order to covet her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

Talmud Khallah 1

"He who regards a woman with an impure intention is as if he already had relations with her"

It is speaking of a bride without blessing.
That's my personal interpretation.

 

[Quartus]

@Kevin I think I see... this is a blessing intended to free a woman to REmarry, is that right? I first read it that you would include a guy anticipating being married to a virgin before he had obtained a blessing, which would then lose the distinction of two classes of women. I only very recently found out by accident that only a few hundred years ago in England women wore their hair differently after they were married to signify available status. Other cultures have different hairstyles, hats, clothes to signify their availablity.
If I now understand you correctly, we are agreed that Christ speaks of an "unavailable" woman and does not speak there about a woman who is "available" so does not speak about all women in that verse? That was the point I was trying to establish.
(If there is a difference between available and unavailable in Matt 5, I think who was in which category would take a little longer to resolve, though for the sake of this digression, I would definitely be resolving it on the basis of what I believed Moses taught).

 

[Nikud]

I am hesitant to say which women are unavailable for marriage according Talmud because my understanding is incomplete but the one that is clear in Kallah that needs a blessing are women who are products of incest. It also suggest that without a father's blessing a woman can not marry, but that one might be my bias doing the interpretation so I would only hold myself and my family to that and reserve no judgement for others.

Edit: I would like a third opinion @IshChayil, I already talked to someone else who said I was on the right track.

 

[Quartus]

I don't know where Moses would have intimated that. I have looked at Mamzerism and found Jews online at variance over that. I think David was the 10th generation mamzer (Ruth 4) in which case mamzerism and restrictions on Moabite nationality did not apply to the ladies (Deut 23:2-3). How do you read the Hebrew there please?

 

[Nikud]

David was 9th generation mamzer decendant of Perez, the mamzer son of Judah and Tamar. He was the great-grandchild of Ruth. So In David's case it wasn't about Ruth's nationality. Your right as a woman, Ruth was able to be absorbed into the Jewish nation (due to the principle of patrilineal descent) and as a believer in the true G-d was no more considered a "heathen" of the sort, and was not forbidden for marriage under the definition of mamzer. A mamzer in Jewish culture is also someone who is either born out of adultery by a married Jewish woman and a Jewish man who is not her husband, or born out of incest (as defined by the Bible). The biblical prohibitions against incest are found in the Torah in three groups Leviticus 18:6-18; 20:11, 12, 14, 17, 19, 20, 21 and Deuteronomy 27:20-23.

 

[IshChayil]

@IshChayil if I'm not mistaken it is referring to a bride without blessing right?

Yep

 

[Quartus]

@Kevin thank you. I can see how you get 9 (descendants of Pharez), but surely you have to count Pharez as well as the first descendant of Judah and Tamar? that's how I get David as the 10th. And why should the book of Ruth stop at David if it needs Solomon for completeness? I think of David as the youngest son of the last generation of mamzers (how unlucky is that?) on top of which he is set at nought by his family, and as a young man, Goliath's challenge couldn't have been more perfect for him to extract himself from that predicament and prove himself. (Back on topic for a minute, I see David (Beloved) son of Jesse (the existent One) as a type of Messiah's establishment of the kingdom while Solomon represents the era of peace that will be ushered in after righteousness has been established and types Messiah's building the temple. So sorry, but still not at all sure about Solomon being a mamzer as well.)

Patrilineal descent - you mean Ruth was covered by marriage? either by her subsequent marriage to Boaz, or her previous marriage to one of Elimelech's sons?
Ruth wasn't a mamzer she was a Moabitess, and all she has in common with mamzers is a 10th generation ban from the congregation (Deut 23:2-3).

But where does this prohibition of marriage of mamzers come from? why should G-d legislate for 10 generations of mamzers if none of them could get properly married anyway? Offspring would all be first generation mamzers ad infinitum.

 

[Nikud]

I can see how you get 9 (descendants of Pharez), but surely you have to count Pharez as well as the first descendant of Judah and Tamar?

I was showing the break down of 10 because I had the feeling I was going to be mentioning Judah and Tamar again.

And why should the book of Ruth stop at David if it needs Solomon for completeness?

Until the 10th not inclusive of the 10th.

Patrilineal descent - you mean Ruth was covered by marriage? either by her subsequent marriage to Boaz, or her previous marriage to one of Elimelech's sons?

Ruth wasn't a mamzer she was a Moabitess, and all she has in common with mamzers is a 10th generation ban from the congregation (Deut 23:2-3).

I meant to say Moabite and the point I was trying to make was trying to make with Patrilineal descent and was not clear about is in this argument. It is not mine I'm not sure where I down copied it from, I thought it might be useful one day.

The Bible records historical proof that the Amorites and Moabites were pushed out of the land of Moab. So the people who lived in Moab were the Israelites. This means Ruth was from an Israelite tribe. Below is the proof:

Ruth 1:2

“In the days when the Judges ruled in Israel, a severe famine came upon the land. So a man from Bethlehem in Judah left his home and went to live in the country of Moab, taking his wife and two sons with him.

G-d promised Judah “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh comes…” (Genesis 49:10).

G-d instructed the Israelites that they could not set a foreigner (non Israelite) King to rule over them. All Kings had to be Israelites from the line of Judah.

Deu 17:15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the L-RD thy G-d shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.

The Messiah was born as King of the Jews and King of Kings. He could NOT be a foreigner.

Ruth was an Israelite living in the land of Moab. She was not of the Moabite lineage. We know that Joshua took control of the plains of Moab and the local residents were removed. This territory north of the Arnon River, and east of the Jordan River, was occupied by the tribes of Israel known as Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh. The three tribes to the east were said to live in the “land of Moab”.

“So the L-rd our G-d also delivered into our hands Og king of Bashan, with all his people, and we attacked him until he has no survivors remaining.”

“And at that time we took the land from the hand of the two kings of the Amorites who were on this side of the Jordan, from the River Arnon to Mount Hermon…” (Deuteronomy 3:3,8).

In another place the Bible records that no racial Moabites were left alive in the land (Deuteronomy 2:34). However, the race of the Moabites were not wiped out they were located in other lands. They would continue to pop up in history.

Here is the explanation:

Ruth never had a son from her husband Naomi’s son. There were no other sons left alive for Ruth to marry and carry on the family line of Naomi.

Deuteronomy 25:5,6:

“If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the widow of the dead man shall not be married to a stranger outside the family; her husband’s brother shall go in to her, take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husbands brother to her, and it shall be that the firstborn son which she bears will succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel.”

Ruth 4:13-17: “So Boaz took Ruth and she became his wife; and when he went in to her, the Lord gave her conception, and she bore a son.”

“Then the women said to Naomi, ‘Blessed be the Lord, who has not left you this day without a NEAR KINSMAN ; and may his name be famous in Israel! And may he be to you a RESTORER OF LIFE…’. “Also the neighbor women gave him a name, saying, ‘There is a son BORN TO Naomi.’“

Ruth 4:11,12:

“And all the people who were at the gate, and the elders, said, ‘We are witnesses. The L-rd make the woman who is coming to your house like Rachel and Leah, the two WHO BUILT the house of Israel; and may you prosper in Ephrathah and be famous in Bethlehem.

May your house be like the house of Perez, whom TAMAR bore to Judah, because of the offspring which the L-rd will give to you from this young woman.’”

The people understood that Ruth’s blood line came from Tamar is the mother of both Zarah and Pharez – the royal blood line of Judah. They understood that it was this bloodline that was father the Kings of Israel.

Second Arguement made.

All of this was accomplished about 1450 B.C.; from this time on this was purely Israelite territory. This was even more so than the land west of the Jordan River, because in the old lands of Moab and Ammon, none were left alive. Today, Anglo Saxon Americans who live in California are called Californians, bearing this name and living in a former Mexican territory doesn’t make them Mexicans. Likewise, Israelites living in the old land of Moab were often called Moabites, just as those who lived in Galilee were called Galileans.

Three hundred years later, about 1143 B.C., we find evidence that the Israelite occupation of the lands of Moab and Ammon, was still unbroken. In Judges 11:12-26 we read, “And Jephthah sent messengers unto the king of the children of Ammon saying, what hast thou to do with me, that thou art come against me to fight in my land? And the king of the children of Ammon answered unto the messengers of Jephthah, Because Israel took away my land when they came up out of Egypt, from Arnon even unto Jabbok, and unto Jordan: now therefore, restore again those land peaceably. And Jephthah sent messengers again unto the king of the children of Ammon, and said unto him, Thus saith Jephthat: when Israel came up from Egypt, and walked through the wilderness unto the Red Sea, and came to Kadesh; then Israel sent messengers unto the king of Edom saying, Let me, I pray thee, pass through thy land: but the king of Edom would not harken thereto. And in like manner they sent unto the king of Moab: but he would not consent. Then they went along through the wilderness and compassed the land of Edom and the land of Moab, and pitched on the other side of Arnon, but came not within the border of Moab: for Arnon was the border of Moab. And Israel sent messengers unto Sihon, king of the Amorites, the king of Heshbon; and Israel said unto him, Let us pass, we pray thee, through thy land into my place. But Sihon trusted not Israel to pass through his coast: but Sihon gathered all his people together and pitched in Jahaz, and fought against Israel. And Yahweh, G-d of Israel delivered Sihon and all his people into the hand of Israel, and they smote them: so Israel possessed all the land of the Amorites, the inhabitants of that country. And they possessed all the coasts of the Amorites from Arnon even unto Jabbok, and from the wilderness even unto Jordan. While Israel dwelt in Hershbon and her towns, and in Aroer and her towns, and in all the cities that be along the coasts of Arnon, three hundred years, why therefore did ye not recover them within that time?” The Israelites had held unbroken possession of the land of Moab and Ammon all that time.

Edit: I apologize for the confusion.

 

[IshChayil]

...I have looked at Mamzerism and found Jews online at variance over that. I think David was the 10th generation mamzer (Ruth 4) in which case mamzerism and restrictions on Moabite nationality did not apply to the ladies (Deut 23:2-3). How do you read the Hebrew there please?

For certain, King David is not regarded as a descendant of a mamzer.
Here's the Hebrew from most manuscripts:
2 לֹֽא־יָבֹ֧א פְצֽוּעַ־דַּכָּ֛א וּכְר֥וּת שָׁפְכָ֖ה בִּקְהַ֥ל יי׃ ס
One with completely crushed testicles or a cut off penis shall not enter in the assembly of Hashem.
3 לֹא־יָבֹ֥א מַמְזֵ֖ר בִּקְהַ֣ל יי גַּ֚ם דּ֣וֹר עֲשִׂירִ֔י לֹא־יָ֥בֹא ל֖וֹ בִּקְהַ֥ל יי׃ ס
A mamzer shall not enter the assembly of Hashem, even the tenth generation shall not enter for himself into the assembly of Hashem.

mamzer is the product of a forbidden sex act (@Kevin gives examples). Traditionally this has been misunderstood to be "bastard" which is not the same concept.

The critical apparatus of Biblia Hebraic Quinta (critical edition which incorporates dead sea scroll and other fragments), lists a manuscript which instead of "mamzer" lists "Ashdodite" here instead (Philistine city within Judah's territory). I'm not saying the variant manuscript fragment is correct, only asserting that it is there.
The LXX favors the Masorah here with
...οὐκ εἰσελεύσεται ἐκ πόρνης εἰς ἐκκλησίαν κυρίου
Septuaginta (1979). (electronic ed., Dt 23:3). Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.
...[one born] from pornia shall not enter into the assembly of the L-rd.
Pornia being forbidden sex acts (incest, adultery etc)

FYI-Talmud tractate Kiddushin provides the interpretation that a descendant of a male mamzer is NEVER allowed in the assembly of Hashem, even after the tenth generation but descendants from a mamzerette are allowed after the tenth generation.

@Kevin Perez is not considered a mamzer by the sages.
I'm not sure why and don't have the time to dig it up right now but I'm gonna guess it has to do with either kinsman's redeemer legal issues or just the dead status or her husbands (just a loose guess, I may be way off).
sorry this isn't so thorough but I'm juggling stuff right now

 

[Nikud]

even the tenth generation shall not enter for himself into the assembly of Hashem.

Ok I thought it was until 10. Thanks for the correction.

 

[Quartus]

Thank you both for your comments. I will go away and rethink that then, but one other thing I have to consider at the same time please:

@Kevin Judah's Canaanite wife Shuah has her three sons written out of the genealogy script early in Genesis 38, but for completeness please would you give me your thoughts on Rahab the Canaanite.
Mat 1:5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab;

 

[Nikud]

Thank you both for your comments. I will go away and rethink that then, but one other thing I have to consider at the same time please:

@Kevin Judah's Canaanite wife Shuah has her three sons written out of the genealogy script early in Genesis 38, but for completeness please would you give me your thoughts on Rahab the Canaanite.
Mat 1:5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab;

When I was doing the study that I got the previous post from I found this aswell. I have not studied it farther because I found it logical. Now I'm going to start an in-depth study the heritage of Yeshua but I'm not sure where im going to put it on my list of things to study yet. Probably when I finish my study of the Ruach HaKodesh in the Tanahk.

Different Names

There are two completely different names Rahab in the Old Testament that are both usually transliterated into the same name Rahab. We'll call them Rahab I (רחב) and Rahab II (רהב):

The name Rahab I in the Bible (רחב):

The famous Rahab is really Rachab (with a ch as in Bach or Loch). This Rahab is a harlot in Jericho. When Joshua sends two unnamed spies to Jericho to check out the town, their area of reconnaissance is confined mostly to the house of Rahab, who, we shall assume, also ran a youth hostel. When the townsfolk of Jericho pursue the men, Rahab hides them safely under flax on the roof. When Israel destroys the walls of Jericho, Rahab's house, now marked with a scarlet cord, remains intact and Rahab and her household are incorporated into Israel.



This Rahab is referred to in the New Testament by Paul (Hebrews 11:31) and by James (2:25), and both call her Ρααβ, which shows that the Hebrew ch-sound became a guttural stop sound in Greek:Ra'ab. This Greek version of Rahab is also the one employed by the Septuagint's version of the book of Joshua. The Vulgate reads the Latinized Raab.



The name Rahab II in the Bible (רהב):

But the Rahab who Matthew famously mentions in the genealogy of the Messiah, as the mother of Boaz of Bethlehem (Matthew 1:5) is spelled Ραχαβ: Rachab. Most commentators will report that the Rahab in the Messiah's family line is the converted Rahab the harlot of Jericho, but that is not true because Matthew uses the other version of the name Rahab (what we call Rahab II: רהב). In English these names sound the same but in Hebrew and Greek they're as different as Johnny and Ronnie.



And if Rahab the harlot of Jericho had married someone important, such as Salmon, the great-grandfather of king David (Ruth 4:20), we would have surely heard about it at some point in the fifteen hundred years or so between Rahab of Jericho and Matthew. In Hebrews 11:31 Paul says that Rahab's faith kept her from perishing along with the rest of the disobedient townsfolk. If her survival would have given her the opportunity to become the ancestor of Yeshua the Messiah, Paul would have likely made a note of that too. It seems that Matthew isn't talking about Rahab of Jericho but of an other, unknown Rahab