DOCSLIB.ORG

The Priesthood of Melchizedek in the Passage (Hebrews 5, 6 & 7) We Are Studying, Applying Psalm 110 to Jesus

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Priesthood of Melchizedek in the Passage (Hebrews 5, 6 & 7) We Are Studying, Applying Psalm 110 to Jesus JESUS GREATER THAN In Hebrews 1 we saw that Jesus is not just a prophet - but greater than the prophets. JESUS GREATER THAN We then saw that Jesus, the Son of God, is not an angel - but greater than the angels. JESUS GREATER THAN In Hebrews 3 we saw that Jesus is greater than Moses, the mediator of the Old Covenant (Testament). JESUS GREATER THAN In Hebrews 4 we saw that Jesus is greater than Joshua, because through him we enter the true rest (from works). JESUS GREATER THAN In Hebrews 5-7 we saw that Jesus is greater than Aaron, because he has a better priesthood. GREATER THAN AARON Jesus is greater than Aaron because: 1) He is sinless 2) He serves in a better tabernacle 3) He officiates for a better covenant 4) He offered a better sacrifice 5) His intercession is superior 6) He has a greater ministry 7) He has a better order of priesthood (the order of Melchizedek) BETTER PRIESTHOOD We noted that the Aaronic priesthood and Old Covenant was flawed and couldn’t bring about our redemption: Heb 7:11 If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come - one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? … 18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. WHO WAS MELCHIZEDEK? Heb 7:1 This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God most high. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, 2 and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, his name means “king of righteousness”; then also, “king of Salem” means “king of peace.” 3 Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever. WHO WAS MELCHIZEDEK? 4 Just think how great he was: Even the patriarch Abraham gave him a tenth of the plunder! 5 Now the law requires the descendants of Levi who become priests to collect a tenth from the people - that is, their brothers - even though their brothers are descended from Abraham. 6 This man, however, did not trace his descent from Levi, yet he collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. WHO WAS MELCHIZEDEK? 7 And without doubt the lesser person is blessed by the greater. 8 In the one case, the tenth is collected by men who die; but in the other case, by him who is declared to be living. 9 One might even say that Levi, who collects the tenth, paid the tenth through Abraham, 10 because when Melchizedek met Abraham, Levi was still in the body of his ancestor. WHO WAS MELCHIZEDEK? Melchizedek is mentioned in three books of the Bible: 1) The first is the account in Genesis 14 about Abram rescuing his nephew Lot from Kedorlaomer where the victorious Abram is blessed by Melchizedek. 2) Next in David’s Messianic Psalm 110, God promises on oath that the Messiah (David’s Son) would have an eternal priesthood like Melchizedek. 3) Then the author of Hebrews writes extensively about the priesthood of Melchizedek in the passage (Hebrews 5, 6 & 7) we are studying, applying Psalm 110 to Jesus. PSALM 110 Psalm 110 is a Messianic psalm of David i.e. it speaks prophetically of the Messiah or future “son of David”: Psalm 110:1 The LORD says to my lord: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.” 2 The LORD will extend your mighty scepter from Zion, saying, “Rule in the midst of your enemies!”… 4 The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind: “You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.” 5 The Lord is at your right hand; he will crush kings on the day of his wrath. 6 He will judge the nations, heaping up the dead and crushing the rulers of the whole earth. PSALM 110 Psalm 110 was quoted by Jesus applying it to the Messiah (i.e. himself): Matt 20:41 Then Jesus said to them, “How is it that they say the Christ is the Son of David? 42 David himself declares in the Book of Psalms: ‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand 43 until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”’ 44 David calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?” The first ‘LORD’ is Yahweh (i.e. the Father) and the second ‘Lord’ is Adonai (i.e. the Son). Jesus is testing the Pharisees to see if they could explain how the Christ (Messiah) could be both David’s son and David’s Lord. PSALM 110 On the Day of Pentecost, Peter also applied this passage (Psalm 110) to Jesus as Lord and Christ (Messiah): Acts 2:29 “… David … 30 … was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. 31 Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay… 34 For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said, ‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand 35 until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”’ 36 Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.” PSALM 110 In Hebrews 1 and 10, Psalm 110 is again applied to Jesus: Heb 1:13 To which of the angels did God ever say, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet” ? Heb 10:13 Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool But in chapters 5 to 7 the writer of Hebrews takes Psalm 110:4 and repeatedly applies it to Jesus, showing the superiority of his priesthood to the Aaronic priesthood: Psalm 110:4 The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind: “You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek.” WHO WAS MELCHIZEDEK? The first mention of Melchizedek in the Bible is in the account of Abram rescuing Lot from Kedorlaomer. Genesis 14:17 After Abram returned from defeating Kedorlaomer and the kings allied with him, the king of Sodom came out to meet him in the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King’s Valley). 18 Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, 19 and he blessed Abram, saying, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth. 20 And blessed be God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand.” Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything. These events are reiterated in Hebrews 7:1-3. WHO WAS MELCHIZEDEK? So the Bible tells us the following about Melchizedek: 1) He was king of Salem (Gen 14:18). 2) He was priest of God Most High (Gen 14:18). 3) He brought out bread and wine to Abraham (Gen 14:18). 4) He blessed Abram after his victory against Kedorlaomer (Gen 14:19). 5) Abram tithed to him (Gen 14:20). 6) He was “without father or mother, without genealogy” (Heb 7:3). 7) He was “without beginning of days or end of life” (Heb 7:3) and has an eternal priesthood (Ps 110:4). 1) KING OF SALEM Melchizedek is called “king of Salem”, with Salem traditionally taken to be the name for Jerusalem. Ps 76:2 His tabernacle is in Salem; His dwelling place also is in Zion. Mount Zion was the area of Jerusalem in which David built his palace. In his rendering of the account of Melchizedek, the first century Jewish historian Josephus says: … Melchisedec, king of the city Salem, received him… however, they afterward called Salem Jerusalem. 1 1 Antiquities of the Jews - Book I Chapter 10 v 2 1) KING OF SALEM A targum is an Aramaic translation of the Hebrew Bible written or compiled from the Second Temple period until the early Middle Ages (late first millennium). The Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel says this on Gen 14:18 And the righteous king… the king of Jerusalem, came out to meet Abram… Targum Yerushalmi or Codex Neofiti I is an Aramaic version of the Pentateuch in the Vatican library. It says: And Melchisedech, the king of Jerusalem… brought out bread and wine, for he was a priest ministering in the high priesthood before God Most High. 1) KING OF SALEM The early church father Jerome states the Jewish tradition of his own day on the matter in “Hebrew Questions on Genesis” (completed between late 391 and early 393): Next, by “king of Salem” is meant king of Jerusalem, which was formerly called Salem. means “king of ( ַמ ִלְכּי ֶ־צ ֶדק The name ‘Melchizedek’ (Hebrew righteousness”. Heb 7:2b First, his name means “king of righteousness”; then also, “king of Salem” means “king of peace.” 2) PRIEST OF EL ELYON Not only was he a king – Melchizedek was also priest of “El Elyon” or “God Most High”. In this capacity he blessed Abraham after his victory against Kedorlaomer and his allies. This also shows us that there were others besides Abraham who served the one true God in that era.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • On Changing the Immutable by Marc B. Shapiro,The History and Dating
    וְהָאֱמֶת וְהַשָּׁלוֹם On Changing the ;אֱהָבוּ Immutable by Marc B. Shapiro On Changing the Immutable by ;וְהָאֱמֶת וְהַשָּׁלוֹם אֱהָבוּ Marc B. Shapiro By Yitzchok Stroh Professor Marc Shapiro’s latest work, Changing the Immutable, contains considerable interesting and pertinent information for the student of Jewish history. As stated on the cover, the author attempts to reveal how the (Jewish) orthodox ‘establishment’ silences both past and present dissenting voices through “Orthodox Judaism Rewriting Its History.” I don’t intend this to be a review of the entire work (that would take a lot more time and space), however I did want to share some of my frustration here, because I sense that the author’s bias affected his objectivity, and I am afraid that many a reader will be left with an impression that in many ways does not reflect the reality of this complex topic. In this article, I would like to examine one passage of Shapiro’s work to illustrate this point. In chapter eight, entitled, “Is the truth really that important?” Shapiro writes: Because my purpose in this chapter is to chart the outer limits of what has been viewed as acceptable when it comes to falsehood and deception. I will be focusing on the more ‘liberal’ positions. My aim is to show just how far some rabbinic decisors were willing to go in sanctioning deviations from the truth. One must bear in mind, however, that there are often views in opposition to the ones I shall be examining. Perhaps this knowledge can serve as a counterweight to the shock that many readers will experience upon learning of some of the positions I will mention.
    [Show full text]
  • Philo Ng.Pdf
    PHILO AND THE NAMES OF GOD By A. MARMORSTEIN,Jews College, London IN A recent work on the allegorical exegesis of Philo of Alexandria' Philo's views and teachings as to the Hebrew names of God are once more discussed and analyzed. The author repeats and shares the old opinion, elaborated and propagated by Zacharias Frankel and others that Philo was more or less ignorant of the Hebrew tongue. Philo's treat- ment of the divine names is put in the first line of witnesses to corroborate this literary verdict. This question touches wider and more important problems than the narrow ques- tion whether Philo knew Hebrew, or not,2 and if the former is the case how far his knowledge, and if the latter is true how far his ignorance went. For the theologians generally some important historical and theological problems, for Jewish theology especially, besides these, literary and relig- ious questions as to the date and origin of religious concep- tions, and the antiquity and value of our sources are involved. Philo is criticized for having no idea2 of the equivalent names used by the LXX for the Tetragrammaton and Elohim respectively. The former is translated KVptOS, the latter 4hos. This omission is the more serious since the distinction between these two names is one of Philo's chief doctrines. We are referred to a remark made by Z. Frankel about ' Edmund Stein, Die allegorische Exegese des Philo aus Alexandreia; Giessen, 1929. (Beihefte Zur ZAW. No. 51.) 2 Ibid., p. 20, for earlier observations see G. Dalman, Adonaj, 59.1, Daehne, Geschichtliche Darstellung, I 231, II 51; Freiidenthal, Alexander Polyhistor, p.
    [Show full text]
  • The Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch with the Fragments of the Jerusalem Targum from the Chaldee
    The Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel On the Pentateuch With The Fragments of the Jerusalem Targum From the Chaldee By J. W. Etheridge, M.A. 1862 This work is in the Public Domain. Copy Freely More Freeware From Bennie Blount Ministries International Table of Contents The Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel On the Pentateuch With The Fragments of the Jerusalem Targum From the Chaldee By J. W. Etheridge, M.A. 1862 Table of Contents Genesis 1-6; 6-11; 12-17; 18-22; 23-25; 26-28; 28-32; 32-36; 36-40; 41-44; 44-47; 47-50 Exodus 1-6; 6-9; 10-13; 13-17; 18-20; 21-24; 24-27; 28-30; 30-34; 34-38; 38-40 Leviticus 1-6; 6-9; 10-11; 12-13; 14-15; 16-18; 19-20; 21-24; 25-26; 26-28 Numbers 1-4; 4-7; 8-13; 13-15; 16-18; 19-22; 22-25; 25-30; 30-32; 33-36 Deuteronomy 1-3; 3-7; 7-11; 11-16; 16-21; 21-26; 26-29; 29-30; 31-32; 32; 33-34 THE TARGUM OF PALESTINE, COMMONLY ENTITLED THE TARGUM OF JONATHAN BEN UZZIEL, ON THE BOOK OF GENESIS. ________ SECTION I. BERASHITH. I. At the beginning (min avella) the Lord created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was vacancy and desolation, solitary of the sons of men, and void of every animal; and darkness was upon the face of the abyss, and the Spirit of mercies from before the Lord breathed upon the face of the waters.
    [Show full text]
  • Cohen V. Facebook
    Case 1:16-cv-04453-NGG-LB Document 1-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 1 of 113 PageID #: 70 EXHIBIT A Case 1:16-cv-04453-NGG-LB Document 1-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 2 of 113 PageID #: 71 ~ SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS --------------------------------------------------------------------- Index No: Pa~1, / l 5 RICHARD LAKIN; and additional plaintiffs listed on Rider A, Date Purchased: 10/~(~C~/ 15 Plaintiffs designate Kings County as the Plaintiffs, place of trial. The basis of vcnue is CPLR 503(a), -against- SUMMONS FA=CEBOOK, Q Plaintiffs residcs at: Defendant. c/o Shurat HaDin — Israel Law Center, 10 ---------------------------------------------- X flata'as Street, Ramat Gan, Israel TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANTS: YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the complaint in this action and to serve a copy of your answer, on the plaintiff s Attorneys within 20 days afi.er the service of this summons, exclusive ot'the day of service (or within 30 days aftcr scrvice is complctc if this summons is not personally delivered to you within the State ofNew York) and to file a copy of your answer with the Clerk of the above-named Court; and in case of your failure to appear or answer, judgment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint. Dated: Brooklyn, New York Octobcr 26, 2015 Yours, THE BERKMAN LAW OFFICE, LLC 0~ ~ ~ Atull~,r~.Jor he~+f zti/r ~ S`~ a by: 7 +~ '/ ° O' Q _.J Robert J. 111 Livingston Street, Suite 1928 Brooklyn, New York 11201 (718) 855-3627 ZECIA L 1 STS \~ NITSANA DARSHAN-LEITNER & CO Nitsana Darshan-Leitner .
    [Show full text]
  • The Gospel of John and the Future of Israel by Christopher Mark
    The Gospel of John and the Future of Israel by Christopher Mark Blumhofer Graduate Program in Religion Duke University Date: October 23, 2017 Approved: ___________________________ Richard B. Hays, Supervisor ___________________________ Joel Marcus ___________________________ C. Kavin Rowe ___________________________ Stephen Chapman ___________________________ Daniel Boyarin Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate Program in Religion in the Graduate School of Duke University 2017 ABSTRACT The Gospel of John and the Future of Israel by Christopher Mark Blumhofer Graduate Program in Religion Duke University Date: October 23, 2017 Approved: ___________________________ Richard B. Hays, Supervisor ___________________________ Joel Marcus ___________________________ C. Kavin Rowe ___________________________ Stephen Chapman ___________________________ Daniel Boyarin An abstract of a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate Program in Religion in the Graduate School of Duke University 2017 Copyright by Christopher Mark Blumhofer 2017 Abstract The canonical gospels are each concerned to present the significance of Jesus vis-à-vis the Jewish tradition. Yet the Gospel of John exhibits a particularly strained relationship with Judaism, especially through its frequent description of Jesus’s opponents as “the Jews,” its presentation of numerous hostile exchanges between Jesus and characters described as “Jews,” and its application of significant Jewish imagery (e.g., “the temple of his body,” “I am the true vine”) to the person of Jesus rather than to traditional Jewish institutions or figures. This dissertation argues that the Gospel of John presents Jesus as the one through whom the Jewish tradition realizes its eschatological hopes in continuity with the stories and symbols of its past.
    [Show full text]
  • 9 Sivan 1807.Dwd
    SIVAN Life's splendor forever lies in wait 1 Sivan about each one of us in all its fullness, but veiled from view, deep down, Day Forty-five, making six weeks and three days, of the invisible, far off. It is there, though, Omer not hostile, not reluctant, not deaf. If Rosh Hodesh Sivan Hillula of Bohemian-born Austrian writer Franz Kafka, you summon it by the right word, by its pictured at right. Kafka was an admirer of right name, it will come. –Franz Kafka anarcho-communist theoretician Pyotr Kropotkin. As an elementary and secondary school student, Kafka wore a red carnation in his lapel to show his support for socialism. (1 Sivan 5684, 3 June 1924) Hillula of Polish-born U.S. labor lawyer Jack Zucker. When Senator Joseph McCarthy impugned Zucker’s patriotism, Zucker retorted, “I have more patriotism in my little finger than you have in your entire body!” (1 Sivan 5761, 23 May 2001) Hillula of Samaritan High Priest Levi ben Abisha ben Pinhas ben Yitzhaq, the first Samaritan High Priest to visit the United States (1 Sivan 5761, 23 May 2001) Hillula of U.S. labor leader Gus Tyler, pictured at right. Born Augustus Tilove, he adopted the sur- name Tyler as a way of honoring Wat Tyler, the leader of a 14th-century English peasant rebellion. (1 Sivan 5771, 3 June 2011) Hillula of Annette Dreyfus Benacerraf, niece of 1965 Nobel laureate in Physiology or Medicine Jacques Monod and wife of 1980 Nobel laureate in Physiology or Medicine Baruj Benacerraf (1 Sivan 5771, 3 June 2011) 2 Sivan Day Forty-six, making six weeks and four days, of the Omer Hillula of Rebbe Israel Hager of Vizhnitz, pictured at near right.
    [Show full text]
  • THE PENTATEUCHAL TARGUMS: a REDACTION HISTORY and GENESIS 1: 26-27 in the EXEGETICAL CONTEXT of FORMATIVE JUDAISM by GUDRUN EL
    THE PENTATEUCHAL TARGUMS: A REDACTION HISTORY AND GENESIS 1: 26-27 IN THE EXEGETICAL CONTEXT OF FORMATIVE JUDAISM by GUDRUN ELISABETH LIER THESIS Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR LITTERARUM ET PHILOSOPHIAE in SEMITIC LANGUAGES AND CULTURES in the FACULTY OF HUMANITIES at the UNIVERSITY OF JOHANNESBURG PROMOTER: PROF. J.F. JANSE VAN RENSBURG APRIL 2008 ABSTRACT THE PENTATEUCHAL TARGUMS: A REDACTION HISTORY AND GENESIS 1: 26-27 IN THE EXEGETICAL CONTEXT OF FORMATIVE JUDAISM This thesis combines Targum studies with Judaic studies. First, secondary sources were examined and independent research was done to ascertain the historical process that took place in the compilation of extant Pentateuchal Targums (Fragment Targum [Recension P, MS Paris 110], Neofiti 1, Onqelos and Pseudo-Jonathan). Second, a framework for evaluating Jewish exegetical practices within the age of formative Judaism was established with the scrutiny of midrashic texts on Genesis 1: 26-27. Third, individual targumic renderings of Genesis 1: 26-27 were compared with the Hebrew Masoretic text and each other and then juxtaposed with midrashic literature dating from the age of formative Judaism. Last, the outcome of the second and third step was correlated with findings regarding the historical process that took place in the compilation of the Targums, as established in step one. The findings of the summative stage were also juxtaposed with the linguistic characterizations of the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon Project (CAL) of Michael Sokoloff and his colleagues. The thesis can report the following findings: (1) Within the age of formative Judaism pharisaic sages and priest sages assimilated into a new group of Jewish leadership known as ‘rabbis’.
    [Show full text]
  • Targums to the Writings
    12 TARGUMS TO THE WRITINGS All biblical books known as the Writings received Targums except for two: Ezra-Nehemiah and Daniel.1 The usual explanation for the lack of Targums to these books is that they contained long passages in Aramaic and so did not require translation. The Writings Targums were composed individually at different times and by different people; they lack any overall composition scheme or approach that would unite them, like the Targums Onqelos and Jonathan. Scholars have therefore had to analyze them individually. In comparison to the other Targums, the Writings Targums attracted rela- tively little interest during the twentieth century. Although matters have improved recently, modern research knows less about these Targums than the others. The Babylonian rabbis apparently did not approve of Writings Tar- gums and invoked a heavenly confirmation of their disapproval. B. Megil- lah 3a discusses all three categories of Targums and gives a reason for this disapproval in line F.2 A. Rabbi Jeremiah—or some say Rabbi Hiyya b. Abba—also said: B. The Targum of the Pentateuch was composed by Onqelos the Proselyte under the guidance of Rabbi Eleazar and Rabbi Joshua. 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all translations of rabbinic literature in this chapter are by the authors, and all Targum translations are from the Aramaic Bible series. Biblical translations are from the NRSV. 2 See chap. 8 for a discussion of the passage in relationship to the Pentateuchal Tar- gums and chap. 10 for our analysis in terms of the Prophetic Targums. 230 THE TARGUMS: A CRITICAL INTRODUCTION C.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Copy of Dissertation
    The Talmudic Zohar: Rabbinic Interdisciplinarity in Midrash ha-Ne’lam ​ by Joseph Dov Rosen A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Joint Doctor of Philosophy with Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley in Jewish Studies in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in Charge: Professor Daniel Boyarin, Chair Professor Deena Aranoff Professor Niklaus Largier Summer 2017 © Joseph Dov Rosen All Rights Reserved, 2017 Abstract The Talmudic Zohar: Rabbinic Interdisciplinarity in Midrash ha-Ne’lam ​ By Joseph Dov Rosen Joint Doctor of Philosophy in Jewish Studies with the Graduate Theological Union University of California, Berkeley Professor Daniel Boyarin, Chair This study uncovers the heretofore ignored prominence of talmudic features in Midrash ​ ​ ha-Ne’lam on Genesis, the earliest stratum of the zoharic corpus. It demonstrates that Midrash ​ ​ ha-Ne’lam, more often thought of as a mystical midrash, incorporates both rhetorical ​ components from the Babylonian Talmud and practices of cognitive creativity from the medieval discipline of talmudic study into its esoteric midrash. By mapping these intersections of Midrash, Talmud, and Esotericism, this dissertation introduces a new framework for studying rabbinic interdisciplinarity—the ways that different rabbinic disciplines impact and transform each other. The first half of this dissertation examines medieval and modern attempts to connect or disconnect the disciplines of talmudic study and Jewish esotericism. Spanning from Maimonides’ reliance on Islamic models of Aristotelian dialectic to conjoin Pardes (Jewish ​ ​ esotericism) and talmudic logic, to Gershom Scholem’s juvenile fascination with the Babylonian Talmud, to contemporary endeavours to remedy the disciplinary schisms generated by Scholem’s founding models of Kabbalah (as a form of Judaism that is in tension with “rabbinic Judaism”), these two chapters tell a series of overlapping histories of Jewish inter/disciplinary projects.
    [Show full text]
  • Targum Isaiah 53 and the New Testament Concept of Atonement
    Scholars Crossing LBTS Faculty Publications and Presentations 2008 Targum Isaiah 53 and the New Testament Concept of Atonement Jintae Kim Liberty University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lts_fac_pubs Part of the Biblical Studies Commons, Comparative Methodologies and Theories Commons, Ethics in Religion Commons, History of Religions of Eastern Origins Commons, History of Religions of Western Origin Commons, Other Religion Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Kim, Jintae, "Targum Isaiah 53 and the New Testament Concept of Atonement" (2008). LBTS Faculty Publications and Presentations. 324. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lts_fac_pubs/324 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Crossing. It has been accepted for inclusion in LBTS Faculty Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of Scholars Crossing. For more information, please contact [email protected]. [JGRChJ 5 (2008) 81-98] TARGUM ISAIAH 53 AND THE NEW TESTAMENT CONCEPT OF ATONEMENT Jintae Kim Alliance Theological Seminary, Nyack NY Introduction In the New Testament we find evidence of a tradition that applies the concept of Levitical atoning sacrifices to the death of Christ by using the Old Testament sacrificial categories.1 Some passages (Rom. 3.25; Heb. 1.3-4; 2.17; 9.13; 1 Jn 2.2; 4.10) describe Christ’s atonement in the imagery of the Day of Atonement ritual.2 Other passages (Mt. 26.26-29; Mk 10.45; 14.22-25; Lk. 22.15-20; 1 Cor. 11.25; 1 Pet. 1.18- 19) describe Christ’s atonement in the imagery of the regular atoning sacrifices.
    [Show full text]
  • Temple Mount Faithful – Amutah Et Al V
    Catholic University Law Review Volume 45 Issue 3 Spring 1996 Article 18 1996 Temple Mount Faithful – Amutah Et Al v. Attorney-General, Inspector-General of the Police, Mayor of Jerusalem, Minister of Education and Culture, Director of the Antiquities Division, Muslim WAQF - In the Supreme Court Sitting as the High Court of Justice [September 23, 1993] Menachem Elon Aharon Barak Gavriel Bach Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview Recommended Citation Menachem Elon, Aharon Barak & Gavriel Bach, Temple Mount Faithful – Amutah Et Al v. Attorney-General, Inspector-General of the Police, Mayor of Jerusalem, Minister of Education and Culture, Director of the Antiquities Division, Muslim WAQF - In the Supreme Court Sitting as the High Court of Justice [September 23, 1993], 45 Cath. U. L. Rev. 866 (1996). Available at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview/vol45/iss3/18 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Catholic University Law Review by an authorized editor of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Catholic University Law Review [Vol. 45:861 TEMPLE MOUNT FAITHFUL-AMUTAH ET AL. v. ATTORNEY-GENERAL INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF THE POLICE MAYOR OF JERUSALEM MINISTER OF EDUCATION AND CULTURE DIRECTOR OF THE ANTIQUITIES DIVISION MUSLIM WAQF In the Supreme Court Sitting as the High Court of Justice [September 23, 1993] Justice Menachem Elon, Deputy President, Justice Aharon Barak, Justice Gavriel Bach V. THE PARTIES Petitioners Petitioner 1: Temple Mount Faithful Amutah Petitioner 2: Chairman, Temple Mount Faithful Amutah Petitioners 3, 4, 5, 6: Members of Temple Mount Faithful Amutah Respondents Respondent 1: Attorney-General Respondent 2: Inspector-General of the Jerusalem Police Respondent 3: Mayor of Jerusalem Respondent 4: Minister of Education and Culture Respondent 5: Director of the Antiquities Division Respondent 6: Muslim Waqf Petition for an order nisi.
    [Show full text]
  • Ÿþt Hebooksof J Udaism
    2. The Books of Judaism To better understand Judaism’s response to the Yeshua, its important to understand the source of inspiration. All three branches of Christianity, Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox, look to the Bible as their source of authority, both Old and New Testaments. Where does Judaism look for its authority, the source of revelation? The written words of Jewish authority are complex and involve both a Written Law and an Oral Law, accompanied by traditions and rabbinical rulings. There are several books in Judaism not all with an equal weight as far as authority is concerned. Judaism’s view of the Messiah’s identity filters through the authoritative books of Judaism. With some Figure 1 The Book of Isaiah, from the Dead Sea Scrolls sects putting greater weight on some books then others. For example, Orthodox Jews put more weight on the Talmud then Reform Jews. Hasidic Orthodox followers might emphasize portions of the Zohar. Tradition plays an important role in Judaism, a Jew investigating the Messiah, might want to know what a 2nd or 10th century Rabbi thought about a particular verse. Through these filters, scripture, tradition and commentary, views of the Messiah identity, are defined in Judaism. By far, the most important Jewish text is the Torah, the books of Moses, also known as the Pentateuch. The Torah is the first five books of the Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible. The Tanakh The word Tanakh is an acronym, combining the words Torah (Books of Moses), Nebiim (The Prophets) and Ketubim (The Writings). The Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament are essentially the same book.
    [Show full text]