His Name is Yahweh—Manuscript in PDF format

15--Concentric Circles 5

Below is the manuscript for His Name is Yahweh in PDF format.  Copy and share it as often as you want at no cost:

If you prefer eBooks or hard copies, His Name is Yahweh is also available in eBook format and in paperback for a fee.  Just click on the word, and it will take you to the URL where you can buy it.

Back to SnyderTalk Homepage

88 thoughts on “His Name is Yahweh—Manuscript in PDF format

  1. Rabbi Nosson Scherman’s translation of the Tanach (The Stone Edition, the ArtScroll Series) is not in complete agreement with your translation of Isaiah 9: 5-6. He renders it this way:

    “For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us, and the dominion will rest on his shoulder; the Wondrous Adviser, Mighty God, Eternal Father, called his name Sar-shalom [Prince of Peace]; upon the one with the greatness in dominion and the boundless peace that will prevail on the throne of David and on his kingdom, to establish it and sustain it through justice and righteousness, from now to eternity. The zealousness of HASHEM, Master of Legions, will accomplish this.”

    As you can see, Scherman’s translation does indicate a completed action, but he suggests that Yahweh performed those actions rather than attributing the names Mighty God and Eternal Father to Hezekiah. Also, the passage says that the Person about whom Isaiah is writing will sustain justice and righteousness “from now to eternity.” Obviously, that’s not Hezekiah, so it makes sense that the passage refers to another Person–a very special Person who will usher in an eternal kingdom.

    The Septuagint presents another interpretation:

    “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; for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him. His government shall be great, and of his peace these is no end: it shall be upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to support it with judgment and righteousness, from henceforth and for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts shall perform this.”

    The 70 rabbis who translated the Hebrew Tanach into Greek in the late third century BC don’t completely agree with your interpretation, either. Be that as it may, I hope that others with more linguistic training than I have will join in the discussion.

  2. I am going to be writing about the common misinterpretation of Isaiah 53. Many people assume, and are mislead into thinking that the books of the Bible were written with chapter and verse number. This is not right, these came much later and in fact were invented by a christian priest for the ease of scripture study. No, the scriptures was written without anything but the consonants; this is right, not even the vowels or cantilations were originally part of the Text.

    The context of any passage of scripture is always related to those parts around which it was written. Normally we find patterns in the Text which will act as guides for the reader to keep context and not be lost in the study of scripture. Isaiah 53 is no exception to this rule. In fact, the context of 53 doesnt even begin in 53:1, rather it begins in 52:13.

    52:13 begins with “Behold My servant…”. The big question all should ask is who is “My servant”? Isaiah supplies us with the answer to this question, and once we have taken a look at where this entire diatribe begins, it will become clear of whom Isaiah is speaking.

    The context of Isaiah 53 reaches back to chapter 41:8. It is here that YHWH names His servant, Israel/Jacob. From this- chapter to chapter 45 we have this repeated 5 times: 42:1; 44:1, 2; and 45:4.

    From 41:8 to chapter 44:48 the context and theme is continuously upon Israel/Jacob and their being YHWH’s servant, and those whom He redeemed and ransomed, etc. etc. At 44:48 the context changes from Israel/Jacob to Cyrus, whom YHWH calls His messiah. It is by Cyrus that YHWH will redeem His people, and return them to the Land of Israel, which was the focus of the preceding chapters.

    The theme of Cyrus being anointed to redeem His people continues all the way to chapter 48, where the focus is again upon Israel/Jacob and also the destruction of Babylon, which is carried out by the Medes and Persians. YHWH again explains how He declares this before it even occurs.

    The focus being on Israel/Jacob continues from 48 through chapter 66. This focus is of the ransom of Israel from captivity, return to their Land, and the rebuilding of Jerusalem, the re-establishment of the sacrifices, and the worship of YHWH.

    Before I cover the mistranslations of chapter 53 I ask everyone who is interested in this topic to read Isaiah starting in chapter 41:8 to 53:12 keeping it in mind whom it is that YHWH names His servant.

    Yaaqov

  3. Hello Mr. Snyder,

    The Stone edition does a great job for the most part; however it removes the fact of the vav conversive upon the watehi and makes it seemingly an incomplete action there.

    You said: Also, the passage says that the Person about whom Isaiah is writing will sustain justice and righteousness “from now to eternity.”

    The passage does not state this, neither does the pointing of the masoretic text, which was done by men of the Scripture. Though this again is only their interpretation of the verse, I tend to agree based upon the grammar of the Text, and how this sort of syntax is used elsewhere in the Text.

    This is how the verse appears in the Hebrew Text according to the Aleppo Codex:

    לְמַרְבֵּ֨ה הַמִּשְׂרָ֜ה וּלְשָׁלֹ֣ום אֵֽינ־קֵ֗ץ עַל־כִּסֵּ֤א דָוִד֙ וְעַל־מַמְלַכְתֹּ֔ו לְהָכִ֤ין אֹתָהּ֙ וּֽלְסַעֲדָ֔הּ בְּמִשְׁפָּ֖ט וּבִצְדָקָ֑ה מֵעַתָּה֙ וְעַד־עֹולָ֔ם קִנְאַ֛ת יְהוָ֥ה צְבָאֹ֖ות תַּעֲשֶׂה־זֹּֽאת׃

    The verse is divided first upon the athnachta, which is upon the word righteousness (וּבִצְדָקָ֑ה). This divides the thought of the verse, and its theme. The first half of the verse is then subdivided by the revia on no end (אֵֽינ־קֵ֗ץ) with a parenthetical use of the zaqef qatan on his kingdom (מַמְלַכְתֹּ֔ו) and to support it (וּֽלְסַעֲדָ֔הּ). This shows the thought of eternity is not with the enthronement and subsequent peace and security, but with the Zeal of YHWH doing such. The verse then is divided according to the Masoretic Text as follows:

    For the increase of the government and for peace without end, on David’s throne and his kingdom, to establish it and to strengthen it, with justice and righteousness; from now and evermore, the zeal of YHWH does this.

    In the above, the semicolon represents the end of the first major division of the verse as given by the Maoretes. All that follows is in theme with the Zeal of YHWH.

    In no way does this verse indicate that Hezekiah’s or anyone’s reign as king would be eternal.

    I must make mention here that the LXX originally was only of the Torah. The prophetical writings and the histories were added much later.

    The Greek version of Isaiah also uses the aorist passive indicative verbs for born and given, as well as for give. The aorist passive indicatives represent an undefined action received by the subject in past time. This is not a future time grammatically by even the Greek standards.

    As for the second verse you cite from Brenton it reads thus in the Greek:

    μεγάλη ἡ ἀρχὴ αὐτοῦ, καὶ τῆς εἰρήνης αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν ὅριον ἐπὶ τὸν θρόνον Δαυιδ καὶ τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ κατορθῶσαι αὐτὴν καὶ ἀντιλαβέσθαι αὐτῆς ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ καὶ ἐν κρίματι ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν καὶ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα χρόνον· ὁ ζῆλος κυρίου σαβαωθ ποιήσει ταῦτα.

    The fist clause of which is: μεγάλη ἡ ἀρχὴ αὐτοῦ
    Great (is) his rule… I provide the copula here as it is missing in the Greek Text. Literally it is great his rule. Brenton supplies the future tense in his translation.

    The second clause begins: ἐπὶ τὸν θρόνον Δαυιδ καὶ τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ
    upon the throne of David and his kingdom.

    Again Brenton provides the “shall be” it is not future by the Text. The Greek Text provides no support for the supposition that this is a future event, or that the person’s reign is eternal, or even that the person being spoken of is a deity.

    I would also please ask that we keep to the Hebrew Text, as this was the scripture we agreed to use as our defining Text. I dont mind the translations, but not as a final authority of what the Hebrew Text says; as these were also translations and are thus the opinion and interpretation of the translator.

    I also am providing a translation; yet I am also giving you the opportunity to see for yourself the Hebrew tenses, and grammar as I will provide these rules in my translations when they are necessary. If there is a point of translation on my part which is to be considered faulty, I am open to correction; but not by the opinions of ancient translators who provide paraphrases in places where there is doubt about the meaning of the verse.

  4. Mr. Snyder,

    I would like to extend my apology to you. I agreed to discuss the subject of messiah with you; and I have now strayed from my original agreement.

    It was not my intention to begin a debate about what Text says what; rather what the Text says about messiah: what is messiah, and how to become messiah, etc.

    If you would please forgive my arrogance, I would like to continue the discussion about messiah.

    Yaaqov ben Yisrael

  5. No problem. You haven’t offended me at all, and I’m happy with the discussion, all of it.

  6. I’ll be quoting from Scherman in this comment:

    1. I believe that the “you” in Isaiah 52: 14 refers to Israel/Jacob, but the “Him” following it refers to the Person that people commonly refer to as the Messiah.

    “Just as multitudes were astonished over you, [saying] ‘His appearance is too marred to be a man’s, and his visage to be human,’ so will many nations exclaim him, and kings will shut their mouths [in amazement]….”

    2. Isaiah 53: 1 makes clear who the focus of the chapter is.

    “Who would believe what we have heard! For whom as the arm of the HASHEM been revealed.”

    3. Below are the reasons why I believe that Isaiah 53 focuses on the “arm of Yahweh”:

    a. v. 4–“But in truth, it was our ills that he bore, and our pains that he carried….” Yahweh did not inflict pain on Israel/Jacob because of what others had done.

    b. v. 5–“…the chastisement upon him was for our benefit, and through his wounds we were healed.” Same explanation as above.

    c. v. 6–“…HASHEM inflicted upon him the iniquity of us all.” Same explanation as above.

    In v. 8, I believe that the “He” is the arm of Yahweh and the “my people” refers to Israel/Jacob:

    “For he had been removed from the land of the living, an affliction upon him that was my people’s sin.”

    I think that vs. 11-12 also refer to the arm of Yahweh:

    a. “…it is their iniquities that he will carry.”

    b. “…for he bore the sin of the multitudes….”

    Verses 11 and 12 make reference to an atoning sacrifice that only Yahweh could make since He alone is perfect–without blemish.

  7. מִ֥י הֶאֱמִ֖ין לִשְׁמֻעָתֵ֑נוּ וּזְרֹ֥ועַ יְהוָ֖ה עַל־מִ֥י נִגְלָֽתָה׃

    Who confirmed our message; and upon whom was the arm of YHWH revealed?

    I would like to ask you what message is Isaiah referring to here? The remainder of 53 speaks to why the message was not confirmed, or believed but not what the message was.

    The arm of YHWH is the glorious power by which He works His will. According to Isaiah it is the Angel of YHWH which is this Arm, who is called the Holy Spirit (63).

    The message, according to all of the context preceding 53 is of the return of Israel from captivity, which will be accomplished by YHWH through His messiah Cyrus. This was prophecied many many years before Cyrus was even born.

    You said: “Yahweh did not inflict pain on Israel/Jacob because of what others had done”

    This is not correct. Israel/Jacob is a personification of the people or nation Israel. Israel is personified by both genders in Tenakh; as a son and also a wife. The nation of Israel was indeed punished many times for the wickedness of the kings and priests. Even on account of David Israel was punished as the Arm of YHWH went through the land killing the people. The captivity of Israel in Babylon was a direct result of disobedience, and YHWH explains that a part of this was their failing to keep the Sabbath of the 7th years.

    מֵעֹ֤צֶר וּמִמִּשְׁפָּט֙ לֻקָּ֔ח וְאֶת־דֹּורֹ֖ו מִ֣י יְשֹׂוחֵ֑חַ כִּ֤י נִגְזַר֙ מֵאֶ֣רֶץ חַיִּ֔ים מִפֶּ֥שַׁע עַמִּ֖י נֶ֥גַע לָֽמֹו
    From prison and judgement he was taken, so who considers his generation; for he was cut from a living land, on account of my people’s rebellion they were plagued.

    The לָֽמֹו is plural, meaning (they), and is falsely translated as (upn him) in the translation above. The Hebrew Text clearly identifies (them) as the object of the plague, not one person, but many.

    וְהוּא֙ מְחֹלָ֣ל מִפְּשָׁעֵ֔נוּ מְדֻךָּ֖א מֵעֲוֹנֹתֵ֑ינוּ מוּסַ֤ר שְׁלֹומֵ֙נוּ֙ עָלָ֔יו וּבַחֲבֻרָתֹ֖ו נִרְפָּא־לָֽנוּ׃
    He is being defiled on account of our rebellion, being shattered on account of our wickedness; the instruction of our reconciliation is upon him, and by means of his wound we are healed.

    mecholal מְחֹלָ֣ל is the po’al participle and מְדֻךָּ֖א is the pu’al participle. Both are passive and present tense. This means at the time of this statement, the act was already in progress.

    Captivity was also said to be the pit, or death, and Israel as a living nation ceased to exist while in captivity (Is. 51:14; Lam 3:53). If you want to read about how Israel was afflicted, defiled, and cut off from the living land, just read Lamentations.

    כִּ֤י נִגְזַר֙ מֵאֶ֣רֶץ חַיִּ֔ים
    Ki nigzar meierets chayyim (Is 53:8)
    for he is cut off from a living land

    צָֽפוּ־מַ֥יִם עַל־רֹאשִׁ֖י אָמַ֥רְתִּי נִגְזָֽרְתִּי
    Tsafu mayim al roshi amarti nigzarti (Lam 3:54)
    water flowed over my head, I said I am cut off

    וְהוּא֙ מְחֹלָ֣ל מִפְּשָׁעֵ֔נוּ
    wehu mecholal mepesha’einu (Is 53:5)
    he is being defiled on account of our rebellion

    חִלֵּ֥ל מַמְלָכָ֖ה וְשָׂרֶֽיהָ
    chileil mamlackah wisareyha (Lam 2:2)
    he defiled kingdom and its prince

    Isaiah continues in the next verse:
    כֻּלָּ֙נוּ֙ כַּצֹּ֣אן תָּעִ֔ינוּ אִ֥ישׁ לְדַרְכֹּ֖ו פָּנִ֑ינוּ וַֽיהוָה֙ הִפְגִּ֣יעַ בֹּ֔ו אֵ֖ת עֲוֹ֥ן כֻּלָּֽנוּ׃
    All of us have gone astray like sheep, we have turned each man to his way; yet YHWH interceded by means of him, with the wickedness of us all. (6)

    הִפְגִּ֣יעַ hifgiyah is the hiphil perfect 3rd masculine singular of paga’, and means to meet, or to intercede. הִפְגִּ֣יעַ בֹּ֔ו hifgiya’ bo then means he interceded by means of him or it. I say or it because this could refer to the punishment of the servant as well as to the servant himself. However, the final verse explains that it was indeed the servant who accomplished the intercession:

    וְהוּא֙ חֵטְא־רַבִּ֣ים נָשָׂ֔א וְלַפֹּשְׁעִ֖ים יַפְגִּֽיעַ
    wehu cheita-rabim nasa welaposhe’im yafgiya’
    and he bore the sin of many, and will intercede for the rebellious. (12)

    יַפְגִּֽיעַ yafgiya’ is the hiphil imperfect 3rd masculine singular of paga’, the sme verb and stem used in verse 6 above.

    To me, the context of Isaiah 53 is of the servant, who is identified as the personified Israel/Jacob and not the man in Genesis. Israel is then told they would be punished, taken into captivity for their rebellion, wickedness and sins, but the good news is that they would be taken from captivity by means of Cyrus, and returned to their Land. This is the literary context of Isaiah 41-66.

  8. The verb נִרְפָּא is in the perfect, so I made a mistake in translation; the verse should read we were healed, not we are healed.

    וְהוּא֙ מְחֹלָ֣ל מִפְּשָׁעֵ֔נוּ מְדֻךָּ֖א מֵעֲוֹנֹתֵ֑ינוּ מוּסַ֤ר שְׁלֹומֵ֙נוּ֙ עָלָ֔יו וּבַחֲבֻרָתֹ֖ו נִרְפָּא־לָֽנוּ׃
    He is being defiled on account of our rebellion, being shattered on account of our wickedness; the instruction of our reconciliation is upon him, and by means of his wound we were healed

    I apologize for any misunderstanding

  9. I agree with much of what you said, but you and I diverge on several points.

    First, the Angel of Yahweh appeared to Moses in the burning bush. (Exodus 3: 2) Then Yahweh spoke to Moses. (Exodus 3: 4) Thus, Yahweh and the Angel of Yahweh are the same Person. I’ll postpone a discussion of the Holy Spirit for the time being, but as you well know, the Holy Spirit is very important.

    True enough, when Israel’s leaders sinned (both religious and governmental), the nation was punished, but individuals are punished for their sins and not for the sins of others. That is an important distinction.

    I don’t doubt that their are multiple fulfillments of the prophecies in Isaiah 53, but one of them definitely refers to an atoning sacrifice made by someone for the nation Israel. I think that person is the Arm of Yahweh who is Yahweh.

    With regard to the plural nature of Yahweh, I’ll begin by pointing out that Elohim is a plural word, and as I said before, in Exodus 3 we see evidence of Yahweh referring to Himself as two distinct manifestations. Also, we are told that in the beginning, Elohim created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1: 1) Then in Genesis 1: 26 Yahweh said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness….” Thus, the plural nature of the Person who performs the atoning sacrifice isn’t a problem.

    You said, “He is being defiled on account of our rebellion, being shattered on account of our wickedness; the instruction of our reconciliation is upon him, and by means of his wound we are healed.” I agree. That’s what it says.

    I submit that Yahweh’s atoning activity has been evident since Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, and throughout Israel’s history, it’s been evident. The fact that Yahweh refers to an on-going activity in the present tense isn’t a problem for me. I submit that it is still going on today, not the act of atoning which was performed only once, but the process of atoning as people turn to Yahweh in faith just as Abraham did–Abraham believed Yahweh (i.e., had faith in Him) and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. (Genesis 15: 6)

    You said, “All of us have gone astray like sheep, we have turned each man to his way; yet YHWH interceded by means of him, with the wickedness of us all.” I agree. That’s exactly what He did.

    You said, “To me, the context of Isaiah 53 is of the servant, who is identified as the personified Israel/Jacob and not the man in Genesis. Israel is then told they would be punished, taken into captivity for their rebellion, wickedness and sins, but the good news is that they would be taken from captivity by means of Cyrus, and returned to their Land. This is the literary context of Isaiah 41-66.” I agree that it refers to a servant, but not Israel. Israel is not an atoning sacrifice, but Yahweh used Israel to introduce His atoning power. I believe that the Servant is a manifestation of Yahweh who submitted Himself to ridicule, punishment, and physical death for His people. Therefore, Israel is the beneficiary of the act, not the performer of the act.

  10. The Holy Spirit is indeed important, and I hope we do get around to speaking on this topic. However, the Malakh YHWH is the Zera’ YHWH, there is no way around that.

    The plurality of God is not the issue in the Text. The plurality is of His servant, as the Text clearly identifies a servant, not a deity. At no place in the entirety of Tenakh can you point to the Hebrew Avdi (my servant) in relation to God. So clearly the servant of Isaiah is not a deity, or devine.

    In Isaiah the servant is spoken of in the 2nd person, such as in 41:8, in the third person as in 42:1, he speaks of His servant in both singular and plural forms as in Isaiah 43:10

    אַתֶּ֤ם עֵדַי֙ נְאֻמ־יְהוָ֔ה וְעַבְדִּ֖י אֲשֶׁ֣ר בָּחָ֑רְתִּי לְמַ֣עַן תֵּ֠דְעוּ וְתַאֲמִ֨ינוּ לִ֤י וְתָבִ֙ינוּ֙ כִּֽי־אֲנִ֣י ה֔וּא לְפָנַי֙ לֹא־נֹ֣וצַר אֵ֔ל וְאַחֲרַ֖י לֹ֥א יִהְיֶֽה׃

    You (plural) are my witnesses declares YHWH, and My servant (singular) whom I have chosen; in order that you will know and believe Me and understand that I am He, before Me no other deity was formed, nor shall there be after Me.

    The Text of Isaiah 53 cannot be removed from its literary context, which is of the nation of Israel, not a singal individual. Even the Hebrew Text bears record to this, which is normally covered or outright falsified by English translations. For example:

    וַיִּתֵּ֤ן אֶת־רְשָׁעִים֙ קִבְרֹ֔ו וְאֶת־עָשִׁ֖יר בְּמֹתָ֑יו עַ֚ל לֹא־חָמָ֣ס עָשָׂ֔ה וְלֹ֥א מִרְמָ֖ה בְּפִֽיו׃
    He gave the wicked his grave, and the rich his deaths; on account that he did no violence, and no deceit in his mouth.

    The death here is plural, not singular; it means there were many deaths which were given. Even if you somehow claim a plurality in deity, you cannot claim the plurality of deaths is defined by such plurality; that is, since the deity is plurality, his death must also be of a plural nature.

    וַיהוָ֞ה חָפֵ֤ץ דַּכְּאֹו֙ הֶֽחֱלִ֔י אִמ־תָּשִׂ֤ים אָשָׁם֙ נַפְשֹׁ֔ו יִרְאֶ֥ה זֶ֖רַע יַאֲרִ֣יךְ יָמִ֑ים וְחֵ֥פֶץ יְהוָ֖ה בְּיָדֹ֥ו יִצְלָֽח׃

    YHWH was pleased to shatter him, He sickened him, if his soul acknowledges guilt, then he shall see his descendants, he shall prolong his days; and the pleasure of YHWH will prosper in his hand.

    Asham in the Hebrew text has two meanings: Guilt and Guilt Offering. It does not mean a sin offering. The guilt offering is given by the offender, not by one on behalf of the offender. This means the offender had to commit guilt in order to make restitution for it (which is what to atone means). In the context we have a conditional statement beginning with “if”. The conditional statement is formed by “if”……”then”. In the above verse it is : If his soul acknowledges guilt, then he shall see his descendants, he shall prolong his days”. This means the asham is guilt and not the guilt offering, as this was to be destroyed upon the altar, and no Israelite would offer themselves upon an altar and violate the Torah and also profane the Altar. This means the context clearly indicates the acknowledgment of guilt.

    The reward for the acknowledgment of guilt is that he will see his descendants. This is zera’ in Hebrew which literally means seed. It is a collective plural. In regards to humanity it means their physical offspring, or their descendants. In no place in the Hebrew Text is zera’ used in a spiritual conotation. As a part of the reward it says that he will prolong his days. This means he will not die, but be saved from it. In every example of this Hebrew phrase it clearly shows prolonging one’s life upon this earth, and not to an eternal life. This is the point of atonement (restitution), to preserve one’s life in lieu of the offering. The reward would be pointless if the object was to destroy himslef upon an altar, which is clearly not allowed by Torah in the first place.

    In this place, you and I will probably never agree, I see it in its literary context, speaking of His sevant, Israel, whom He named in the context itself.

    We can agree to disagree here, and return to the main discussion of messiah.

  11. You’re right. Let’s continue with the discussion.

    By the way, I am open to the possibility that well-meaning men may have tampered with the true meanings of Hebrew words in their translations into English to buttress their points of view. Both Jews and Gentiles have done this. For example, substituting HASHEM or the LORD for Yahweh is wrong especially when you consider the fact that Yahweh commanded us to declare His Name to the world, and Joel says that we have salvation in the Name Yahweh. In my opinion, that’s the most colossal translation error of all time.

    Also, Scherman translates Proverbs 30: 4 this way:”Who [but Moses] ascended into heaven and descended?….” To people who are familiar with publishing rules, those brackets mean that the words contained therein come from the writer/translator, but to ordinary readers, those brackets mean little if anything. Since Moses’ name doesn’t appear in that verse, I think Scherman is guilty of doing what many others have done.

    Again, I’m interested in the truth. It’s as simple as that. I only wish that some of our linguist friends would join in the discussion.

    Let me say one more thing before we continue. Yahweh cloaked many parts of the Tanach in mystery. I think He did it so readers can’t understand much that is written without the help of the Holy Spirit. That’s especially true where prophecy is concerned. He doesn’t have to violate language rules to do that, either. All He has to do is allow words to have multiple meanings in different contexts over time. The Hebrew language is perfectly suited for that. So one verse may contain several messages–some related to the present situation and some related to the future.

  12. Unfortunately there has been much redaction in the Hebrew Text as well, and we see even there where Adonai or Elohim replaced the Name; the English tranlsations are terrible in the area of bias. It depends on the person or group translating as to how they translate certain words. Though it may not be an outright error, their choice of words are used by design to lead the reader. This is done in the Greek texts as well, including the NT. This is why it is so important for the seeker of truth to learn the languages in which the scriptures were written.

    I dont deny Hebrew words may have several shades of meaning, but I dont really buy the notion that YHWH hid the truth in the Text. He makes His Torah plain, and states that the words are in our mouths, and one need not ascend into heaven for it. The prophetical writings in my opinion are really unnecessary. They are in reality admonitions to Israel to return to Torah, and are for the hopeless. The Torah is all we need. In it YHWH gave us clear instructions on how to live, how to repent, etc. He also gave us the penalties for violation, even the exiles and captivities. He also gives us hope that even while in captivity if we return to Torah, He will rescue us from those places we have been exiled. The prophetical and historical writings are in reality an affirmation of this, and give historical documentations of it.

    Having said that, I don’t reject the prophetical or historical writings, they are full of wisdom and insight, but are really superfluous.

  13. I agree with most of what you said, but I don’t think the prophetic writings are superfluous. According Joel, they will become important again at the End of Days. We may be seeing evidences of that now.

    Be that as it may, the Torah contains everything, and the prophets simply point from the Torah to events that will take place. That’s why I wonder about so many Christians who look at the OT as unnecessary. I doubt that a majority of them could even tell you what the Torah is, much less the prophets and the writings. It’s all OT to most of them, and they see it as a relic of the past. Interestingly, Yeshua didn’t see it that way at all, but that’s another story for a later discussion.

    This will sound heretical to many Christians, but the NT is like a commentary. It talks about OT prophecies and their fulfillment. For the most part, the people who wrote it were writing letters or historical pieces for believers. I doubt that they thought they were writing Scripture. For instance, when you see the word Scripture in the NT, it refers to the OT since there was no NT. Most of the time, it refers to the Torah. I’m not denigrating the NT. I’m simply trying to put it in perspective.

    In a nutshell, we humans have really made a mess of things with our preconceived notions and our desire to see our point of view win the day. I suppose that we’ll fight that battle until the end, but in the meantime we can discuss freely here.

  14. I follow the Torah in all things, as much as I am able to perform; the other writings are for me simply commentary.

    According to the Torah, the only legitimate and true messiah is the Mishkan and the Kohen Gadol, who stands as the supreme judge over Israel, even the king is subservient to him, hough this hasnt been followed by the rebellious kings of Israel.

    כי יפלא ממך דבר למשׁפט בין־דם לדם בין־דין לדין ובין נגע לנגע דברי ריבת בשׁעריך וקמת ועלית אל־המקום אשׁר יבחר יהוה אלהיך בו׃
    ובאת אל־הכהנים הלוים ואל־השׁפט אשׁר יהיה בימים ההם ודרשׁת והגידו לך את דבר המשׁפט׃
    ועשׂית על־פי הדבר אשׁר יגידו לך מן־המקום ההוא אשׁר יבחר יהוה ושׁמרת לעשׂות ככל אשׁר יורוך׃
    על־פי התורה אשׁר יורוך ועל־המשׁפט אשׁר־יאמרו לך תעשׂה לא תסור מן־הדבר אשׁר־יגידו לך ימין ושׂמאל׃
    והאישׁ אשׁר־יעשׂה בזדון לבלתי שׁמע אל־הכהן העמד לשׁרת שׁם את־יהוה אלהיך או אל־השׁפט ומת האישׁ ההוא ובערת הרע מישׂראל׃

    And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment: And thou shalt do according to the sentence, which they of that place which YHWH shall choose shall shew thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee: According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach (yorekha) thee, and according to the Law (HaTorah) which they shall tell thee (yorekha), thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand, nor to the left. And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before YHWH thy Elohim, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel. Dt 17:9-12

    In the foregoing you see that the Priest (High Priest) is the same as the Judge, and it was to them that we are to bring all matters which cannot be resolved in the local magistrates, and they are the final interpreters of the Torah, and we must obey their judgement.

    ולהורת את־בני ישׂראל את כל־החקים אשׁר דבר יהוה אליהם ביד־משׁה׃

    And that ye may teach (l’horoth) the children of Israel all the statutes which YHWH hath spoken unto them by the hand of Moses. Lev 10:11

    Teach here is means instruction of Torah, and this was to the Priests specifically.

    כי־שׂפתי כהן ישׁמרו־דעת ותורה יבקשׁו מפיהו כי מלאך יהוה־צבאות הוא׃

    For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law (Torah) at his mouth: for he is the messenger of YHWH of hosts. Mal 2:7

    This was their primary charge before YHWH, which they later failed in, and was what YHWH is admonishing them concerning.

    According to the Torah and the Prophets, it was the Kohen who was not only the Reader of the Law, but final arbiter and Interpreter of the Law (Torah). Torah was to be sought from his lips, it was his duty to teach (l’horoth) the Torah, and accoding to the priest’s Torah, we were not allowed to depart Dt 17:12.

    It was only later, that Israel rejected YHWH’s authority and left the allegience to the Priests and desired a king like other nations.

    Even in the time of Jehosephat he set the Levites as judges in the Land, and the Kohen Gadol as the head of the judicial system. (2 Chr. 19:5-11). This was in reality exactly as the Torah demands it to be.

    The first king over Israel was Moses (Dt 33:4-5). He was instructed by YHWH to appoint Joshua ben Nun in his place, to be the Shepherd of Israel, to lead them out and to lead them in (Num 27:15-23). He was the first of the Shepherd Kings of Israel. He was from the tribe of Joseph.

    And YHWH said unto Samuel (an Ephraimite), Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. 1 Sam 8:7 (emphasis mine)

    This is going to be a little off topic (or maybe not as the kings also have a part in the messiah discussion), but it is a very interesting point. At this time the person YHWH appointed as King was Saul ben Kish from Benjamin. Even when He removed the kingdom from the house of David, He gave it to Jeroboam ben Nebat of Ephraim, from the tribe of Joseph. It was Joseph’s line which had the birthright and also the right to rule.

    It is funny that David is called Bethlehemite, which was one of the cities of the tribes of Ephraim (Israel), he was born in Bethlehem. According to Torah Bethlehem was in the north in Zebulun, not Judah (Judges 19:15). It was only at the time of Micah that there came to be a Bethlehem-Judah. It is strange as there it mentions a Levite from the family tribe of Judah (Judg 17); which is not possible. Even Jerusalem was in Benjamin (Josh 18:28). These were the nations of Ephraim, even before the time of the split. It was from the North, the lands of Ephraim that the first Judges ruled over Israel. After Joshua, Caleb’s younger brother Othniel ruled Israel (Jdg 3:9). After him was Ehud ben Gera’, of Benjamin (Jdg 3:15). Then Deborah of Bethel, who ruled from Ephraim (Jdg 4:4). After her was Gideon, of Manessah, a tribe of Joseph (Jdg 6:11). Then we have Abimelech ben Gideon of Menasseh, tribe of Joseph who was made king over Israel (Jdg 9:6). After him was Toa of Issachar (Jdg 10:1). Then Jair of Gilead (10:3). Then Jephthah of Gilead (11). Then Ibzan of Bethlehem (of Zebulun) (12:8). After him Elon a Zebulunite (12:11). Then Abdon an Ephraimite (12:13). Then Samson of Dan (13:25). After Samson there was no king in Israel (18) all the way till YHWH appointed Saul. With the exception of Othniel, all the rulers of Israel were from the northern tribes; and then YHWH appointed a Benjaminite, and than after Solomon, a Ephraimite. According to the Historical records, the kingdom of Israel belongs to the Ephraimites in the north, though they are now lost.

    It is also interesting how this came about. It was Ahijah the Shilonite who gave Solomon of the house of Judah the news that the Kingdom was now removed from his house (1Kin 11:29). This is exactly how the prophecy of Gen 49:10 plays out:

    לֹֽא־יָס֥וּר שֵׁ֙בֶט֙ מִֽיהוּדָ֔ה וּמְחֹקֵ֖ק מִבֵּ֣ין רַגְלָ֑יו עַ֚ד כִּֽי־יָבֹ֣א שִׁילֹה שִׁילֹ֔ו וְלֹ֖ו יִקְּהַ֥ת עַמִּֽים׃
    Lo yasur shebet miHudah umechoqeiq mibein raglaw; ad ki yavo shiloh, welo yiqahat amim (This is the Masoretic Text)
    A tribe will not depart from Judah nor a lawgiver from between his feet until shiloh comes for him is the people’s obedience.

    The Samaritan Text has it this way:
    לא־יסור שׁבט מיהודה ומחקק מבין דגליו עד כי־יבוא שׁלה ולו יקהתו עמים׃
    Lo yasur shebet miHudah umechoqeiq mibein daglaw ad ki yavo shiloh welo yeqahato amim

    A tribe will not depart from Judah nor a lawgiver from between his his banners till shiloh comes and to him the peoples will obey.

    One more interesting puzzle is the fact the Elimelch was an Ephrati of Bethlehemjudah (Ruth 1:1). Ephrati means an Ephraimite. It was his son’s wife who married Boaz. This is called yibbum, or Levirate marriage. Boaz was the closest kinsman to Ruth. Her husband died childless, and the Torah required that their first son be named after the dead husband; in this case the dead son of Elimelech. This means Obed should have been called after the name of the dead husband, and would not have been an heir of Boaz. If this is the case, then even David was an Ephraimite according to Torah.

    OK, back to the subject…..

  15. You said, “According to the Torah, the only legitimate and true messiah is the Mishkan and the Kohen Gadol, who stands as the supreme judge over Israel, even the king is subservient to him, [t]hough this hasn[‘]t been followed by the rebellious kings of Israel.” I think that is absolutely correct, but I also believe that people who come to that position by virtue of their lineage symbolize Yahweh who will eventually assume that position Himself. There is more to this, but I’ll stop there for now.

    You said, “For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law (Torah) at his mouth: for he is the messenger of YHWH of hosts. Mal 2:7″ I agree. Unfortunately, earthly priests are human, and they have human frailties. Take a look at what Yahweh had to say about what they did in the past:

    “I hate, I reject your festivals, nor do I delight in your solemn assemblies. Even though you offer up to Me burnt offerings and your grain offerings, I will not accept them; and I will not even look at the peace offerings of your fatlings. Take away from Me the noise of your songs; I will not even listen to the sound of your harps. But let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.”[Amos 5: 21-24]

    “Because this people draw near with their words and honor Me with their lip service, but they remove their hearts far from Me, and their reverence for Me consists of tradition learned by rote, therefore behold, I will once again deal marvelously with this people, wondrously marvelous; and the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the discernment of their discerning men shall be concealed.”[Isaiah 29: 13-14]

    “How can you say, ‘We are wise, since we have Yahweh’s Law?’ Look how it has been falsified by the lying pen of the scribes! The wise men are put to shame, alarmed, caught out because they have rejected Yahweh’s Word. What price their wisdom now?”[Jeremiah 8: 8-9 from The New Jerusalem Bible]

    “‘But as for you, you have turned aside from the way; you have caused many to stumble by the instruction; you have corrupted the covenant of Levi,’ says Yahweh Sabaoth. ‘So I also have made you despised and abased before all the people, just as you are not keeping My ways but are showing partiality in the instruction.’”[Malachi 2: 8-9 from The New Jerusalem Bible]

    You said, “This was their primary charge before YHWH, which they later failed in, and was what YHWH is admonishing them concerning.” I agree. I suspect that you already know this, but for a time, that seat was sold to the highest bidder for cash:

    “For nearly a century a detestable abuse prevailed, which consisted in the arbitrary nomination and deposition of the high priest. The high priesthood, which for fifteen centuries had been preserved in the same family, being hereditary according to the divine command, had at the time of Christ’s advent become an object of commercial speculation. Herod commenced these arbitrary changes,[Josephus. Book XV, Chapter III, 1] and after Judea became one of the Roman conquests the election of the high priest took place almost every year at Jerusalem, the procurators appointing and deposing them in the same manner as the praetorians later on made and unmade emperors.[Josephus. Book XVIII, Chapter II, 3; Book XX, Chapter IX, 4] The Talmud speaks sorrowfully of this venality and the yearly changes of the high priest.

    This sacred office was given to the one that offered the most money for it, and mothers were particularly anxious that their sons should be nominated to this dignity[Talmud Yoma]….M. Derembourg, a modern Jewish savant, has remarked: ‘A few priestly, aristocratic, powerful, and vain families, who cared for neither the dignity nor the interests of the altar, quarreled with each other respecting appointments, influence, and wealth.”

    I talk about this problem in His Name is Yahweh.

    You said, “And YHWH said unto Samuel (an Ephraimite), Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. 1 Sam 8:7 (emphasis mine)” Absolutely correct, and that vestiges of that problem persist to this day.

    You said, “It is funny that David is called Bethlehemite, which was one of the cities of the tribes of Ephraim (Israel), he was born in Bethlehem. According to Torah Bethlehem was in the north in Zebulun, not Judah (Judges 19:15). It was only at the time of Micah that there came to be a Bethlehem-Judah.” I have not heard that before. I’ll have to look into it. Ezekiel 37 comes into play here.

    You said, “A tribe will not depart from Judah nor a lawgiver from between his feet until shiloh comes for him is the people’s obedience.” I believe Shiloh refers to the Messiah.

    You said, “One more interesting puzzle is the fact the Elimelch was an Ephrati of Bethlehemjudah (Ruth 1:1). Ephrati means an Ephraimite. It was his son’s wife who married Boaz. This is called yibbum, or Levirate marriage. Boaz was the closest kinsman to Ruth. Her husband died childless, and the Torah required that their first son be named after the dead husband; in this case the dead son of Elimelech. This means Obed should have been called after the name of the dead husband, and would not have been an heir of Boaz. If this is the case, then even David was an Ephraimite according to Torah.” Very interesting. I hadn’t thought about that before. I’ll have to look into it as well.

  16. Yes the priest failed in their duty at the time of Eli and after him the priesthood was corrupted many times. Then the Israelites completely rejected the rule of YHWH by His Torah.
    According to Ezekiel YHWH will return Judah to the Land, then reunite Ephraim and after that the Mishkan will be rebuilt. YHWH will again return to His earthly throne, the Aron HaBrit (Ark of the Covenant). The He will instigate the war of Gog and Magog to show the world that Israel is His.
    According to Ezekiel the priesthood will be reestablished according to Torah; Malachi confirms the cleansing of the Priesthood, Ezekiel says at their return to the Land they would never again be defiled through disobedience to Torah.
    Already Judah has returned and they search everywhere for Ephraim. The problem is they don’t realize Ephraim is there and has never been removed.
    The Samaritans have had a separate line of Kohanim since the time of Eli. They have always remained in the Land, which is part of the blessing of Torah. They have always maintained a functioning priesthood which is according to the word of Jeremiah that Levi would never lack a Priest to serve before YHWH, which means His altar.
    The Jews failed in their duty to establish the temple when YHWH delivered it to them after the six day war. Instead they handed it over to the Muslims who continually defile the place. On top of that the Jews refuse to allow the Kohanim to take on their duties and so they are usurped still by the Rabbis. On top of this the Rabbis teach against the Samaritans because of jealousy. At some point this jealousy and strife will end and they will reunite and the temple will be rebuilt and reinstituted.
    It is also curious that Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel speak about the same chain of events; yet you do not have any mention of anointed apart from the temple and priesthood; with the exception of Cyrus.
    The focus of the Christians is humanity ascending to the heavens whereas the focus of the Hebrew scripture is YHWH descending to dwell among humanity. Yet He is never said to become a messiah but to return in glory like in the beginning when He dwelt among Israel in the wilderness.
    According to all prophetical writings on the subject the priesthood will be reestablished and reformed from sin and their functions restored and YHWH will dwell in His dwelling, the temple.
    Another strange thing is that the common Christian view is that this will be the working of Antichrist. Yet not many even understand the true meaning of this. The first of all replacement theologies of the church began with Paul. We know what Torah says is messiah and how one becomes such. Antichrist means instead of the anointed or in the place of the anointed. The funny thing is that when Jerome translated the Greek to Latin he transliterated this term and did not translate it to Latin. If he would have done so it would have been Vicarius Christi. Vicar means one in the place of and we still have this word today in the English vice.
    Yeshua was never anointed in any of the Gospels. He was neither anointed priest nor king. He was of Judah and not qualified for priesthood, and as a Jew disqualified from kingship via the curse of Jeconiah recorded by Jeremiah. This is why there were no kings from the line of David since the time of Jeconiah till now.
    Paul maintains there was a change in the priesthood which according to the prophets would not happen. So it is Paul who establishes Yeshua as Kohen Gadol in the place of the true Kohen Gadol and the church in place of the true Mishkan. In my opinion the entire theology of Paul and all church institutions are Antichrist.

  17. You said, “It is funny that David is called Bethlehemite, which was one of the cities of the tribes of Ephraim (Israel), he was born in Bethlehem. According to Torah Bethlehem was in the north in Zebulun, not Judah (Judges 19:15). It was only at the time of Micah that there came to be a Bethlehem-Judah.” I can’t find any support for this. Can you provide it?

    You said, “One more interesting puzzle is the fact the Elimelch was an Ephrati of Bethlehem judah (Ruth 1:1). Ephrati means an Ephraimite. It was his son’s wife who married Boaz. This is called yibbum, or Levirate marriage. Boaz was the closest kinsman to Ruth. Her husband died childless, and the Torah required that their first son be named after the dead husband; in this case the dead son of Elimelech. This means Obed should have been called after the name of the dead husband, and would not have been an heir of Boaz. If this is the case, then even David was an Ephraimite according to Torah.”

    Take a look at these passages:

    Zechariah 12: 6-14: “In that day I will make the clans of Judah like a firepot among pieces of wood and a flaming torch among sheaves, so they will consume on the right hand and on the left all the surrounding peoples, while the inhabitants of Jerusalem again dwell on their own sites in Jerusalem. Yahweh also will save the tents of Judah first, so that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem will not be magnified above Judah. In that day Yahweh will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the one who is feeble among them in that day will be like David, and the house of David will be like God, like the angel of Yahweh before them. And in that day I will set about to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.

    I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn. In that day there will be great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the plain of Megiddo. The land will mourn, every family by itself; the family of the house of David by itself and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Levi by itself and their wives by themselves; the family of the Shimeites by itself and their wives by themselves; all the families that remain, every family by itself and their wives by themselves.”

    Jeremiah 23:5-6: “Behold, the days are coming, declares Yahweh, when I shall raise up for David a righteous Branch; and He will reign as king and act wisely. … His name will be called … ‘Yahweh our Righteousness.'”

    Jeremiah 30:9: Israel will “serve Yahweh their God, and THEY SHALL SERVE David their king, whom I will raise up for them …”

    Jeremiah 33:15-17: The Righteous Branch OF DAVID “will spring forth” and execute “justice and righteousness ON THE EARTH” and Jerusalem will be called “Yahweh our Righteousness.”

    Jeremiah 33:20-21: If you can change the laws of nature then you can break the “natural covenant” of day and night, and David will not have a son to “reign on his throne …”

    Ezekiel 34:23-24: “Then I will set over them one shepherd, My servant David, and he will feed them; he will feed them himself and be their shepherd. And I, Yahweh, will be their God, and My servant David will be prince among them; I Yahweh have spoken.”

    Ezekiel 37:22, 24-25: “and I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one king will be king for all of them; and they will no longer be two nations and no longer be divided into two kingdoms….My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd; and they will walk in My ordinances and keep My statutes and observe them. They will live on the land that I gave to Jacob My servant, in which your fathers lived; and they will live on it, they, and their sons and their sons’ sons, forever; and David My servant will be their prince forever.”

    Hosea 3:5: “Afterward the sons of Israel will return and seek Yahweh their God and David their king; and they will come trembling to Yahweh and to His goodness in the last days.”

    I must have missed your point with regard to David. You’ll need to be more specific because there seems to be no doubt about the fact that the Messiah comes through David’s line, that David was from Judah, and that David plays an important part working with the Messiah to reunite Israel and Judah.

    Take your time. I’m not in a hurry.

  18. You said, “It is funny that David is called Bethlehemite, which was one of the cities of the tribes of Ephraim (Israel), he was born in Bethlehem. According to Torah Bethlehem was in the north in Zebulun, not Judah (Judges 19:15). It was only at the time of Micah that there came to be a Bethlehem-Judah.” I can’t find any support for this. Can you provide it?

    What part? David being an Ephrati of Bethlehem Judah or of Bethlehem Judah not being around till the time of Micah (Jdg 17:7)? I already posted the verses showing Bethlehem was in Zebulun, not Judah; Zebulun was in the North, not the South of Israel.

    David was the son of Jesse, the Ephrati of Bethlehem Judah (1Sam 17:12).

    Bethlehem Judah was not even a city till the time of Caleb’s son Salma, who was the progenitor of Bethlehem(1Chr 2:50-51). Salma’s mother was Ephratha, and this could also be the possibility of where the Ephrathite comes from in the line of David. However, this means the Ephratha of Genesis was not the Bethlehem of Judah, as it was not there at the time of Jacob; for the only Bethlehem recorded in the division of the Land was that in the territory of Zebulun. This would also necessitate that Caleb was a direct ancestor of David which clearly is not the case in the geneologies. This means David can not be called an Ephrati on this account, so the Ephrati must be associated with Ephraim, an Ephraimite is called Ephrati in Hebrew. Elimelech was the first to be called Ephrati of Bethlehem Judah (Rut 1:2. The first time Ephrati is used in the Tenakh it is associated with Ephraim (Jdg 12:5).

    According to Torah, the first child of the wife of the dead husband inherits the dead husband, and not the near kinsman (Dt 25:5). In this case, both brothers died in Moab, so this means the next nearest kinsman would do; but Boaz was not the next nearest (Rut 3:12). Who this was we are not told. However, Boaz took Ruth as wife, and her first child then inherits the dead husband who was an Ephrati from Bethlehem Judah. So David was either Ephrati from Caleb, or Ephrati from Ephraim, not Judah as Obed inherited from the dead husband and not Boaz.

    There is no doubt that there are many passages about David being from Judah; however we cannot discount the passages about him being an Ephrati either. This is why I said it was so interesting. With the exception of Othniel, all the leaders of Israel were from the northern tribes, and ruled from Ephraim. Remember also that Jerusalem was a part of Israel, not Judah. It only fell to Judah after the split, so David also ruled from the territories of Ephraim, except for the time he ruled from Hebron, which was in Judah.

    After the split of the Kingdom, which YHWH removed from David’s house, the Kingdom was given to Ephraim. I find it very puzzeling that YHWH continually chose the leaders from the North, from Ephraim (who had the birthright) except for Othniel, David and Solomon. David’s line only ruled over Judah and its territories after the split and the Kingdom was returned to Ephraim.

    At the same time I find it interesting that there was a split in the priesthood at the time of Eli, and from that time the Samaritans have had a separate line of priests. They have always remained in the Land and never been removed (one of the blessings of Torah), nor their service interrupted. Even today the Samaritan Kohen Gadol renders service in his office.

  19. You said, “A tribe will not depart from Judah nor a lawgiver from between his feet until shiloh comes for him is the people’s obedience.” I believe Shiloh refers to the Messiah

    I find it very strange you would consider this verse to be of some future messiah, as messiah is not even mentioned in the Text, it only mentions “tribe” and “lawgiver” as being removed from Judah. This is to happen when shiloh comes, to whom the people will obey. It never mentions who or what shiloh is, only that this would be the time the tribe and lawgiver departs from Judah. If you claim Yeshua was this person, then the prophecy is still unfulfilled, as Yeshua was Jewish, and hence still in the tribe.

    However, what you may not have considered is the fact that Judah was not in charge of Israel, Joseph was at this time, and he had the right to reign until Moses, who was the first king. After him it was Yeshua ben Nun, of Joseph. The only time Judah weilded the rule was during the time of Othniel, David and Solomon. It was during Solomon’s day that the Kingdom was removed from the house of David and given back to the house of Ephraim. This happened by the hand of the prophet Ahijah, the Shilonite. Shilonite means of Shiloh, which is where the tabernacle stood. The evidence, to me, would suggest that the prophecy of Gen 49:10 was not of Yeshua ben Maryam but of Ahijah the Shilonite.

    Another curious point is the fact that the line of Jeconiah was disqualified from the throne of David (Jer 22:30). This is why there are no kings from this line from his time till today. Yeshua ben Maryam, who traces his lineage from Yoseph ben Ya’aqov was of the line of Jeconiah, Shealtiel and Zerubabel. If this is the case, then this line is not to rule anymore in “Judah”. So Yeshua being Shiloh who removes the rule from Judah doesn’t fit the Text.

  20. You said, “Bethlehem Judah was not even a city till the time of Caleb’s son Salma, who was the progenitor of Bethlehem(1Chr 2:50-51). Salma’s mother was Ephratha, and this could also be the possibility of where the Ephrathite comes from in the line of David. However, this means the Ephratha of Genesis was not the Bethlehem of Judah, as it was not there at the time of Jacob; for the only Bethlehem recorded in the division of the Land was that in the territory of Zebulun. This would also necessitate that Caleb was a direct ancestor of David which clearly is not the case in the geneologies. This means David can not be called an Ephrati on this account, so the Ephrati must be associated with Ephraim, an Ephraimite is called Ephrati in Hebrew. Elimelech was the first to be called Ephrati of Bethlehem Judah (Rut 1:2. The first time Ephrati is used in the Tenakh it is associated with Ephraim (Jdg 12:5).”

    The existence of two Bethlehem’s needs to be very clear. To me, this explanation doesn’t support that thesis. If there are verses that make it clear, please point them out.

    As you say, there is a great deal in the Scriptures that is interesting, strange, funny, and puzzling. I would be surprised if this were not the case. I suspect that there is a great deal that we think we know that just isn’t so. In time, we will know the truth, but concerning Bethlehem, if there are two cities in Israel by that name, I think it would be clear. For example, the Bethel referred to in Genesis 28: 19 is actually Jerusalem, not the town called Bethel in Israel today, but concerning Bethlehem, I haven’t found the support for there being two of them.

  21. I’m not sure, but I will say this: many prophecies pertaining to the Messiah are shrouded in mystery. Some are not, though. To me, that isn’t surprising.

  22. Judges 19:15-16 says Bethlehem was in the inheritance and borders of Zebulun. Zebulun was not even close to Judah, but was to the far North almost on the Galilee. There is no way all those towns listed in their inheritance would be in the North except Bethlehem which was in Judah.

    Then there is BethlehemJudah, which first appears in Jdg 17:17. This is the town in Judah, part of the inheritance of Caleb, whose son was Salma by his wife Ephratha. Salma was the father of Bethlehem in Judah 1 Chr 2:51. Caleb’s inheritance was only in Hebron. BethlehemJudah is then the city which was founded by Bethlehem the son of Salma the son of Caleb. BethlehemJudah is never mentioned as part of the inheritance of Judah, nor listed as among Judah’s possession at the division of the Land Josh 15.

    I am not sure how much proof you want, or what I can do to convince you there were two places called Bethlehem, the first being the older, which was a city of the North in the tribe of Zebulun, the second a later city founded by Bethlehem the son of Salma whose mother was called Ephratha in the inheritance of Caleb of the tribe of Judah.

    If you have another thesis as to why Bethlehem was mentioned as a city given to Zebulun to the far North, yet deep in the territory of Judah I would be glad to hear it. I would also like for you to explain why Bethlehem needs to be qualified as BethlehemJudah, if there were only one this is unnecessary.

  23. This is Judges 19: 1: “Now it came about in those days, when there was no king in Israel, that there was a certain Levite staying in the remote part of the hill country of Ephraim, who took a concubine for himself from Bethlehem in Judah.” That’s pretty clear. If that’s all the proof you have that there was a Bethlehem in Israel and another one in Judah, then you need to rethink your position. As to the designation “Bethlehem in Judah,” I can only speculate.

  24. This is Judges 19: 1: “Now it came about in those days, when there was no king in Israel, that there was a certain Levite staying in the remote part of the hill country of Ephraim, who took a concubine for himself from Bethlehem in Judah.” That’s pretty clear. If that’s all the proof you have that there was a Bethlehem in Israel and another one in Judah, then you need to rethink your position. As to the designation “Bethlehem in Judah,” I can only speculate.

    Mr. Snyder,

    I simply provided the Textual references which shows there was a Bethlehem in Zebulun, which you failed to address, and also a Bethlehem in Judah, which was named after the son of Salma ben Caleb, whose mother was Ephratha, which is why Bethlehem Judah is called also Ephratha. I was not the one who discovered this, or the first to recognise this, no.

    Please pardon my violation of the agreement we made to stay only with the Tenakh, as this seems to be a problem in how I am presenting these Texts. The fact that there was two places called Bethlehem is well known and documented in history. Even today the Bethlehem of Zebulun called Bethlehem of Galilee is located 7 miles north of Nazareth, and as of 2006 had a population of 651. It is called Bethlehem Zoria in the Jerusalem Talmud.

    The third lot was drawn for the families descended from Zebulun. The border of their inheritance goes as far as Sarid. Toward the west the border ascends to Maralah and touches Dabbesheth and the river near Jokneam. But from Sarid it turns directly east toward the border of Chisloth Tabor, on to Daberath, and then ascends toward Japhia. From there it goes directly east to Gath Hepher, Eth Kazin, and Rimmon, where it turns to Neah. There the border turns north to Hannathon and ends at the valley of Iphtah El. This also includes Kattath, Nahalal, Shimron, Idalah, and Bethlehem. There were 12 cities with their villages. These cities with their villages are the inheritance given to the families descended from Zebulun. (GW Josh 19:10-16) This is equally clear that Bethlehem was located in Zebulun, not Judah. So how then is this contradiction reconciled? It is simple if it is taken into consideration the fact that Bethlehem of Judah was not founded until the time of Bethlehem the son of Salma the son of Caleb, of the tribe of Judah. It is only after this time that we have any mention of BethlehemJudah in the Tenakh, which is also called Ephratha after Salma’s mother, and Bethlehem’s grandmother. The reference to Ephratha in Genesis 35:19 and 48:7 is a clear example of scribal redaction in regard to place names. There are many places which were called after the name of the founder or the one who came to possess it; Hebron was called Kiriath Arba until it was given to Caleb, at that time the name was changed to Hebron as it says:

    In the past Hebron was called Kiriath Arba. Arba was the greatest man among the people of Anak. So the land had peace. (GW Josh 14:15)

    Kiriath Arba means the city of Arba who was the father of Anak (Josh 21:11). There is evidence of this sort of redaction in many places.

  25. I don’t think we’re deviating from the Tanach. We’re simply clarifying before moving ahead.

    This is the substance of the point that I was addressing. In one of your comments, you said, “According to Torah, the first child of the wife of the dead husband inherits the dead husband, and not the near kinsman (Dt 25:5). In this case, both brothers died in Moab, so this means the next nearest kinsman would do; but Boaz was not the next nearest (Rut 3:12). Who this was we are not told. However, Boaz took Ruth as wife, and her first child then inherits the dead husband who was an Ephrati from Bethlehem Judah. So David was either Ephrati from Caleb, or Ephrati from Ephraim, not Judah as Obed inherited from the dead husband and not Boaz.”

    To help me understand the significance of your comment, you need to explain further.

    Also, I mentioned Jeremiah 23: 5-6 as important because it gives us the Messiah’s Name. It’s Yahweh Tsidkenu. You never addressed it. I think you’ll agree that those verses pertain to the Person that most people refer to as the Messiah.

  26. Also, I mentioned Jeremiah 23: 5-6 as important because it gives us the Messiah’s Name. It’s Yahweh Tsidkenu. You never addressed it. I think you’ll agree that those verses pertain to the Person that most people refer to as the Messiah.

    I don’t think this passage names messiah, but Israel and Judah and specifically Jerusalem/Zion. There is some problems with the translation of this verse in the English.

    הִנֵּ֨ה יָמִ֤ים בָּאִים֙ נְאֻמ־יְהוָ֔ה וַהֲקִמֹתִ֥י לְדָוִ֖ד צֶ֣מַח צַדִּ֑יק וּמָ֤לַךְ מֶ֙לֶךְ֙ וְהִשְׂכִּ֔יל וְעָשָׂ֛ה מִשְׁפָּ֥ט וּצְדָקָ֖ה בָּאָֽרֶץ׃ בְּיָמָיו֙ תִּוָּשַׁ֣ע יְהוּדָ֔ה וְיִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל יִשְׁכֹּ֣ן לָבֶ֑טַח וְזֶה־שְּׁמֹ֥ו אֲֽשֶׁר־יִקְרְאֹ֖ו יְהוָ֥ה׀ צִדְקֵֽנוּ׃

    Behold days are coming declares YHWH, and I will establish a righteous sprout for David; then a king will reign and deal prudently, he will do judgement and justice in the land. In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel shall dwell in security; and this is his name which he shall call him, YHWH Our Vindication.

    In the above verse, most English translation will change the grammatical structure of the verse to read: “and this is his name by which he shall be called”. If this were a true tranlsation, the verb form would have been in the niphal imperfect yiqarei with the prepositional phrase lo. However it is not so in the verse. He calls it (tsemakh tsadiq) YHWH Tsidqeinu. The “he” who does the calling is the king which shall reign, the tsemach tsadiq is actually Israel/Judah and specifically Jerusalem. In the first verse tsemach tsadiq is masculine and the pronoun on the verb “he calls him” is also masculine.

    בַּיָּמִ֤ים הָהֵם֙ וּבָעֵ֣ת הַהִ֔יא אַצְמִ֥יחַ לְדָוִ֖ד צֶ֣מַח צְדָקָ֑ה וְעָשָׂ֛ה מִשְׁפָּ֥ט וּצְדָקָ֖ה בָּאָֽרֶץ׃ בַּיָּמִ֤ים הָהֵם֙ תִּוָּשַׁ֣ע יְהוּדָ֔ה וִירוּשָׁלִַ֖ם תִּשְׁכֹּ֣ון לָבֶ֑טַח וְזֶ֥ה אֲשֶׁר־יִקְרָא־לָ֖הּ יְהוָ֥ה׀ צִדְקֵֽנוּ׃
    In those days and at that time, I will cause to sprout (atsmiach) for David a righteous sprout (feminine); and he shall do judgement and justice in the land. In those days Judah shall be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell in security; this is what he shall call her YHWH Our Vindication. (Jer 33:15-16)

    The only difference in these two passages is the change of the gender in the rightous sprout and the pronoun of the verb “he shall call”, and also Israel is changed to Jerusalem. I believe the tsemach in these verses are speaking of Zion, and not about a king who shall rule. The king will call tsemach YHWH Tsidqeinu as mentioned in the earlier verse of Isaiah. In the latter passage, the clause “a king shall reign and deal prudently” is missing, yet his actions are still there “he shall do judgement and justice in the land”. So the entire clause still is qualified by the earlier passage which included “a king shall regin and deal prudently”.

    When left in context and explained by the prophet himself, I believe it is clear that the king which shall reign will not be called YHWH Tsidqeinu rather it is Jerusalem/Zion.

  27. This is the substance of the point that I was addressing. In one of your comments, you said, “According to Torah, the first child of the wife of the dead husband inherits the dead husband, and not the near kinsman (Dt 25:5). In this case, both brothers died in Moab, so this means the next nearest kinsman would do; but Boaz was not the next nearest (Rut 3:12). Who this was we are not told. However, Boaz took Ruth as wife, and her first child then inherits the dead husband who was an Ephrati from Bethlehem Judah. So David was either Ephrati from Caleb, or Ephrati from Ephraim, not Judah as Obed inherited from the dead husband and not Boaz.”

    To help me understand the significance of your comment, you need to explain further.

    I will attempt this again in a different manner. According to the Torah when levirate marriage is performed, the child of that union does not legally belong to the man who donates the seed; rather it belongs to the deceased (Gen 38:8-9; Dt 25:5-6; Ruth 4:6). This means that Obed legally belongs to the deceased, and inherited from him instead of Boaz.

    Elimelech (whose lineage is not recorded) and his sons are called Ephrati from BethlehemJudah. There are two possible ways this occurs. 1) They are descended from Caleb, whose wife was Ephratha; 2) They were from the tribe of Ephraim dwelling in the town of BethlehemJudah. David as well as his father are called Ephrati, which shows his line belongs to Elimelech and not Boaz, as Boaz has nothing to do with Ephratha, by either means (town or mother). Caleb does not appear anywhere in the lineage of David or Boaz, so he cannot be called Ephrati by means of descent from Caleb. The only other option then is he is called Ephrati from some affiliation with Ephraim.

    This is really hard to grasp, but it is nevertheless important. Ephraim received the birthright from Joseph, and had all rights to lead the nation, as the holder of the birthright had leadership of the clans. In Joseph’s dream we see that all of Israel would become subject and subservient to Joseph. This happened literally when Joseph became second to Pharaoh in Egypt. Jacob gave the birthright then to Ephraim before he died in Egypt. The first king of Israel was in fact Moses, who then was instructed to appoint Joshua ben Nun of Jospeh as Shepherd (a king). With the exception of Othniel, all the leaders YHWH raised for Israel of the Judges were from the Northern tribes, who were bound to Ephraim, not Judah. The kingdom was taken from Solomon and delivered to Jeroboam of Ephraim. Judah was all that was left to David. According to Jeremiah 22:30 the Davidic line from Jechoniah is disqualified from the throne of Judah. Hence, he is the last Judaic King in history.

    However we have this prophetic statement:

    כי־כה אמר יהוה לא־יכרת לדוד אישׁ ישׁב על־כסא בית־ישׂראל׃ ולכהנים הלוים לא־יכרת אישׁ מלפני מעלה עולה ומקטיר מנחה ועשׂה־זבח כל־הימים׃

    Thus says YHWH,never shall be cut off of David, a man sitting upon the throne of the House of Israel. As for the Levitical Priests, never shall a man be cut off from My Presence; offering burnt offerings, and burning offerings and making sacrifices all the days. (Jer 33:17-18).

    At this time, the “House of Israel” referred specifically to the Northern Kingdom. So the throne of the House of Israel was the throne of the Northern Kingdom.

    Many commentators claim that this statement was only valid after the coming days when Judah shall be saved and Jerusalem should dwell in security. However, the statement of YHWH was directed at the people at that time who claimed YHWH was casting aside the two families of Levi and David (33:24).

    Amos 9:11-12 says:

    בַּיֹּ֣ום הַה֔וּא אָקִ֛ים אֶת־סֻכַּ֥ת דָּוִ֖יד הַנֹּפֶ֑לֶת וְגָדַרְתִּ֣י אֶת־פִּרְצֵיהֶ֗ן וַהֲרִֽסֹתָיו֙ אָקִ֔ים וּבְנִיתִ֖יהָ כִּימֵ֥י עֹולָֽם׃ לְמַ֨עַן יִֽירְשׁ֜וּ אֶת־שְׁאֵרִ֤ית אֱדֹום֙ וְכָל־הַגֹּויִ֔ם אֲשֶׁר־נִקְרָ֥א שְׁמִ֖י עֲלֵיהֶ֑ם נְאֻמ־יְהוָ֖ה עֹ֥שֶׂה זֹּֽאת׃

    In that day, I will establish the sukkah of David which is fallen; and I will repair its breaches, and its ruins I will establish, and I will build it as in the ancient days. So that they may dispossess the remnants of Edom and all the nations, upon which my name is called; declares YHWH who does this.

    Consider for a moment that David somehow was actually from Ephraim, even though he is accounted of Judah through Boaz. This means he comes from a family which legitimately has right to the throne of Israel, and who was always in possession of the throne of Judah, which was left to him by YHWH. How would or could this happen? There is only one people in the world who can trace their priestly lineage to Aron, and who have continually offered burnt offerings, offerings, and sacrifices, and who can also trace their lineage to Joseph: The Samaritans.

    At some point in time the breach between Judah and Israel (Samaria/Ephraim) will be healed (Is 11:13; Jer 31:6; 31:20; Ezek 37:16-19). How this happens is never explained. However, no king will be appointed from David’s line till Ephraim is reunited to Judah (Ezek 37:24). Judah today is in the Land, and are actively searching for Ephraim, all the while rejecting the Samaritans’ claims. At present there is no Temple restored, and no king returned.

  28. Good explanation. Very interesting. I’ll have to give it some thought.

    That David’s lineage extends to Israel and Judah escaped my notice. I know about the rules of inheritance, but I never stopped to think about them as they apply to David.

    Your comments on the Samaritans intrigue me. I’ll have to think about them.

    I’ll be out of touch for the next several days. My wife’s father died, so we’ll be heading south for a few days.

    Thanks for your explanation.

  29. I am the one who originally made this Picture using Pizap. When I made this picture I had been introduced to our Heavenly Father’s true Hebrew name. After years of studying more I came to realize His Name is YaHuWaH. Our Savior is Yahusha. I know many write and say Yahshua but if you research ‘shua’ it means to cry out whereas ‘sha’ means to save. Shalom :)

  30. Shalom Messianic Kitty,

    I understand how many people there are who wish to know the true pronunciation of the name YHWH; I also realize that there are very few among the messianic and other christian (and even Jewish) movements who know Hebrew grammar.

    Hebrew, as a written language, is only datable to the times of the early kings of Israel and no earlier. This being the case doesn’t in anyway prove Hebrew was not a spoken language earlier, but that is a moot point.

    The Hebrew Text which is used for almost all Bibles is the Masoretic Text which was standardized by the Masorete Scribes in the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE. They did not invent a new pronunciation, rather they standardized the Tiberian pronunciation as the official pronunciation of the Tenakh. The rules to syllabification, conjugations, etc. were already long established before these scribes standardized the Text. The reason for this standardizations was because of the diaspora enforced upon the Israelites by the Romans, and later the Byzantines. The Israelites living abroad soon began to speak only the vernacular of the land in which they lived; this caused many to forget Hebrew and its grammar, as well as pronunciation. So the Masoretes invented a vowel system which standardized the pronunciation based upon the rules of grammar which was already established. This is similar to what happened with the Qur’an and the Arabic language; the natives (both Hebrew and Arab) do not need written vowels as they learn how to inflect the language from the time they first learn how to speak. The vowels are for the non-natives who wish to speak Hebrew and Arabic.

    Even if one might suppose that Yeshua’s name is from the verb שוע ShaWa’, Yahshua would not be how this name would inflect; it would be inflected as: יִשְׁוַע Yishwa’. The waw is actually a consonant and does not cause the verb to be a Hollow verb, hence the waw is pronounced. There is no inflection of the verb ShaWa’ which would have the shua’ as a part of the inflection; the participle of ShaWa’ would even be inflected as Showei’a.

    On the other hand, the verb YaSha’ does not normally inflect with a shua, as it is conjugated in the hiphil and niphal only. Mosheh named Hoshea ben Nun Yehoshu’a, which is the noun form of the verb Yehoshi’a as is found in 1 Samuel 17:47 (which is a play on the name YaH, and the infinitive Hoshi’a). The name of Hoshe’a is the infinitive form of YaSha’. The Name YaH is preficed to it and it thus forms YeHoShu’a, which is a play on the two nouns YaH and Yeshu’a which means “salvation” as in Genesis 49:18, “I have waited for your Salvation(LeYeshu’atekha), YHWH.” So, Yeshu’a can be called Yeshu’a, or as many like to say, Yehoshu’a: the former means salvation and the latter means YaH is Salvation.

    Yaaqov ben Yisrael

  31. There is a movement today in which neo-Hebraists are trying to redefine how ancient Hebrew is to be pronounced and interpreted. This is a pseudoscience as most of these personalities have no training in linguistics, let alone in Hebrew.

    Arabic is one of the oldest Semitic languages which has continually been spoken and a living language since before the time of Abraham. It broke off from Akkadian very early and for the most part still inflicts like its mother language. The oldest Arabic inscriptions, many of which are either Kufic or Ge’ez, resemble the same rules as modern Arabic. Even the Qur’an, which is the standard of all Arabic today, is still intelligible to all Arabs everywhere.

    Using this new pseudoscience of interpretation, the Qur’an will lose all its true meaning. This shows how dangerous it is to claim some new interpretation is more correct than the rules which were created by those who were born speaking it in a time it was a living language. Beware of the neo-Hebraists and their false ideas which corrupt sound Biblical exegesis.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>