Idolatry, Incarnation and the Definition of Marriage: A response to Yisroel Blumenthal

I posted a response to Rabbi Blumenthal's article on Jeremiah 10:11, an article of his which you can read here: https://judaismresources.net/2011/05/17/tell-them-jeremiah-1011/

The response to his article I will link to here: https://answering-judaism.blogspot.com/2024/07/what-of-jeremiah-1011-response-to-rabbi.html

Rabbi Blumenthal after I had posted my response kindly directed me to two papers which I would encourage the readers to look at for themselves.

https://judaismresources.net/2012/05/13/idolatry-and-the-definition-of-marriage/

https://judaismresources.net/2012/05/16/incarnation-and-definition-of-marriage/

Incarnation and Definition of Marriage

Rabbi Blumenthal gives a story for context which I will share here:

"Reverend Smith’s gaze shifted from Mary to Jane and back to Mary again. The Pastor broke the long silence: “What! You want to get married in MY church?! Don’t you know where I stand on the issue of same-sex marriage?”

Mary looked the Pastor in the eye: “This is not a “same sex marriage” – don’t you know that Jane is an incarnation of a man. She is one hundred percent man and one hundred percent woman. I fully expect you to sanction our marriage.”

Reverend Smith looked at Mary. It was Mary who broke the silence this time: “What’s the matter? You don’t believe in the incarnation?”

“I have four problems with your incarnation claim” said the Pastor. “Number one; there is no such thing as an incarnation. The Bible speaks of male and female as if it is self-understood that these are two separate entities. The usage of the language in the Bible doesn’t allow us to assume that these two terms (male, female) are interchangeable in any way.

Number two; even if I were to grant that such a thing was possible, how would you, Mary, know that this is true about Jane?”

At this point Mary interrupted the Pastor’s little lecture: “What do you mean: “how do I know”? – I have many proofs that Jane is the incarnation of a man. You didn’t even listen to me and you are already discrediting my theory.”

Reverend Smith continued: “Mary, your comment brings me to my third point. You didn’t SEE Jane as an incarnation of a man, it is something you believe you have proof for. Let me ask you this: What came first? Was it your devotion to Jane or was it your theory? Did you first begin a relationship with Jane and the come up with your theory? Or was it the other way round – that you first “discovered” that Jane was an incarnation of a man and only then did you enter into a relationship with her?”

It was Mary’s turn to remain silent.

The Reverend continued: “My fourth problem with your theory is that even if Jane was, in some mysterious way, an incarnation of a man, but presently all you see is a woman. Your relationship with her is still a relationship between two women. I can never condone, let alone bless, such a relationship as a marriage.”"

The story given does highlight the reasoning given as to why the incarnation of Jesus isn't accepted by the Jewish People.

The analogy itself isn't bad, though the comparisons are fundamentally different.

Both the Rabbi and I would reject Mary's reasoning as a terrible excuse to justify her relationship with Jane. With this absurdity going on in the western world, Piers Morgan could identify if he wanted to, as a two spirit penguin.

The characteristics of the human body being male and female are immutable, for God designed mankind to be that way. Humanly speaking, both the Rabbi and I would agree that someone's claim of being transgender or non-binary is absurd, even with convoluted excuses that are presented which do nothing but bolster the fact the person in question is rebelling against God. The argument made in point one is certainly indisputable, male and female, though they be human, are two genders that God created and not interchangeable.

The incarnation as found in Christianity is different from the differences between men and women that but before that, it's worth answering a question, which I'll rephrase from the story:

"What came first? Was it your devotion to Jesus or was it your theory? Did you first begin a relationship with Jesus and the come up with your theory? Or was it the other way round – that you first “discovered” that Jesus was an incarnation of a man and only then did you enter into a relationship with him?"

I cannot speak for others, but my awareness of Jesus came from my background in infant school though my conversion didn't take place around 2010, but regardless, there were many things I took for granted about Jesus and it was only in later years that I was concerned as to who he was, the spiritual depression that I had around 2010 was a contributing factor to whether or not he was true.

Some time in-between then and still to the present day some beliefs changed which can be found on this website but essentials remained. Christians generally on conversion come to Jesus to deal with their sin and later are taught or should be catechised into the faith on the essentials.

The normal means of hearing the Gospel is proclaimed is the usual stuff, Repent and accept the Lord Jesus, for he died for your sins so you can be redeemed to God. some accept, some reject. Generally speaking, a devotion to Jesus usually comes first then afterwards.

Other times it could be simply researching who Jesus is, examining his claims and testing them to see whether they hold up to scrutiny. It varies among individuals.

As to who Jesus was is a question that is asked at different stages of the beginning of the Christian life, though sometimes later in life.

As for the fourth point from the reverend in the story, the point is well made though again this does harken back to the difference between the "marriage" in the story and the incarnation, which does harken also back to whether or not the claims of Jesus are valid, not just face value but through digging deeper.

I wish to take a look at the particular comments made at the end. 

"The One TO whom all worship is due and the ones FROM whom worship is due are distinct and separate throughout the Bible. At no point in the Scriptures is there any indication that these two are interchangeable.

The disciples of Jesus never SAW that Jesus was an incarnation of the Divine – it was a theory they “discovered”.

The followers of Jesus only came up with this theory AFTER they were already fully devoted to him.

After everything is said and done, the Jesus that the Christian reads about in the Christian Scriptures has all of the characteristics of a created being. When a relationship is formed with the character described in the book, no matter what theory is appended to the character, the relationship remains a relationship between two created beings."

The disciples may have seen Jesus as an ordinary man who simply did miracles at first, that much is true. The miracles in and of themselves didn't prove he was God but the claims Jesus made about himself in the Gospels show that the disciples were convinced he was more than a man. So in a sense after the disciples become more fully devoted, there was something about Jesus that differentiated himself from other men. I can happily provide examples if needed but at the moment, It's best to focus on what Rabbi Blumenthal has presented.

Jesus did have the marks of a human being but his claims to being divine are unlike Mary's claims about Jane, claims that are rejected by Jews and Christians who know their scriptures. The main difference is that Jesus' claims can be examined to see whether he is liar, lunatic or Lord and whether the Trinity is a divine revelation revealed at the incarnation of Jesus, whereas the claims of Mary regarding Jane can be easily dismissed as rank absurdity right off the bat, even if we were to dig deeper.

Idolatry and Definition of Marriage

Here is a look at the other article:

"The Biblical concept of the marriage relationship constitutes of a union between a man and a woman. According to the Bible, each of these was designed by God to fill a different role in the context of a marriage. A relationship that consists of two men or two women is not considered a marriage because the two respective roles that make up a Biblical marriage are not present in the union.

The relationship between God and those who worship Him is compared to a marriage (Jeremiah 2:1). The difference between God and any of His creations is far greater, both qualitatively and quantitatively than the difference that exists between a man and a woman. God is the Author of all existence and all of His creations are the recipients of His kindness.

When two beneficiaries of God’s kindness enter into a relationship with each other, that relationship cannot be considered “worship of the divine”. Worship of the Divine consists of a relationship between the One Author of all existence on the one side and His creations on the other side.

When one beneficiary of God’s kindness faces another beneficiary of God’s kindness in relationship – and that relationship is elevated in their respective minds to the status of “worship of the divine” – than that relationship has become idolatrous."

There isn't much to disagree with here, Rabbi Blumenthal sums up the relationship between God and men who worship him very well.

I won't repeat the point I made above too much as the previous section looked at a longer article. My point about Jesus again goes back to two choices.

1. If Jesus was not who he claimed to be, Rabbi Blumenthal would be right in rejecting him and his point ultimately would be valid, for Jesus would have been a wicked blasphemer.

2. If Jesus was who he claimed to be, then the Trinity (One God in three Persons with Jesus being the Second Person) and the Hypostatic union (Fully God and Fully Man) would be safeguards against the danger of idolatry in accordance with Deuteronomy 4:15-20.

I realise this was lengthy, but I hope I have answered the points.

Answering Judaism.