Hebrew Voices #107 – The Mishnah and the New Testament

Shalom Nehemia,
There are teethmarks above the word kiss; and indeed, Amalek bites.
Interesting discussion.
It is good to know that the B’rit Chadashah is worthy of study, even if just for historical reasons.
It is sad that the Ephraimites have been led so far away from the roots of their Christian faith.
Yet, the pillars of our faiths are one and the same, The Redeemer, and the resurrection/ judgement, iyyov19:25-27.
(Yitzhak was 53 when Shem died. I wonder that Shem didn’t have an Yeshiva from which Iyyov survived?)
The Redeemer, and the restoration are two different things promised by Hashem, yet are often smooshed together.
This same smooshing is done with the millennial reign, and the Kingdom of Heaven.
But dogmatic doctrine defends itself.
All the prophets ever had only the one message, “Teshuvah!”
Turn from the created, and face the Creator.
Baruch Hashem!
Am Yisrael chai,
Baruch haba b’shem Adonai!
(Tehillim 118:26; Matthew 23:39)
Be well and be Blessed!
A fellow sojourner

Shalom,

regarding the re-circumcision, there is an error! the Torah gives the explanation, just read the rest in Joshua 5 verse 4 and following! it has nothing to do with the fact that it was badly done…it is because the people in the desert had not yet been circumcised like the ancients
Why complicate things when the Torah explains it clearly?

Very helpful discussion. Many thanks.
Before we can show mercy or mercy can be shown to us, full, honest judgement, that is the level of guilt, has to be understood. Someone who kills causes not only the removal of a person but a cascade of grief and consequences. The Boethusians, who were genealogically related to Yeshua, Joseph and Mariam, were quite clear about sin, as missing the mark, or as accumulating their debt towards not achieving a possible righteous world. That may appear fierce to those who wanting to liberalise or dismiss these consequences. Which school is more honest about our responsibilities?
Our reaction can be (1) demanding just and righteous revenge (2) ignoring hurt to us or (3) praying for our enemies.
Great exposure of ‘Higher Critics’ who wished to emphasise apparent ‘contradictions’ which previously were understood to increase knowledge and theological precision.

It keeps me sane. This world is mad.

Christianity is a false. y do guys continue to believe it?????

Love it! I am a Christian, and I find so much deeper significance and meaning to the New Testament by reading the Hebrew Bible
and understanding or at least being aware of the 1st century context in which it was given, including of course the history of Israel and the Hebrew people.

I think Yeshua was telling people not to apply “eye for an eye” in daily matters – and not to seek revenge over small evils.

He said if you’re slapped on the right cheek, turn the other also. Being slapped on the right cheek is to be “backhanded”, or insulted. I think that refers to more trivial, inconvenient problems.

This fits the rest of Yeshua’s examples – they’re all day-to-day negatives, not major injustices.

My understanding of the 2nd circumcision mentioned in Joshua 5 is that during the 40 years of wandering in the desert they did not circumcise their infants because they did not know their itinerary, they may be camped at one location for a day or a week or a month, and they did not want to endanger the life of the infant by having to travel (possibly) immediately after an extreme surgical procedure while he is healing. Traveling is hard on a body, young and old, male and female, everyone, so to add the stress of traveling on top of trying to heal from a painful operation would be too much suffering on a baby, possibly endangering his life. God says, “I desire mercy not sacrifice” and Paul wrote, Mercy triumphs over judgement” so for mercy’s sake the babies were not circumcised during those 40 years. But once the wandering was finished, it was the proper time to circumcise en masse, and fulfill the commandment to circumcise all the males.

Thanks Nehemia on this lesson on the Mishnah and the New Testament. It really tells me how important it is to have a method or way of studying the Tanach and the New Testament as well as finding how to interpret the lessons. I must spend more time studying.

I was also wondering the extent to which the New Testament could have been influenced by the Mishnah and oral law itself.

Joe Lesejane

I don’t know, perhaps the KJV has translation issues, but I don’t see any contradiction between LEV 27:26 and DEU 15:19 at all.

LEV 27:26 “no man shall sanctify it…it is the Lord’s”
DEU 15:19 “…thou shalt sanctify unto the Lord thy God…”

Where’s the contradiction?

In Leviticus, a man can’t sanctify a firstling (unto himself), hence the, “no man” and, “…it is the Lord’s.”

In Deuteronomy, a man must sanctify a firstling, “unto the Lord.”

The key is not “no…shall” and “thou shalt,” but the target of the sanctification, which, is both cases, is YEhovah.

Understanding meaning from word presence and placement, again, is key.

One explanation is that He desired (desires) Obedience and the sacrifice might be Accepted, but a weak and temporary compromise. Continuous animal blood sacrifice from the same person and/or nation demonstrates a lack of learning from same.

From the Prophets; Yehovah said; “My Word will accomplish all my will.” That simple statement is profound in itself and can spark volumes of debates.

It isn’t enough to just read God’s word we have to talk about it and debate what it means. We have to research it.
Ah the Mishnah! ”
Your great learning is is driving you mad Saul!” “I’m not mad most excellent Felix!”
?
I have a few questions.
In the Prophets God says: “Since the day I have brought you out of Egypt I have never required animal sacrifices of you!”
” I take no pleasure in the slaughter of innocent animals.”
In the Psalms, when King David was older he said to Yehovah; ” I would give sacrifices and offerings but you have not desired it.”
Another Prophet speaking of the coming Messiah’s reign said; ” In those days if anyone would sacrifice an animal, it would be like someone sacrificing a child.”
So how does one explain the instructions for all of the Temple sacrifices?

The 15 dots in the Tanakh, are they like question marks? You guys really didn’t expound on this enough for me.

This was a really cool video/pod cast you guys. This is the kind of info people need.

Thanks and Shalom

Matt 5:39 Yeshua is Not contradicting the Torah, The word “But” in this verse is δέ which can be stated as “Moreover” or “also”. I see no contradiction. Vengeance belongs to Yehovah. Yeshua was just refuting what the Pharisee’s were teaching.