Jewish Interpretation of Psalm 51:5

[Moses613]

Remnant, thanks for your clarifications.

What Messiah are you talking about here?

Whomever God sees fit to choose, at the time that He sees fit to reveal him. Among the qualifications of the Messiah are that he will be a perfectly righteous Torah scholar, and a descendant of King David through his son King Solomon.

So you believe that it was a sin and that sin caused not only Adam and Eve to die but the rest of mankind?

That’s one way of putting it. Their sin inevitably resulted in their physical lives becoming of a limited duration, and that of all their descendants after them. Their sin dragged the entire world down to a lower level where everyone must die. However, the death of their descendants after them is not a punishment for their sin. It’s a consequence of living in a more debased world.

 

[LionHeart777]

Thanks that was very helpful.

I must say, it’s very interesting for me to ponder how Jews understand their own scriptures, and how, in many significant areas (like original/ancestral sin, Savior, atonement for sins, etc) there are differences with the Christian view of the OT. Interesting because Christianity, which purports to be the fulfillment of Judaism (or at least the OT) begins with premises and understandings of the OT/Judaism that aren’t even shared by the community it is supposed to be fulfilling. And these are things that I don’t think many Christians even know about or care to think about, since in many cases its just assumed that Judaism and Christianity share the same views on those foundational issues that resulted in the need for Christ and Christianity. Hope that made some kinda of sense, I’m just rambling.

I actually just bought on Kindle the book “Judaism and Christianity: A Contrast” by Rabbi Stuart Federow, as it touches on these same issues from a Jewish perspective.

A couple comments I would like to make here:

First, this presupposes that Judaism hasn’t changed since the 1st century.

Second, even in the 1st century there were groups of Jews with differing beliefs. For example, the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the dead whereas the Pharisees did (and Christians do too.) Then there was the Essenes whose beliefs I am less certain about.

 

[meltzerboy]

A couple comments I would like to make here:

First, this presupposes that Judaism hasn’t changed since the 1st century.

Second, even in the 1st century there were groups of Jews with differing beliefs. For example, the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the dead whereas the Pharisees did (and Christians do too.) Then there was the Essenes whose beliefs I am less certain about.

In one sense, Judaism has certainly not changed since the 1st century, and that is, there are still differences of opinion and internal squabbles between and within the various movements of Judaism. In ancient times, there were about 20 or so competing varieties of Judaism: the three you mention are the ones we are most familiar with, but there were several other Jewish movements as well. Today it’s almost the same. Even within Orthodox Judaism, there are different types, let alone less Orthodox movements such as Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, Humanist, and so on. While there may be certain essential doctrines that nearly all Jews agree on, the rest is up for discussion, debate, and argument. That’s the nature of Judaism, and yet we are all regarded as Jews.

 

[504Katrin]

As I continue to dialogue with Jews (God bless them!) I’m noticing the same thing more and more and have come to realise the ultimate dividing factor that distinguishes how Christians and Jews interpret scripture is Christians are Christocentric. Their eyes are fixed on Jesus when it comes to reading the entire bible. Every passage must be read in light of Jesus. That is why Original Sin makes sense to Christians but none whatsoever to Jews.

Please, would you explain this further? If original sin weren’t inherited what difference would it make to Christians? Isn’t it enough that we all feel the effects of their sin/action?

I talked to Catholics before that don’t believe that the “OT” is to be taken literally, and they think that Garden Eden didn’t even happen. One of them is a Diacon, so it must be possible to even have some authority in the church while refusing at the same time

 

[chosen_people]

I guess what I’m wondering, without making this complicated, or having anyone read into my questions things that I’m not saying or thinking, is how do Jews view the events of the Garden of Eden involving Adam and Eve and eating the fruit? What is the Jewish understanding of their disobeying God? I’m assuming that Genesis is part of the Hebrew Bible, so I’m wondering how that is understood, especially since Jews do not hold to a belief in original sin.

Also, what was the purpose of animal sacrifice as we read in the OT (which again, I’m assuming is also read by Jews)? How do Jews today view it since it is no longer practiced? Did another practice replace it? Was there a relationship between animal sacrifice and atonement for sin?

When someone who is grounded in the concepts of Judaism reads the story of Adam and Chava (Eve) and the garden of Eden the whole story has a wonderful completeness and logic, every passage (or small group of passages) holding an idea and concept in Judaism. These concepts range from the source of good and evil, the meaning of free will, commandments, equality, the role of women, spirituality on earth, to name just a few… It is beyond my ken to understand how non-Jews who do not hold these concepts or who in many cases hold totally antithetical concepts, can read the Jewish scriptures without feeling that everything is disconnected. Suffice it to say that only ostensibly are we reading the same scriptures.

 

[Corcontritum]

One thing I think it is important to point out, is that the interpretation of these verses is not at all central to any fundamentals of Judaism, and therefore the resolution of their ambiguity is not an urgent topic for us. This is because the doctrine of original sin is completely foreign to Jewish belief. The Bible (OT) does not indicate anywhere that this sin is something that all Adam’s descendants need atonement for. It’s kind of like before the Flood, when humanity was almost entirely sinful, and God made a decree that generally the human lifespan would be lowered to 120 years or less. That changed humans’ physical nature forever, but the sins of the generation of the Flood are not with us today. IOW, whether or not Adam and Eve sinned or simply made a “bad choice” doesn’t affect us practically. Christians, on the other hand, of necessity believe that there must be one authoritative interpretation of the verses which indicates a sin, because that belief is fundamental to their religion.

That leads into why we don’t believe that humanity needs to be “saved.” People are born with a blank slate. If they act sinfully, then they must repair that which they perverted. Otherwise, the point is to gain closeness to God, as much as possible. Of course, we view
the goodness of the afterlife as something which has to be earned. But the “default setting” is not eternal damnation.

To bring the thread back to the original verse from Psalms which was asked about, King David is saying that he himself was conceived through a sinful act, not that he had sin from the time he was conceived. One explanation of this sin found in the Talmud, I believe, is that Jesse did not know that the woman he was with was actually his wife (perhaps he mistook her for another one of his wives, or a concubine?), and it is considered sinful to a certain
degree to be with one woman while thinking of another. However, I don’t know if this is universally accepted, because there is another Jewish tradition that Jesse is one of the four people in history who never committed a sin. Maybe I’ll do some research.

I come from the Eastern Orthodox tradition where Adams sin is not considered personal but only the effects. This seems similar to what you are are describing about yetser ha-ra

 

[504Katrin]

When someone who is grounded in the concepts of Judaism reads the story of Adam and Chava (Eve) and the garden of Eden the whole story has a wonderful completeness and logic, every passage (or small group of passages) holding an idea and concept in Judaism. These concepts range from the source of good and evil, the meaning of free will, commandments, equality, the role of women, spirituality on earth, to name just a few… It is beyond my ken to understand how non-Jews who do not hold these concepts or who in many cases hold totally antithetical concepts, can read the Jewish scriptures without feeling that everything is disconnected. Suffice it to say that only ostensibly are we reading the same scriptures.

The first chapters alone seem to embrace everything life is about. We’ve been studying chapter two in class for the past month, once a week, and ongoing… Then, we’ll hopefully soon get to the questions I asked the Rabbi who told me we would “discuss this at a later time” like, Gan Eden was East from what? And is this perhaps also why we pray to the East and used to have the Beit HaMikdash built accordingly, not only because Light was created East, but also because Eden was there? Are both perhaps related as Eden was a perfect place? Do you happen to know this maybe?

 

[504Katrin]

As I continue to dialogue with Jews (God bless them!) I’m noticing the same thing more and more and have come to realise the ultimate dividing factor that distinguishes how Christians and Jews interpret scripture is Christians are Christocentric. Their eyes are fixed on Jesus when it comes to reading the entire bible. Every passage must be read in light of Jesus. That is why Original Sin makes sense to Christians but none whatsoever to Jews.

AWE! Thank you, may He bless you, too

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

“Behold, in iniquity was I fashioned and in sin did my mother conceive me”

Ibn Ezra explains: The impulses which can cause man to sin are present in him from his inception. It is man’s duty to control and channel them properly.

The Catholic Church calls Ibn Ezra’s explanation “concupiscence”. This concupiscence is a direct result from original sin that we inherited from our fallen humanity (first parents Adam and Eve). Adam and Eve were created to live eternally with God. When they disobeyed God and broke their creation covenant, the Word of God ordered them to dust from which they came. Original sin still effects humanity today, because our bodies return to dust. The soul which is eternal is what Jesus redeemed from his humanity.

Ibn Ezra’s commentary does not disqualify original sin, it supports it…

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

As I continue to dialogue with Jews (God bless them!) I’m noticing the same thing more and more and have come to realise the ultimate dividing factor that distinguishes how Christians and Jews interpret scripture is Christians are Christocentric. Their eyes are fixed on Jesus when it comes to reading the entire bible. Every passage must be read in light of Jesus. That is why Original Sin makes sense to Christians but none whatsoever to Jews.

Spoken from a Jew directly to Christians; Luke 24:27 “Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them what referred to him in all the scriptures”

44 He said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and psalms must be fulfilled. 45 THEN HE OPENED THEIR MINDS TO UNDERSTAND THE SCRIPTURES…