"Brown presents an objection to Christianity:
“When Jesus failed to fulfill the prophecies, his followers invented the myth of his substitutionary death, his resurrection, and finally his second coming, which, of course, they completely expected in his lifetime.”
Brown responds on behalf of Christianity:
“In order to make this claim, you virtually have to rewrite the entire New Testament, since a central theme of those writings, from their earliest strata on, is that Jesus had to go to the cross and suffer and die and then rise from the dead.”
Brown’s response does not begin to address the objection. The New Testament was written after the disappointed followers of Jesus had already developed a semi-coherent theology to explain the death of their leader. No one claims that any part of the New Testament was written while Jesus was alive. The fact that the New Testament claims that Jesus preached about his death is to be expected. At the same time, the authors of the New Testament admit that the disciples of Jesus did not expect him to die, and that they originally saw his death as a refutation to his Messianic claim (Luke 24:21).
Brown himself admits that the disciples of Jesus only understood his death as part of his Messianic mission after the crucifixion (page 107). So there is no question that Jesus did not teach about his death in a clear and explicit way. It was only after his death and after rumors of his resurrection began to circulate that his disciples came up with the story that he had already taught about his death during his lifetime, but that they had not properly understood his teaching at the time."
Luke 24:21 says the following:
"17 He asked them, “What are you discussing together as you walk along?”
They stood still, their faces downcast. 18 One of them, named Cleopas, asked him, “Are you the only one visiting Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?”
19 “What things?” he asked.
“About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. 20 The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; 21 but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. 22 In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning 23 but didn’t find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. 24 Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but they did not see Jesus.”
25 He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.
28 As they approached the village to which they were going, Jesus continued on as if he were going farther. 29 But they urged him strongly, “Stay with us, for it is nearly evening; the day is almost over.” So he went in to stay with them.
30 When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. 32 They asked each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?”"
Within the context, those who knew Jesus certainly didn't expect that Jesus came to die on the cross, despite the fact on numerous occasions he made it clear that he would suffer, die AND rise again. Blumenthal claims that the disciples " came up with the story that he had already taught about his death during his lifetime, but that they had not properly understood his teaching at the time." But this doesn't explain the radical change of attitude after they claimed to see him. Liars make poor martyrs, If the disciples knew fully well that Jesus was NOT going to rise from the dead but instead liberate Israel in his lifetime, they would not of been so inclined to die for what they KNEW to be a lie. It is one thing to be convinced in your mind that something is true and die for that cause, but it's quite another story to wilfully die knowing full well that what you were telling people was a lie. A conspiracy hypothesis doesn't work. Either the disciples were deluded, or they were convinced they saw Jesus and understood the significance of his death and why he went through with it.
To the best of my knowledge, no serious historian would deny the existence of Jesus, secular or otherwise.
Even ancient historians like Josephus acknowledge the existence of Jesus. If you take out the interpolations, you are left with the following:
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him and the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day."
What Blumenthal is presenting is merely a theory about the NT. Again, If the disciples did not expect Jesus to die, for what reason would they lie? There is none, so the disciples must of been deceived or are telling the truth. Additionally, notice the context Blumenthal quotes from. In the context, some of the disciples were speaking to Jesus on the road, but did not realise it until later on. If Jesus was on the road not merely a hallucination, this demonstrates that the disciples were not lying about their master's resurrection, but believed he had rose from the dead.
"Let us summarize what the Christian Scriptures tell us about the progression of events in the community of Jesus’ disciples.
A) – While Jesus was alive, his disciples believed he was the Messiah, but did not expect him to die.
What we learn from this is that Jesus did not teach his disciples the Christian doctrine of the substitutionary death of the Messiah. If we assume that the disciples of Jesus were familiar with the Jewish Scriptures, then this fact teaches us that the disciples of Jesus read the entirety of the Jewish Scriptures, including Isaiah 53, Daniel 9, and Psalm 22 without seeing the concept of the substitutionary death of the Messiah. They obviously had a different interpretation of these passages. An interesting question to ponder is: On what basis did they understand that Jesus is the Messiah? This was before the crucifixion, so they didn’t have Isaiah 53, they didn’t have Daniel 9 or Psalm 22. They believed he was some type of divine being – but on what basis? And if these people were so credulous so as to accept these claims without a Biblical basis, then why should we trust anything these people tell us?
If we accept the alternative scenario; that the disciples of Jesus were ignorant of the Jewish Scriptures, then the fact that they accepted Jesus as the Messiah is meaningless. Their opinion would be worthless.
B) – At the point of the crucifixion, the disciples despaired of Jesus being the Messiah.
C) – At some point in time after the crucifixion, the disciples “came to understand” that this was the role of the Messiah all along.
This means that the crucifixion of their beloved leader caused them to reinterpret the Jewish Scriptures in a manner that they had not understood them until now. Not only were they reinterpreting the Jewish Scriptures, but they were also reinterpreting the message of Jesus. These were the people who were with Jesus throughout his entire teaching career – and they had never heard of the concept of the “substitutionary death of the Messiah”."
In previous papers, I have mentioned in the past that the NT as a historical document gives us insight as to what the JEWS as a whole believed, not just the disciples beliefs before Christ's death. Early Jews did acknowledge the Messiah would be a King, usher in universal peace and the knowledge of God. Both Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity both agree on these points. This is a comment I made in one of my previous papers, Biblical quotes are underlined:
"If we take the NT as a HISTORICAL record, It gives us an insight into the early opinions of the Jews themselves. It doesn't have an exhaustive record of what they believed, but it records some of the early opinions on where the Messiah would be born, what he would do etc. John 7 even records this:
"John 7:37 On the last and greatest day of the festival, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink. 38 Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them.”[c] 39 By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.
40 On hearing his words, some of the people said, “Surely this man is the Prophet.”
41 Others said, “He is the Messiah.”
Still others asked, “How can the Messiah come from Galilee? 42 Does not Scripture say that the Messiah will come from David’s descendants and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?” 43 Thus the people were divided because of Jesus. 44 Some wanted to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him."
Some of the people were confused, they were convinced that the Messiah WOULD come from Bethlehem, yet some, knowing that Jesus had been raised in Galilee, were sceptical that Jesus was the Messiah. Putting aside the Messiahship of Jesus for now here, Notice the people, not just the high priests, were convinced the Prophet came from Bethlehem. Blumenthal has the right to reject this, he is free in the matter, but in the case of historical study, the NT is a reliable source that mentions Rabbinic opinion and those of the lay people. Even the Talmud records debate and discussion with respect to the Messiah. Does this mean I deny the inspiration of the NT? By no means. I do affirm the NT as God's word just as the TANAKH is."
There were people that were convinced Jesus was the Messiah, even without Isaiah 53, Daniel 9 and Psalm 22, because obviously those are not the ONLY Messianic passages we have, Isaiah 11 is treated as Messianic by Rabbinic Jews and Christians alike as one example. While members of the Jewish people were wondering if Christ was the Messiah, they didn't expect him to die and that was a blind spot that they had. While they may not of had the same Messianic passages in mind that the disciples would have later, this wouldn't invalidate Christ. Furthermore, the standard that people would of used to prove Christ was the Messiah would of been the TANAKH. As for the subject of his deity, John points to the vision in Isaiah 6 and to Isaiah 53:
"37 Even after Jesus had performed so many signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him. 38 This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet:
“Lord, who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”[a]
39 For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere:
40 “He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their hearts,
so they can neither see with their eyes,
nor understand with their hearts,
nor turn—and I would heal them.”[b]
41 Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him."
As Dr James R. White notes:
"Towards the end of Jesus'public ministry as recorded by John we find an incident where a group of Greeks seek out the Lord Jesus. The significance of the passage often goes right past us because we are looking more at the encounter than a little comment John tacks on to the end of his citation of Isaiah:
"37 But though He had performed so many [a]signs before them, yet they were not believing in Him. 38 This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: “Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” 39 For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, 40 “He has blinded their eyes and He hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and [b]be converted and I heal them.” 41 These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him.""
The struggle with the meaning of the words of Isaiah often causes us to fly right past verse 41. Yet what does John mean when he says that Isaiah "said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him"? Who is the "Him" to whom Isaiah refers?
We have to go back a little to see that John cites two passages from the book of Isaiah. In verse 38 he quotes from Isaiah 53:1, the great "Suffering Servant" passage that so plainly describes the ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ. John says the unbelief of the Jews, despite their seeing signs, was a fulfilment of the word of Isaiah in Isaiah 53. He then goes beyond this to assert their inability to believe and quotes from Isaiah 6 and the "Temple Vision" Isaiah recieved when he was commissioned as a prophet:
"6 In the year of King Uzziah’s death I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple. 2 Seraphim stood above Him, each having six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. 3 And one called out to another and said,
“Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of hosts,
The [a]whole earth is full of His glory.”
4 And the [b]foundations of the thresholds trembled at the voice of him who called out, while the [c]temple was filling with smoke."
In this awesome vision Isaiah sees YHWH (The LORD) sitting on upon his throne, surrounded by angelic worshippers. The glory of YHWH fills his sight. Isaiah recognises his sin and is cleansed by the Lord, then commissioned to go and take a message to the people. But the message is not one of salvation, but of judgement.
"9 He said, “Go, and tell this people:
‘Keep on listening, but do not perceive;
Keep on looking, but do not understand.’
10 “Render the hearts of this people [e]insensitive,
Their ears [f]dull,
And their eyes [g]dim,
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
Hear with their ears,
Understand with their hearts,
And return and be healed.”
11 Then I said, “Lord, how long?” And He answered,
“Until cities are devastated and without inhabitant,
Houses are without people
And the land is utterly desolate,"
John cites the heart of the message of judgement given to Isaiah and sees the hard-heartedness of the Jews, who had seen the miracles of the Lord Jesus and heard His words of grace as the fulfilment of these words.
Then John says, "These things Isaiah said because he saw his glory, and saw spoke of Him". John has quoted from two passages in Isaiah, Isaiah 53 and Isaiah 6:10. Yet the immediate context refers to the words from Isaiah 6, and there are other reasons why we should see the primary reference as the Isaiah 6 passage. John speaks of Isaiah "seeing" "glory". In Isaiah 6:1 the very same term is used of "seeing" the LORD and the very term glory appears in verse 3. Even if we connect both passages together, the fact remains that the only way to define what "glory" Isaiah saw was to refer to the glory of Isaiah 6:3. and that glory was the glory of YHWH. There is none other whose glory we can connect with Isaiah's words.
Therefore, if we ask Isaiah "Whose glory did you see in your vision of the temple?" he woulds reply "YHWH's" But if we ask the same question of John "Whose glory did Isaiah see" he would answer with the same answer only in it's fullness, "Jesus." Who then, was Jesus according to John? None other than the eternal God in human flesh, YHWH.
If the apostles did not hesitate to apply to the Lord Jesus such unique and distinctive passages that can only meaningfully be applied to deity, to the Lord Jesus, how can we fails to give Him the same honor in recognizing Him for who He truly is?" (James R. White The Forgotten Trinity Pg 136-138).
I am aware of Blumenthal's statement here:
"What we learn from this is that Jesus did not teach his disciples the Christian doctrine of the substitutionary death of the Messiah. If we assume that the disciples of Jesus were familiar with the Jewish Scriptures, then this fact teaches us that the disciples of Jesus read the entirety of the Jewish Scriptures, including Isaiah 53, Daniel 9, and Psalm 22 without seeing the concept of the substitutionary death of the Messiah. They obviously had a different interpretation of these passages. An interesting question to ponder is: On what basis did they understand that Jesus is the Messiah? This was before the crucifixion, so they didn’t have Isaiah 53, they didn’t have Daniel 9 or Psalm 22. They believed he was some type of divine being – but on what basis? And if these people were so credulous so as to accept these claims without a Biblical basis, then why should we trust anything these people tell us?"
I was simply making a point regarding the deity of Christ. After the crucifixion and resurrection the apostles understood the significance of the texts that Blumenthal mentions, namely Daniel 9, Psalm 22 and so forth.
Also, the disciples themselves would have been familiar with the scriptures themselves, it was the responsibility of the religious leaders of the Jews to read the TANAKH to the other Jews and literacy is certainly to the best of my knowledge is required among Jews, including the ancient ones. My point is they would not be ignorant of the scriptures and those who wrote the NT would have expected their audiences to know the content of the TANAKH as well.
Also, the disciples themselves would have been familiar with the scriptures themselves, it was the responsibility of the religious leaders of the Jews to read the TANAKH to the other Jews and literacy is certainly to the best of my knowledge is required among Jews, including the ancient ones. My point is they would not be ignorant of the scriptures and those who wrote the NT would have expected their audiences to know the content of the TANAKH as well.
Blumenthal is presenting a theory about the disciples conjuring up the substitutionary work of Christ rather than admit Christ was false. Liars make poor martyrs as I have said before. For what reason would they try and explain the death of their leader?
"In analyzing this situation we are left with two options: 1) – Jesus really did teach about his substitutionary death, and the Jewish Scriptures are also quite clear on this subject – but for some odd reason – although the disciples had the evidence staring them in the face – they couldn’t understand this most foundational teaching of their beloved teacher. This begs the question: what other teachings of Jesus did his disciples misunderstand or simply “not get”?
Option 2) – Jesus never taught about the substitutionary death of the Messiah, and the Jewish Scriptures do not present any clear teaching on this matter – but with the unexpected death of their beloved leader – the disciples could not admit that their leader was a fraud – so their internal mental defense mechanism slowly came up with the theology of the substitutionary death of the Messiah – including some imaginative readings of both the Jewish Scriptures and of the teachings of their leader.
To help you with this analysis – please consider the following: From a historical perspective – how many followers of charismatic leaders had the courage and honesty to admit that the devotion they felt towards their leader was wrong when the facts didn't turn out as expected?"
1. Jesus said he came to give his life as a ransom for many and did hint at his death. Also, sometimes the disciples didn't understand Jesus' points at the time they were spoken, but that doesn't mean they didn't understand them at a later date or couldn't understand them at a later date. It's like bringing a new objection that you have never heard of and you don't have an answer at the time it is presented, but after careful thought you would then know the answer. The apostles later understood Jesus' points, but not at the time they were raised, which isn't a problem to be honest. One can be ignorant on a subject and then be enlightened and thus know better.
2. You need to show in what way that Jesus would of denied his substitutionary atonement, again, Why would the disciples fabricate a lie and then die for that lie, knowing it is blatantly a lie. As I have said before, Liars make poor martyrs.
I shall look at some more objections in another article.
Answering Judaism.
No comments:
Post a Comment