A note: Christians tend to read the Hebrew Bible as proving that Jesus is both the Messiah and God. Jews tend to read the Hebrew Bible with an eye toward context and an awareness of Hebrew grammar. This leads to different interpretations of stories.

Christian interpretation: Jesus was there at the beginning of Creation. Why? Because in John 8:12 and John 9:5 Jesus says "I am the light of the world", and here there is light at the beginning of creation.

Jewish interpretation: This is talking about actual light, which is why the light is called "Day". Otherwise, verse 5 ("There was evening and there was morning") wouldn't make sense in context.

Christian interpretation: Not only Jesus was there at the beginning, but so was the Holy Spirit. Why? Because "ruach" means "spirit", so "ruach Elohim" means "spirit of G-d", which must be the Holy Spirit.

Jewish interpretation: Sometimes "ruach" means "spirit", but sometimes it means "wind". For instance, in Genesis 3:8 Adam and Eve hear G-d moving about in the garden "b'ruach hayom", which makes more sense as "the wind of the day" than "the Spirit of the day", and in Exodus 10:13 it seems more likely that a wind is carrying off the plague of locusts than the Holy Spirit. Moreover, sometimes "Elohim" is used as a superlative, such as Psalm 36:6 (or 36:7) which talks about the "mighty mountains" but uses G-d's name to describe them. Therefore, "ruach Elohim" could be "a mighty wind".

Christian interpretation: The use of "us" proves the Trinity, because "us" implies more than one. Plus "Elohim" is a name for G-d with a plural ending.

Jewish interpretation: The verbs in verse 27 are in the form used when a singular individual is doing something, and that is true when "Elohim" is used throughout the Bible. Therefore, G-d must be talking to someone else. That someone else is the Divine Council, attested to in Job 1:6, Isaiah 6:1-3 (source of the "Kadosh kadosh kadosh" line in the Kedushah prayer), 1 Kings 22:19, Psalms 82:1, and Psalms 29:1. We know that those in the Divine Council have the appearance of people from Ezekiel 1:26, Daniel 7:13, Genesis 18:2, and Judges 13:16. Thus, it makes sense that G-d would talk to the Divine Council and say that humankind would be created in not only the Divine image but also in the image of those in the Divine Council.

Christian interpretation: Adam and Eve ate the fruit and so all humanity is born already as sinners.

Jewish interpretation: Each person is responsible for their own mistakes (Deuteronomy 24:16; Ezekiel 18:20, Jeremiah 31:30). Moreover, people can be held accountable because they are responsible for their own actions -- it's not that they were born bad.

Christian interpretation: According to Hebrews 7, Melchizedek's parents aren't mentioned, nor is his death, so therefore he must exist eternally just like Jesus. Since Abram gave Melchizedek a tithe and Melchizedek gave Abram a blessing, that means that Melchizedek is superior to Abraham. Then, since Psalm 110:4 says "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek", and Jesus exists forever with G-d, that means that Jesus is on Team Melchizedek. Thus Jesus and the Christians are better than the Levites and the Jews, since they come from Abram and Melchizedek is superior to Abram.

Jewish interpretation: Psalm 110 is talking about a king (verse 2 talks about "stretch forth your scepter", verse 3 talks about "your people"). Therefore, Psalm 110:4 is saying that just like Melchizedek was a king and also a priest, this unnamed (but probably Davidic) king will be able to offer sacrifices even without being descended from Levi. The Talmud (Nedarim 32b:6-8) also notices that Melchizedek blesses Abram before G-d and imagines G-d saying the Melchizedek got the order wrong and so the priesthood will go to Abram's descendants. This explains why it says in the text "He was a priest" but doesn't say that he and his sons were priests.

Christian interpretation: The Passover sacrifice refers to Jesus (1 Corinthians 5:7). Why? Because he had no blemishes, was killed the day before Passover when the Passover sacrifice was killed (according to John, but not according to Mark, Matthew, or Luke), and took away sin through being sacrificed.

Jewish interpretation: The Exodus text refers to a lamb killed in Egypt before the Tenth Plague, while the Deuteronomy text refers to lambs killed in the Temple as a remembrance of leaving Egypt. Jesus does not meet the requirements for this lamb: 1. Jesus was not slaughtered in the appropriate ritual fashion. 2. He was not killed in the Temple. 3. He still had his flesh the next morning. 4. The sacrifice was to be killed in the evening, and Jesus died at 3 PM (Mark 15:34-37). 5. Jesus was not cooked (nor roasted). 6. Jesus was not eaten. 7. Putting a nail through a sacrifice would disqualify it from being "without blemish". 8. Jesus was older than 1 year. 9. The original Passover sacrifice had its blood smeared on the doors. 10. The Passover sacrifice is not a "chata't" (sin) offering, so it doesn't actually take away anybody's sin.

Christian interpretation: The pregnant woman is actually a virgin and this is talking about Jesus.

Jewish interpretation: This is talking about a woman who was with King Ahaz at the time (hence "Look, the young woman is with child"), and King Ahaz is being told that by the time the child is born and can eat solid food the kings will not be threatening him. It would not do King Ahaz much good to know that this won't happen for 700 more years. Moreover, the word for "young woman" (alma) is different from the Biblical word for "virgin" (betulah), and the word for "is pregnant" (harah) is different from "will be pregnant" (tehereh). Also, Jesus wasn't actually ever called "Immanuel" (despite Matthew 1:21-23, which says "You shall call him 'Jesus' to fulfill 'they shall call him "Immanuel" ' ")

Christian interpretation: This shows that Jesus was going to be resurrected on the 3rd day.

Jewish interpretation: This shows that according to the story, Jonah was spewed out on the 4th day. Also, there is a Biblical pattern of things happening the 4th time: 1. In Amos 1-2, the 4th sin is the one that dooms the neighboring countries. 2. In the showdown at Mt. Carmel (1 Kings 18:33-34), it is after the 3rd round of water on the wood of the alter that the alter ignites. 3. After 3 sons are born to Jacob, the 4th one is the one from which the Davidic monarchy will come (Judah).

Christian interpretation: The problem here is homosexuality.

Jewish interpretation: The problem here is inhospitability. Ezekiel 16:49-50 makes this very clear that the reason G-d did away with Sodom is because they didn't take care of the needy.

By Moshe Daniel Levine; November 16, 2020

I constantly stress to my students in Hillel that the dominant Western or Christian-centric exegesis of biblical stories is often very much the opposite of Jewish interpretation. This is true with the creation story and the subsequent eating from the tree, which Jewish thinkers read as a story of human empowerment as we gained the ability to discern good from evil, and which Christian exegetes paint as a story of original sin where humans are thereby rendered incapable of their own salvation. It’s true about the Akeda, which Jewish thinkers use as a foundational narrative to explore and debate their discomfort with God commanding such an abhorrent act (There must be something in the story we are missing, they say), while Christian thinkers use it to support an argument that blind and even paradoxical faith is the highest religious virtue. And it’s true for dozens of other examples sprinkled throughout the Hebrew Bible.

One particular example, one which I find increasingly relevant in these political times, is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.“Wait, Sodom and Gomorrah! Isn’t that the really anti-gay story in the Bible?” This is the response I received from most of my students as I began to lead a class on the topic a few days back. And why shouldn’t it be? Understanding Sodom as an anti-gay story has been the dominant Christian/Western interpretation for millenium. An interpretation so dominant that it has even culminated into a word, “sodomy,” that has historically been used to pass laws against homosexual activity. Needless to say this is not how the Jewish tradition has understood this story. While there is a slight nod to the homosexual interpretation, albeit in a radically different way than you might think, the Jewish understanding of this narratives goes in a completely different direction. We know that Sodom becomes the paradigm of evil for biblical thinkers. Prophet after prophet arrives to warn the people to distance themselves from the nefarious actions of Sodom lest they suffer a similar outcome. But what was so bad about Sodom? Why specifically did it “merit” to forever be the exemplar of wrongdoing? The prophet Ezekiel begins to answer this question: Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. (Ezekiel 16:49-50) Ezekiel explicitly says that the sin of Sodom was that “they did not help the poor and the needy.” He then goes on to say that they “did detestable things before me.” The language here is important. Generations of Christian thinkers assumed that “detestable things” was an allusion to homosexuality, and thus included Ezekiel within their interpretation. The Talmud, however, begs to differ. The people of Sodom said: Since we live in a land from which bread comes and has the dust of gold, we have everything that we need. Why do we need travelers, as they come only to divest us of our property? Come, let us cause the proper treatment of travelers to be forgotten from our land. (Talmud Sanhedrin 109a) The Talmud basically understands Sodom’s chief iniquity to be the fact that they closed off their gates to strangers. One of the Torah’s central principles is the fact that Jews were once strangers in the land of Egypt, which endowed us with the moral imperative to care for the less fortunate; shunning travelers is a big transgression. Whenever a pauper happened to come to them, each and every Sodomite would give him a dinar, and before doing so would write his name on [the coin] And, as per a prior agreement, [the Sodomites] would not offer [the pauper] bread. When [the pauper] eventually died of hunger, each and every Sodomite came and took back his coin (Talmud Sanhedrin 109a). In Talmudic thinking, running a society that closes its gates to foreigners will eventually lead to subterfuge and even passive murder. Perhaps worse is that here, the Sodomites are presenting a facade of welcoming. One final Midrashic take should drive this point home: R. Levi said: [God said]: ‘Even if I wished to keep silent, justice for a certain maiden (ribah) does not permit Me to keep silent.’ For it once happened that two girls went down to draw water from a well. One said to the other, ‘Why are you so pale?’ She replied: ‘We have no more food left and are ready to die.” What did she do? She filled her pitcher with flour and they exchanged [their pitchers], each taking the other’s. When they [the Sodomites] discovered this, they took and burnt her. (Genesis Rabbah 49:6) There’s a lot to say about these Midrashim, least of all that they have nothing to do with homosexuality. In the Jewish tradition, it seems that the word “sodomy” is attached to a lack of care for others, not to anal sex. The worst of societal behaviour — being a Sodomite — is the running of a society that is fundamentally closed off to strangers and immigrants. But reality is always more complicated, I know people will respond. Policy is always more complex than a couple of hyperbolic stories can highlight, especially on controversial issues such as immigration. I have written plenty about immigration from both a Jewish and universal perspective and it is not my desire here to rehash that conversation. Instead I want to conclude with a well-known Mishna that both highlights the sheer spectrum of opinion on this matter within the Jewish tradition. A person who says: “mine is mine, and yours is yours” (I will keep all of my belongings and not share and you can keep all your belongings and not share): this is an average/normal person. But some say this is a Sodom-type of character. (Mishna Avot 513) Which side you find convincing is henceforth up to you.

Moshe Daniel Levine is the Senior Jewish Educator at OC Hillel and a Rabbinic fellow at Temple Beth Tikvah. You can read more of his writing here. He can be reached at [email protected].