“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;