21 “And she will bear a Sõn; and you shall call his name¹,
Yẽshua² for it is he³ who
will save his people from their sins.”
(MISB, Mat. 1:21):
http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/BasicBooks/matthew.html#1:21
(Link to MISB:
http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/bibleframe.html)
1. In the earliest Greek Papyri all divine names and titles were spelled with two or three letters and marked with a hyphen over the top, omitting all the vowels. Scholars call this device “nomina sacra”, but they generally do not know what it is for. Neither would a Greek know unless he was told what it means. What it means is substitute Hebrew here out of respect for the Almighty. For instance, if a Jew writes G-d, omitting the vowel, he is intending the title Elohim, which means Almighty, and is marked in this translation with a ~ (tilde) over the “i” to show that Hebrew is meant. Also here, Yeshua is marked with a ~ over the “e” to show the sacred status of his name.
2. Messiah’s name comes in two forms in Hebrew. The long form is Yehoshua, and the short form is Yeshua. Many people have two names or two forms to their name. For instance, Dan, and Daniel. Yeshua is an Aramaic short form for Messiah, which was borrowed into the Hebrew language after the Babylonian exile. The high priest who returned with Zerubbabel was called by both forms, Yehoshua and Yeshua. See Zechariah 3:1 (Hebrew Text), and Nehemiah 12:10. So it is safe to say that Messiah had a long formal name Yehoshua, and a short Aramaic form borrowed into Hebrew: Yeshua. Both forms mean Yahweh Saves, and not “he saves”.
3. This note is on the word “he” to reduce clutter, but it applies to Yeshua. The Messianic Community has seen many variant forms of Messiah’s name, *Yahshua and *Yahushua being some of the most popular. But the following goes for all forms different from either Yehoshua or Yeshua. 1. The Masoretic Hebrew text preserves only these two spellings. Did the scribes conspire to vowel the words incorrectly? The evidence is that they did not conspire, because if they had they would have changed the -yahu at the end of other words and Yah in the Psalms, and -yah at the end of HalleluYah. A sucessful conspiracy requires a complete job. It defies Occam’s Razor to say they did it secretly to only two words. In fact, the vowel points of Adonai on the divine name are not a conspiracy either. A conspiracy requires concealment. The Jews never concealed the facts of their alterations. Also Hebrew phonetics solidly supports the forms given.
O. As you can see from the forgoing, the Greek texts should not be despised. It does allow for the proper names. I should add that the Aramaic Peshitta should not be exalted as the answer, for there is written “Alaha” for the name of G-d, and “M’shicha” for the name of Messiah. Neither word is the correct Hebrew (Elohim & Mashiakh). Although pagan notions have become attached to “Jesus” and “Christ”, the words “Jesus” and “Christ” are not derived from pagan meaning or etymology. The Greek word Ιησους was used for “Joshua” in the LXX (Jewish Greek Translation, 250 BC), and the word Χριστος was freely used in that version. The only inherent fault in the word “Jesus” is that it is not an accurate pronunciation. The speculations that the word is derived from a pagan source are what I call archaeo-deception. Who started it is not clear. But it is divisive and damaging. There are many people who trust in Yeshua as “Jesus” and even those who keep Sabbath. Truly Abraham walked with the Almighty before he was circumcised and he was faithful. Do we then condemn and divide those who are taking the first steps of faith by telling them they are worshipping a pagan god by using the name “Jesus”? One who cannot recognize the work of the Almighty in those saying “Jesus” does not understand the good news of the kingdom. Furthermore, I warn the brothers and sisters most SEVERALLY not to speak evil of Yeshua even under the inaccurate name Jesus or Christ. For others will understand you to be denying him even if you don’t think so, and Yeshua was quite clear that we should not deny him before men. The spirit of this law means that we should not leave men with the impression we are denying him either.
32
Yet I say to you that everyone who
divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity, makes her to be
an adulteress¹. And whoever marries
the divorced woman
is the adulterer.²
(MISB, Mat. 5:32):
http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/BasicBooks/matthew.html#5:32
(Link to MISB:
http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/bibleframe.html)
1. A divorce was legitimate by law in two cases: 1. If the woman was found not to be a virgin before marriage, or it was proven she slept around outside of marriage (a previous marriage does not count; she has to sleep around as unmarried to fall under the clause, “for the cause of unchastity”) [Deut. 22:13-21] 2. If a married woman slept with another man.
In the first case, the offense was not adultery because the woman was not bound to another man at the time of the offense. In the second case, the charge is adultery.
Now, divorce was allowed whether the charge was proven or not. For even one witness cannot live with an adulterous wife. Except for the first case, every man divorcing his wife, “makes her to be an adulteress”, i.e. says she is whether true or not.
2. These words have been very misunderstood by those who want to go beyond the Torah. Not everyone who marries a divorced women is an adulterer. This is only the case if the marriage happens right after the divorce. Then you know who the adulterer is.
Adultery is committed the first time the married person sleeps with someone who is not the spouse. The sin of adultery lies in the betrayal and disloyalty to the marriage covenant. If it ends in death or divorce, then continuing the new relationship does not constitute “living in adultery”. There is really no such thing. Adultery is betrayal of the first relationship. Adultery is not the substance of the second marriage, wherein husband and wife are perfectly loyal to each other.
Even after David committed Adultery, G-d did not make him divorce Bathsheba. He was guilty of stealing another man’s wife and murdering him. Those where David’s sins. “Living in adultery” is confined to the period of time when the adulterous relationship is secret. Once there is death or divorce, then that marriage covenant is ended, and “living in adultery” cannot extend further.
After David repented and was judged by G-d to lose his firstborn, his union with Bathseba was blessed.
15 “And if your brother sins
against you¹, go and
reprove him in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother.
(MISB, Mat. 18:15):
http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/BasicBooks/matthew.html#18:15
(Link to MISB:
http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/bibleframe.html)
1. The words “against you” should not have been deleted from the modern versions. The textual support is good enough for the NA-27th critical edition to include the words in the main text. Yeshua is talking about private sins “against you”. If the sin is serious enough then even going to him in private can be skipped. In fact it may be unwise or dangerous to do so. The pronoun “you” is singular in Greek. If Yeshua had meant someone who sinned against the community then he would have used a plural form of you, like “ye” in English. Sins which are against the community can be reproved in the community with all those who are wronged being party to the procedure (as in the case of Achan who brought guilt on Israel—there was no private rebuke). Typically false teaching is in this category. Yeshua gives the reason for taking a private offense to the individual who committed it...and that is to win your brother without brining undue shame on him so that he might be more easily won over. If the wronged person thinks it is impossible to win his brother after the offense, then the necessary condition for following instruction does not exist—to win the brother. Thus this commandment is contingent on the possibility of winning one’s brother. However, if the community was wronged, then justice for the community takes precedence. Sometimes, it may be wiser to approach to person who has wronged the whole community first in private, but it is not legally required. To interpret Yeshua’s words as the Church does aside from the Torah tends to create the assumption of commandments that do not really exist. Yeshua was not going beyond Torah here, or adding to it.
9 And I say to you, whoever
divorces his wife, except for immorality, so he may marry another woman is
comitting
adultery.¹
(MISB, Mat. 19:9):
http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/BasicBooks/matthew.html#19:9
(Link to MISB:
http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/bibleframe.html)
1. Yeshua is specifically focusing on the husband here who divorces because he wants to marry someone else. A man may endure an immoral wife for a while, but his desire for her will dwindle and someone else may trigger a divorce. In that case, the divorce is o.k. (especially if his wife was not repentant). But if the wife was not immoral than the man desiring anyone else commits adultery.
“3 All
thusly whatsoever they² should say¹, do and observe, but do not be doing
according to their deeds; for they are speaking, and not doing.”
(MISB, Mat. 23:3):
http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/BasicBooks/matthew.html#23:3
(Link to MISB:
http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/bibleframe.html)
1. At least two Shem Tov Hebrew Matthew MSS read he should say at this point, indicating Moses himself, and not those publically reading him to the people. (At least 6 other Shem Tov MSS read “they say”, and there are possibly two more that have “he”.) But the “he” reading is not necessary to avoid handing absolute authority to the occupants of Moses seat (see note on “say”), and it goes against the contextual parallelism in the final clause of the text, “they are speaking and not doing”. Also Shem Tov is but a one translation from Greek, and is not the fabled lost Hebrew Matthew that George Howard once thought it was. Howard revised his opinion in the 1995 Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, pg. 190. In 1999 Howard retreated even further from his original thesis. It is purely ad hoc to think that an original Hebrew was corrected by a Greek MSS to explain all the traces of Greek in Shem Tov. Occam’s razor says it is more likely that Shem Tov started out as a translation into Hebrew from a Greek source. In fact, a fresh and accurate translation of the Greek into Hebrew proves that the “Greek” may be turned into more accurate and elegant Hebrew than Shem Tov. Another observation is that, the 2 (or 4) MSS of Shem Tov can be translated “it says” and refer to the seat of Moses in a collective fashion.
2. This this text is in the subjunctive mood in the Greek and in the imperfect in Hebrew, which is the verb form that carries the moods. The mood expresses a contingiency or probability. It expresses the sense of ought to or should. “An acceptable gloss is often should, since this is equally ambiguious (it can be used for probability, obligation, or contingiency).” Wallace, Exg. Syntax, pg. 463. The mood suggests that they probably will say the correct thing (as opposed to others who do not sit in the seat of Moses, and who are not publically reading a Torah scroll), but it also has a hint of obligation and responsibility of the hearer to confirm that they are getting the torah accurately expounded.
7 and respectful¹ greetings in the market places, and
being called by men, Rabbi.
(MISB, Mat. 23:7):
http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/BasicBooks/matthew.html#23:7
(Link to MISB:
http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/bibleframe.html)
1. The Greek word “ἀσπασμοὺς” means “salutation” (Friberg, Thayer). What this makes clear is that honorific terms like “Rabbi”, “Pastor”, “Preacher”, “Apostle” (Emissary, Missionary), and so on, are not to be used as a means of greeting those who serve in these capacities. They are not to lord it over their brothers. It is quite clear that men are so designated by the office of their gift. Some are Prophets, some Apostles, some, Teachers, some Pastors, some Preachers of the good news. Yeshua is only prohibiting the conversion of the office description into an honorific title, typically used as a form of salutation before a persons name. It is obvious that Levites were referred to as “cohen” and “seers” as “prophets” by the Ruakh.
8
“But ye should not be called Rabbi¹; for One is
your Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 “And
“father” you-all should not call of you-all on earth²; for One is your Fãther, he who is in heaven.
(MISB, Mat. 23:8-9):
http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/BasicBooks/matthew.html#23:8
(Link to MISB:
http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/bibleframe.html)
1. What Yeshua means here is that “Rabbi” (Teacher) should not be used as an honorific title before someone’s name. It is common to call in some places, “Reverend” before a Pastor’s name, and there are many other titles that those who do G-d’s work take. Usage of titles is not the same as being called to be a Pastor or Teacher, Evangelist, Emissary, Scholar, Scribe, or Prophet, nor is Yeshua saying one cannot describe their work this way, or that others cannot describe the work of those in whom they recognize these gifts. It is usually clear in context when what is otherwise a description is being applied or used with someone’s name as an honorific title.
2. The Greek structure here is carefully worded to avoid suggesting we should not call our earthly father’s “father”. That is why this sentence looks a bit more stilted in English. The genitive phrase, “καλέσητε ὑμῶν” corresponds to לָכֶם or מִכֶּם in Hebrew after the verb. The sense is “for you all” or “over you-all”. It is also suggested that not even Messiah wants to be called “Father”, though he is the Almighty Son. The “Father” is the unseen part of the Almighty who is greater than the Son. The text then specifically contradicts the practices of the Roman Catholics, who call their priests “father” and the Pope with the blasphemous title, “holy Father”, since they are calling them this over all and for all on earth.
41 Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken¹, and one will
be left².
(MISB, Mat. 24:41):
http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/BasicBooks/matthew.html#24:41
(Link to MISB:
http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/bibleframe.html)
1. The same Greek (Heb=נִלְקַֽחַת) word is used when Yeshua was taken away to die on the cross, “They took Yeshua therefore...” (John 19:16). So being taken away, likewise, refers to being taken to one’s death in this text. This is exactly equivalent to the Hebrew. The Shem Tov MSS has תִּלָּכֵד, which is equivalent in, and perhaps stronger in meaning, “1. taken (militarily), captured, seized 2. be trapped, caught 3. be taken (one of many). The context (cf. 24:28) and parallel passage in Luke 17:32-37, where Yeshua answers their question as to “where” the taken are taken show that “taken” can have no reference to the secret rapture theory.
2. The same Greek word (Heb=נִשְׁאֶֽרֶת) as used here can mean “forgiven”, as in Luke 7:47. Those who are left in this text are left alive. They are not judged, but allowed to live in the kingdom. Hence they are “forgiven”. The functionally equivalent Hebrew means “survive”. Shem Tov, Delitzsch, Margoliouth have תֵּעָזֵב here, which means, “be left behind, abandoned, forsaken”. It is possible that neither verb was meant to convey a happy fate, but rather the distress of the times. One will be taken in death, and the other will be left forsaken of their close companion. Lot was left and his wife was taken; he was desolated and allowed himself to get drunk. The Hebrew root that gives us the word remnant is perhaps best שׂאר, if one wants to put a positive sense onto left, as it relates to Isaiah 10:20-22; 11:1;
62 Now on
the morrow¹, which is the one after the preparation², the chief priests
and the Pharisees gathered³ together with Pilate, 63 and said, “Sir,
we remember that when he was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three daysª I
am to rise again.’
(MISB, Mat. 27:62):
http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/BasicBooks/matthew.html#27:62
(Link to MISB:
http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/bibleframe.html)
1. The “morrow” means the next day. The terminus a quo (beginning point)
is sometime after dawn on Thursday. The Greek word used here is ἐπαύριον, which is equivalent to the Hebrew יוֹם הַמָּחֳרָת. (See Num. 11:32 for the definition of the “next day”). The terminus ad quem is fixed by the qualifying phrase, “which is the one after the preparation”—thus at sunset Thursday, and this is due to the fact that the preparation of the Passover ended at sunset on Wednesday. Therefore, the watch watched the tomb for two nights, Thursday night and Friday night. For the Friday-Sunday theory, it would only be one night (Saturday pm to Sunday am). It was not necessary to watch the tomb on the first night as this is not when Yeshua predicted his resurrection. Yeshua said, “on the third day” and “after three days”. The authorities took both statements separately and put the most liberal interpretation on them possible. Using sunset reckoning, the terminus a quo for the third day is sunset Thursday. Using sunrise reckoning and exclusive counting, the termimus ad quem for “after three days” is Sunday at sunrise. Thus the tomb was to be guarded Thursday sunset to Sunday sunrise. That the authorities were concerned with the prediction itself is clear. They could care less if the body went missing on the first night or after the end of three days. Therefore, the guard was not to remain after the third day.
2. The preparation day ended at Wednesday sunset. This means the terminus ad quem (ending point) for “the next day” is Thursday sunset. The day in question was the “preparation of the Passover” (John 19:14). The week day that this preparation fell on cycled through the days of the week depending on the year, and on which day the new moon was seen on. In AD 34, the new moon was seen on Wednesday, March 10 at sunset, making the 14th of Nisan Wednesday March 24.
3. The text does not say where they gathered together. The day before they would not go into the judgment hall so that they could remain clean to eat the Passover (cf. John 18:28). They would want to remain clean on this day also to eat the festive offering for the Exodus (cf. Deut. 16:4-8). The day before, Pilate had to conduct the trial in the judgment hall as a matter of legal course for the Romans. However, it is likely that he regularly respected the ritual purity requirements of the Jews by meeting in a courtyard somewhere which was known to be clear of dead bodies. The Jewish objection was purely tradition and predicated on the possibility of a dead body being buried under the floor of a Gentile house. This tradition went beyond the requirements of Torah. No one ever really knows if the ground he walks on does not conceal a dead body, and the ground does not transmit uncleanness.
a. Yeshua reckoned “after three days” according to the end of a literal day. Hence the terminus a quo for after one day was Wednesday sunset. For after two days it was Thursday sunset, and for after three days Friday sunset. Sunset Saturday would mark the terminus a quo of the fourth day, and also the terminus ad quem (end point) for “after three days”. So the resurrection just before dawn on the Sabbath falls between the terminus a quo and terminus ad quem of “after three days”.
64 “Therefore, give orders for the grave to
be made secure onwardⁿ of the third day, lest the disciples come and steal him away
and say to the people, ‘He has risen from the dead,’ and the last deception will
be worse than the first.”
(MISB, Mat. 27:64):
http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/BasicBooks/matthew.html#27:64
(Link to MISB:
http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/bibleframe.html)
n. Meaning, “until and passing by” in the Hebrew sense. The authorities are now counting on a sunrise basis to Sunday morning. For since one day is already past, “after three days” will be equivalent to “the third day” counting inclusively from the day the guard was posted. The priests reckoned a day to begin at dawn, so the third day ends at sunrise on Sunday. Of course, if they had really listened to Yeshua, they would know that “after three days” and “on the third day” only harmonize between Friday sunset and Sabbath sunrise using both sunset and sunrise reckoning respectively.
28:1
Now the
later
of the
Sabbaths¹, as it began to dawn²
on the
first of the
Sabbaths³,
Miriam Magdalene and the other Miriam cameª to look at the grave.
(MISB, Mat. 28:1):
http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/BasicBooks/matthew.html#28:1a
(Link to MISB:
http://www.torahtimes.org/NewTranslation/bibleframe.html)
1. The translations that say “evening of the Sabbath” or “late on the Sabbath” are incorrect. The mistranslation creates a contradiction with the next clause, “as it began to dawn”. Dawn is not the same time as evening. The correct sense is “And the later of the Sabbaths” וְהָאַחֲרוֹן־הַשַּׁבָּתוֹת. The earliest texts have “Shabbats” in the plural, and refer to the two Shabbats of Passover week. Even the Greek Grammar says the Greek word means “later” (cf. BLASS §164.4). So it is not “late on the Sabbath”, but “later of the Sabbaths”, which is to say the weekly Sabbath after the Passover Sabbath with a common workday between them.
There were two “first Sabbath” days in Passover week. One was the 15th of Aviv, the first Sabbath of unleavened bread, and the other was the weekly Sabbath following. (cf. Lev. 23:11-16). The “later” Sabbath singles out the weekly Sabbath because it came later than the Passover Sabbath on the 15th of Nisan.
2. The original Hebrew here would be כְּשַׁחַר on the authority of Hosea 6:3 (A Messianic Prophecy of Yeshua’s death and resurrection), where it says that “His going forth is fixed at dawn.”. The Hebrew word means the deepest dawn, dawn of the first reddish light in the east, when it is “still dark”. So Hosea 6:2 specifies “on the third day”, and in 6:3, “at dawn”. This is confirmed by the Greek text, ἐπιφωσκούσῃ, which glosses the Hebrew—literally, “lighting up”. The word cannot mean dusk or evening. It must mean the “lighting up” of dawn. So the resurrection was on the Sabbath “fixed at dawn”.
3. The translation, “week” is false. The original word was Shabbats, שַׁבָּתוֹת. Not only that, but it is plural. This is confirmed by the Greek translation, σαββάτων, and also Latin translation, sabbatorum, and even some English translations. Nowhere inside the first century AD is there any independent source that says שַׁבָּתוֹת means “week”. This Hebrew word never means “weeks” in any text in the Tenach. Sometimes a few translations of Lev. 23:15 are corrupted this way, but that corruption came much later from Rabbis and Churchmen who together wanted to do away with the resurrection on Shabbat. The “first of the Sabbaths” is easily understood from Lev. 23:15. In the day after the Passover Shabbat (Lev. 23:11—the Pharisees were correct) seven sabbaths are to be counted. “Day” means a period of time, like in Gen. 2:4, and Gen. 2:17. So the resurrection was on the first Sabbath after Passover. I have only summarized here. I have been through many debates with Greek and Hebrew experts, and they always concede or loose. Their bag of tricks is bottomless, and I need not bore you with it unless one is brave enough to lose. Of course, if you bring me an expert, I will be happy to disprove the counter arguments.
a. It is often alleged that the women could not go to the tomb on the Sabbath to anoint Yeshua. Jewish traditional Law suggests otherwise: Mishnah: 23:5 “They may make ready [on the Sabbath] all that is needful for the dead, and anoint and wash it, provided that they do not move any member of it. They may draw the mattress away from beneath it and let it lie on the sand that it may be the longer preserved; they may bind up the chin, not in order to raise it but that it may not sink lower. So, too, if a rafter is broken they may support it with a bench or with the side-pieces of a bed that the break may grow no greater, but not in order to prop it up. They may not close a corpse’s eyes on the Sabbath; nor may they do so on a weekday at the moment when the soul is departing; and he that closes the eyes [of the dying man] at the moment when the soul is departing, such a one is a shedder of blood.” Danby, Mishnah 23:5