I would like to make one thing clear in this article, I am not knocking nor attacking my Messianic Jewish Brothers and Sisters in this article, I am simply addressing an issue that is prevalent within these circles and I have noticed this while scouring the internet or even on Facebook
This is simply addressing the issue of whether Christians are to observe certain ordinances of the Torah and there are many, whether it be some in the Messianic Movement, or even the movements that simply force observance of these things on other Christians, one example of demanding this kind of observance being 7th Day Adventists.
Now one thing we can agree before I begin is that we know for certain that there are moral obligations placed on us by the NT, specifically 9 of the 10 commandments and of course prohibitions against bestiality, homosexuality, incest, witchcraft, idolatry, adultery, covetousness, greed, slander etc minus the death penalty.
But how much of the Torah is actually binding on Christians today?
Firstly, Let's deal with the text regarding Jesus' words in Matthew 5:17-20 which are misused.
"17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."
Jesus is not disregarding the OT as a whole as irrelevant, he is making the point that it is pointing to him and he is not coming to remove the Law or the Prophets, as some would presume. He goes on to say that ALL must be accomplished, namely his mission of redemption, both his first coming and second and what he will do in those comings, like dealing with sin on the cross, thus paying the debt to God that we owe. He came to fulfill what was written and some of those ordinances have been fulfilled in him.
One person on Paltalk who wasn't a Messianic but nevertheless condemned me (when I was bobo577 which is another paltalk nic I have), to hell for not observing Sabbath, and kept pointing to Colossians 2:16 to try and say that the Sabbath needs to be kept, Let's take a look at it.
"16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ."
The interpretation of the text given by the person in question was to say that these are referring to the special Sabbaths rather than the 7th day Sabbath. However, Paul is unambiguous in what he is saying, He is referring to ALL Sabbaths, that one is not to be judged for not keeping these.
I am not to act as judge when someone chooses to observe the Sabbath or not, that is not my business. It is only my business to intervene when one person or the other forces their conviction onto someone else. Paul is clear that the New Moon and the Sabbath were shadows pointing to Christ. He is referring to ALL Sabbaths period.
Another person, a 7th Day Adventist, kept misusing a text in Matthew 24, saying that Sabbath observance was binding on future generations of Christians. He even went as far as saying Adam and Eve observed it, which is absolutely ridiculous and is not even hinted at. I know many point to God blessing that day, but that is not a indicator that Sabbath was required of all at that time. Now let's look at Matthew 24 shall we?
"15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’[a] spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house. 18 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 19 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20 Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again.
22 “If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. 23 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. 24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time."
Verse 20 in particular is abused by the 7th Day Adventist I spoke to. There is a reason why Jesus says NOT to flee on the Sabbath. His whole point is missed by the 7th Day Adventist, Jesus was NOT talking about obligatory Sabbath observance, he is simply telling his disciples not to flee on the Sabbath or Winter because of the chaos that may ensue at that time. Not to mention the gates of Jerusalem would of been shut in the winter and Sabbath thus you would NOT be able to leave. If the disaster took place in those two periods, the disciples would of been caught in the destruction because they would not be able to evacuate Jerusalem, that's Jesus' whole point, Sabbath observance is not what he is addressing.
Further more, Colossians 2:16 makes it clear that Jesus is our Sabbath rest, Our Sabbath is in HIM, Hebrews 4 also says this:
"4 Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it. 2 For we also have had the good news proclaimed to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because they did not share the faith of those who obeyed.[a] 3 Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said,
“So I declared on oath in my anger,
‘They shall never enter my rest.’”[b]
And yet his works have been finished since the creation of the world. 4 For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: “On the seventh day God rested from all his works.”[c] 5 And again in the passage above he says, “They shall never enter my rest.”
6 Therefore since it still remains for some to enter that rest, and since those who formerly had the good news proclaimed to them did not go in because of their disobedience, 7 God again set a certain day, calling it “Today.” This he did when a long time later he spoke through David, as in the passage already quoted:
“Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts.”[d]
8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken later about another day. 9 There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; 10 for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from their works,[e] just as God did from his. 11 Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will perish by following their example of disobedience."
Not only is Christ the one who gives us rest, Entering into heaven is also our rest according to the chapter, which shows once we are in heaven, there is no need to strive anymore because salvation is complete. Just to be clear I am not teaching works salvation, far from it. Anyway carrying on.
I also notice that many Messianics insist on telling Christians, INCLUDING GENTILES, that they need to abstain from pork or shellfish or anything else the Torah tells us about food. Firstly in Mark 7:17-19, Jesus himself said:
"17 After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)"
Mark in verse 19 tells us what Jesus meant in verses 17-18, Also, take into consideration Peter's vision on top of the roof in the book of Acts:
"15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”
16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.
17 While Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision, the men sent by Cornelius found out where Simon’s house was and stopped at the gate. 18 They called out, asking if Simon who was known as Peter was staying there.
19 While Peter was still thinking about the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Simon, three[a] men are looking for you. 20 So get up and go downstairs. Do not hesitate to go with them, for I have sent them.”
21 Peter went down and said to the men, “I’m the one you’re looking for. Why have you come?”
22 The men replied, “We have come from Cornelius the centurion. He is a righteous and God-fearing man, who is respected by all the Jewish people. A holy angel told him to ask you to come to his house so that he could hear what you have to say.” 23 Then Peter invited the men into the house to be his guests.
The next day Peter started out with them, and some of the believers from Joppa went along. 24 The following day he arrived in Caesarea. Cornelius was expecting them and had called together his relatives and close friends. 25 As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. 26 But Peter made him get up. “Stand up,” he said, “I am only a man myself.”
27 While talking with him, Peter went inside and found a large gathering of people. 28 He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean. 29 So when I was sent for, I came without raising any objection. May I ask why you sent for me?”
30 Cornelius answered: “Three days ago I was in my house praying at this hour, at three in the afternoon. Suddenly a man in shining clothes stood before me 31 and said, ‘Cornelius, God has heard your prayer and remembered your gifts to the poor. 32 Send to Joppa for Simon who is called Peter. He is a guest in the home of Simon the tanner, who lives by the sea.’ 33 So I sent for you immediately, and it was good of you to come. Now we are all here in the presence of God to listen to everything the Lord has commanded you to tell us.”
34 Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35 but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right. 36 You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, announcing the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all. 37 You know what has happened throughout the province of Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached— 38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him."
Both sides like to focus on one meaning of the vision or the other. The vision in actuality is a double vision. It has the meaning of not only foods being made clean under the New Covenant, but also the fact that Gentiles are not lesser than Jews, and are able to participate in being part of God's family. Not only are foods clean as stated before, but Gentiles now have equal access through the merits of the Messiah.
Acts 15 also gives us the picture on these issues:
"22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers. 23 With them they sent the following letter:
The apostles and elders, your brothers,
To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
Greetings.
24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
Farewell.
30 So the men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. 31 The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message. 32 Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the believers. 33 After spending some time there, they were sent off by the believers with the blessing of peace to return to those who had sent them. [34] [d] 35 But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, where they and many others taught and preached the word of the Lord."
The Acts 15 council dealt with the issue of what Gentiles were to observe, and tells us what was required of them.
Colossians 2:16 I already covered but i'll briefly say again, We are not to act as judges towards a person's diet, or their choosing to observe Sunday as special, Sabbath as special and the Jewish Feasts. Also, Romans 14 says the following:
"14 Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2 One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.
5 One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. 6 Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. 8 If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living."
Again, I am not going to condemn Messianic Jews or other Christians to hell if they wish to keep certain dietary laws if they want to, they are free in the matter, But you are not allowed to force Gentiles to observe these things, nor am I or others to condemn people who choose to abstain from certain foods.
Also, there is a level of inconsistency when Torah Observance is forced on Gentiles. It wasn't just Sabbath and food laws given on Mount Sinai, there were other commands.
Here are some examples.
Observe Leviticus 15
"15 The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, 2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘When any man has an unusual bodily discharge, such a discharge is unclean. 3 Whether it continues flowing from his body or is blocked, it will make him unclean. This is how his discharge will bring about uncleanness:
4 “‘Any bed the man with a discharge lies on will be unclean, and anything he sits on will be unclean. 5 Anyone who touches his bed must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening. 6 Whoever sits on anything that the man with a discharge sat on must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening.
7 “‘Whoever touches the man who has a discharge must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening.
8 “‘If the man with the discharge spits on anyone who is clean, they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening.
9 “‘Everything the man sits on when riding will be unclean, 10 and whoever touches any of the things that were under him will be unclean till evening; whoever picks up those things must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening.
11 “‘Anyone the man with a discharge touches without rinsing his hands with water must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening.
12 “‘A clay pot that the man touches must be broken, and any wooden article is to be rinsed with water.
13 “‘When a man is cleansed from his discharge, he is to count off seven days for his ceremonial cleansing; he must wash his clothes and bathe himself with fresh water, and he will be clean. 14 On the eighth day he must take two doves or two young pigeons and come before the Lord to the entrance to the tent of meeting and give them to the priest. 15 The priest is to sacrifice them, the one for a sin offering[a] and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement before the Lord for the man because of his discharge.
16 “‘When a man has an emission of semen, he must bathe his whole body with water, and he will be unclean till evening. 17 Any clothing or leather that has semen on it must be washed with water, and it will be unclean till evening. 18 When a man has sexual relations with a woman and there is an emission of semen, both of them must bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening.
19 “‘When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.
20 “‘Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. 21 Anyone who touches her bed will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening. 22 Anyone who touches anything she sits on will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening. 23 Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, they will be unclean till evening.
24 “‘If a man has sexual relations with her and her monthly flow touches him, he will be unclean for seven days; any bed he lies on will be unclean.
25 “‘When a woman has a discharge of blood for many days at a time other than her monthly period or has a discharge that continues beyond her period, she will be unclean as long as she has the discharge, just as in the days of her period. 26 Any bed she lies on while her discharge continues will be unclean, as is her bed during her monthly period, and anything she sits on will be unclean, as during her period. 27 Anyone who touches them will be unclean; they must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening.
28 “‘When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the tent of meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the Lord for the uncleanness of her discharge.
31 “‘You must keep the Israelites separate from things that make them unclean, so they will not die in their uncleanness for defiling my dwelling place,[b] which is among them.’”
32 These are the regulations for a man with a discharge, for anyone made unclean by an emission of semen, 33 for a woman in her monthly period, for a man or a woman with a discharge, and for a man who has sexual relations with a woman who is ceremonially unclean."
To those Messianics who say to Gentiles they need to keep the Torah and abstain from certain foods or keep Sabbath, Do you keep these laws listed here too? Now these aren't carried over into the NT, but if you are going to insist Sabbath and Food Laws still apply to us, Why not these too? I am not going to ask if you keep these nor do I expect a response from you saying you keep these considering these are personal matters, but ask yourself if you should be forcing Torah observance on Gentiles in light of what has been written here.
Or What about these laws Leviticus 12?
"12 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Say to the Israelites: ‘A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. 3 On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. 4 Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. 5 If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.
6 “‘When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over, she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the tent of meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering.[a] 7 He shall offer them before the Lord to make atonement for her, and then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood.
“‘These are the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl. 8 But if she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’”"
Now again I am not asking for a response for this is a private matter, but I sincerely doubt these are even carried out even by Messianic Communities, though I could be wrong. But, this goes back to my earlier point, Should you be forcing Torah observance on Gentiles?
Now don't get me wrong, I am not bashing the Torah, there are very good principles found in there which are carried over into the NT, and they are very helpful, such as making amends, how to live among others and other things, Including the fact that God is God and we are not.
I want you guys to think about these issues that have been raised in this article and study and check out what I am saying with the scriptures, then you can tell me and others what the Bible says.
Hope this article has been a blessing.
Answering Judaism.
Friday, 15 November 2013
Thursday, 14 November 2013
Rabbinic Anachronism in the NT
One trait that I have noticed among some members of the Rabbinic community is reading the New Testament through their Talmudic lenses or Rabbinic lenses. Notice I am saying SOME read it that way but not all.
There is SOME rabbinic thinking in the New Testament such as binding and loosing, as D.A Carson notes:
"“Formally ho is neuter, and ‘things’ might be expected. Moreover, the rabbis spoke of ‘binding’ and ‘loosing’ in terms of laying down Halakah (rules of conduct): Shammai is strict and ‘binds’ many things on people, while Hillel allows greater laxity and ‘looses’ them. It might be argued, then, that in Acts 15:10 Peter looses what certain Judaizers want to bind. Yet despite this, it is better to take binding and loosing in Matthew 16:19 to refer to persons, not rules. The neuterhosa (‘whatever’) occurs in 18:18 where the context demands that persons are meant. Indeed Greek often uses the neuter of people for classes or categories rather than for individuals. The context of v. 19 supports this; for the keys in the preceding context clause speak of permission for entering the kingdom or being excluded from it, not rules of conduct under heaven’s rule”" (12.) D.A. Carson, Matthew, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 8, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984], p. 372).
We do have an example of a rabbinic concept that is found within the context of the NT. My thanks to Keith Thompson for using this in his article on Peter being the rock which can be found here: http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2013/02/my-thesis-on-matthew-16-was-peter-pope.html (This link is now defunct).
However, there are cases where the Jew, through their rabbinic lense, assumes that the Judaism of Jesus' day was similar to the Rabbis of later centuries.
Messianic Prophecies
One person who I spoke with mentioned Acts 8:32, Unfortunately there was a little mockery behind it considering he laughed at the idea of the apostle revealing who Isaiah 53 was talking about to the eunuch who inquired about it.
This is strange because counter missionaries, rather than your average Jewish person (average is not intended as an insult) often assert that the apostles NEVER read Isaiah 53 as Messianic because the apostles themselves did not expect Jesus to suffer and die, this anathema to their thinking at that point. This is often used as a means to try and say that Isaiah 53 being Messianic is made up by Christians, in point of fact that you do have Rabbinic Writings, including the paraphrases known as the Targums, which actually do identify it as a prophecy of the Messiah, though the interpretation is not the same as the Christian interpretation. I briefly allude to this and quote the Rabbinic sources in this article response to Shadid Lewis which can be found here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/response-to-shadid-lewis-on-isaiah-53.html
Yes I am aware of Origen speaking about Jews saying it's about a group in Contra Celsum, but how this would prove the Messianic interpretation false I don't know, although this does discredit the idea and refute the notion that Rashi was the first Rabbi to say it is about Israel, which is a common misconception held by a majority of people. To point of fact that the eunuch who came Philip to give an example from the NT, was actually asking people about the suffering servant and DID NOT know who it was, and I need to remind the audience that the eunuch was convert to Judaism.
Nakdimon makes an interesting observation regarding Origen (https://sites.google.com/site/nakdimonspage/isaiah-53-part-2), he says:
"Origen: Now this is the only pre-Rashi source that I have been confronted with in my years of debating anti-missionaries that gives us a literal reading of Israel being the servant in Isaiah 53. Note that it’s not even a rabbinic source! That’s how rare this view was. But let’s see what Origen is saying exactly in chapter 55 of his book:
Now I remember that, on one occasion, at a disputation held with certain Jews, who were reckoned wise men, I quoted these prophecies; to which my Jewish opponent replied, that these predictions bore reference to the whole people, regarded as one individual, and as being in a state of dispersion and suffering, in order that many proselytes might be gained, on account of the dispersion of the Jews among numerous heathen nations. And in this way he explained the words, "Thy form shall be of no reputation among men;" and then, "They to whom no message was sent respecting him shall see;" and the expression, "A man under suffering." Many arguments were employed on that occasion during the discussion to prove that these predictions regarding one particular person were not rightly applied by them to the whole nation. And I asked to what character the expression would be appropriate, "This man bears our sins, and suffers pain on our behalf;" and this, "But He was wounded for our sins, and bruised for our iniquities;" and to whom the expression properly belonged, "By His stripes were we healed." For it is manifest that it is they who had been sinners, and had been healed by the Saviour's sufferings (whether belonging to the Jewish nation or converts from the Gentiles), who use such language in the writings of the prophet who foresaw these events, and who, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, appiled these words to a person. But we seemed to press them hardest with the expression, "Because of the iniquities of My people was He led away unto death." For if the people, according to them, are the subject of the prophecy, how is the man said to be led away to death because of the iniquities of the people of God, unless he be a different person from that people of God? And who is this person save Jesus Christ, by whose stripes they who believe on Him are healed, when "He had spoiled the principalities and powers (that were over us), and had made a show of them openly on His cross?" At another time we may explain the several parts of the prophecy, leaving none of them unexamined. But these matters have been treated at greater length, necessarily as I think, on account of the language of the Jew, as quoted in the work of Celsus.
Notice Origen says that it was on this one occasion that he was presented with this weird interpretation. He starts with “I remember”, which is not something that you say when you hear something all the time. This tells us that he had to dig it up from deep in his memory. Origen speaks of “on one occasion” debating with “certain Jews”. What is also evident is that he speaks of these Jews claiming this is about “the whole people”, and not about “a righteous remnant”. We also see that this wasn’t regarded as intercession, but “in order that many proselytes might be gained”. This is a whole other interpretation than that of modern day Judaism. Take note also that according to Celsus, who was anti-Christian this was reckoned as “the language of the Jew”, and thus Israel is speaking here and this was not seen as being the language of the gentile kings. There is nothing in this chapter that would indicate that this was “the” Jewish view of that time."
There is an assumption on the part of some of the Rabbinic Jews that they were in uniform agreement that Isaiah 53 is not Messianic, forgive me if I have misrepresented the position of the Rabbinic communities. Does one honestly think that the Jews would of had ONE uniform view of the Messiah in Jesus day? The only uniform view would of been was his ushering in of universal peace, ingathering of the Jewish people and the fact he had to come from the Davidic line.
Now I believe in the inspiration of the New Testament, But for arguments sake, we'll put that aside for now in this article and focus on it being a historical document. It records some of the opinions of the people of that time and how certain passages were deemed Messianic, such as Micah 5:2, Zechariah 9:9 and Daniel 7:13-13.
The Talmud centuries later postulates a possible interpretation of Zechariah 9:9 and Daniel 7:13-14:
"R. Alexandri said: R. Joshua b. Levi pointed out a contradiction. it is written, in its time [will the Messiah come], whilst it is also written, I [the Lord] will hasten it!33 — if they are worthy, I will hasten it: if not, [he will come] at the due time. R. Alexandri said: R. Joshua opposed two verses: it is written, And behold, one like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven34 whilst [elsewhere] it is written, [behold, thy king cometh unto thee … ] lowly, and riding upon an ass!35 — if they are meritorious, [he will come] with the clouds of heaven;36 if not, lowly and riding upon an ass. King Shapur [I] said to Samuel, 'Ye maintain that the Messiah will come upon an ass: I will rather send him a white horse of mine.'37 He replied, 'Have you a hundred-hued steed?'" (Sanhedrin 98b http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_98.html)
Now of course I am not saying the Talmud is my authority on this matter, I am just simply making a point that Zechariah 9:9 and Daniel 7:13-14 being Messianic not only according to Christians, but even some of the Rabbis did too, with obvious differences, considering the Talmudic tradition above speaks of one coming happening or the other depending on how the Jews respond to God. If righteous, the Messiah comes on the clouds of heaven, or if they are wicked, he'll come riding on a donkey, Whereas Christians say the Messiah first came on a donkey and in his second coming will come on the clouds of heaven, which Jesus alludes to numerous times.
Anyway, The point here is that the NT records what some of the Jews in those days had believed, though some of their conclusions where wrong, such as the Messiah coming from Galilee. Jesus was raised in Galilee but born in Bethlehem and raised in Nazareth.
Supposed Oral Tradition
A common assertion made by many, including Contra Brown author Yisroel Blumenthal, and the late Dr Immanuel Schochet, is that Jesus told the apostles to listen to the Rabbinic traditions given by the Pharisees, Often misusing Matthew 23 to justify the idea of an oral Torah in the time of Moses:
"23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
5 “Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6 they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7 they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others."
I have already stated the following in my first article response to "Supplement to Contra Brown" regarding this issue:
"Jesus is anathematizing the Pharisees for their wickedness and hypocrisy. He tells the disciples to obey them but not emulate them. In other words it's to do with the Torah, not the rulings of the Pharisees, although the tradition consistent with the scripture wouldn't of been harmful. He is not saying that we are to accept the Oral Torah because there isn't one, this is Rabbinic Jewish anachronicism being read into the New Testament. The NT may be Jewish, but not necessarily Talmudic."
Simply put, an exhortation from Jesus to pay attention to the Pharisees and submit to them, would not prove a binding oral law was present in that time.
Conclusion
It is possible for many to be subject to reading both the TANAKH and the NT with coloured glasses, That is something that one can end up doing if we are not careful, Hope this article has been of help.
Answering Judaism.
Note: This article if the Lord Wills may be expanded upon.
There is SOME rabbinic thinking in the New Testament such as binding and loosing, as D.A Carson notes:
"“Formally ho is neuter, and ‘things’ might be expected. Moreover, the rabbis spoke of ‘binding’ and ‘loosing’ in terms of laying down Halakah (rules of conduct): Shammai is strict and ‘binds’ many things on people, while Hillel allows greater laxity and ‘looses’ them. It might be argued, then, that in Acts 15:10 Peter looses what certain Judaizers want to bind. Yet despite this, it is better to take binding and loosing in Matthew 16:19 to refer to persons, not rules. The neuterhosa (‘whatever’) occurs in 18:18 where the context demands that persons are meant. Indeed Greek often uses the neuter of people for classes or categories rather than for individuals. The context of v. 19 supports this; for the keys in the preceding context clause speak of permission for entering the kingdom or being excluded from it, not rules of conduct under heaven’s rule”" (12.) D.A. Carson, Matthew, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 8, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984], p. 372).
We do have an example of a rabbinic concept that is found within the context of the NT. My thanks to Keith Thompson for using this in his article on Peter being the rock which can be found here: http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2013/02/my-thesis-on-matthew-16-was-peter-pope.html (This link is now defunct).
However, there are cases where the Jew, through their rabbinic lense, assumes that the Judaism of Jesus' day was similar to the Rabbis of later centuries.
Messianic Prophecies
One person who I spoke with mentioned Acts 8:32, Unfortunately there was a little mockery behind it considering he laughed at the idea of the apostle revealing who Isaiah 53 was talking about to the eunuch who inquired about it.
This is strange because counter missionaries, rather than your average Jewish person (average is not intended as an insult) often assert that the apostles NEVER read Isaiah 53 as Messianic because the apostles themselves did not expect Jesus to suffer and die, this anathema to their thinking at that point. This is often used as a means to try and say that Isaiah 53 being Messianic is made up by Christians, in point of fact that you do have Rabbinic Writings, including the paraphrases known as the Targums, which actually do identify it as a prophecy of the Messiah, though the interpretation is not the same as the Christian interpretation. I briefly allude to this and quote the Rabbinic sources in this article response to Shadid Lewis which can be found here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/response-to-shadid-lewis-on-isaiah-53.html
Yes I am aware of Origen speaking about Jews saying it's about a group in Contra Celsum, but how this would prove the Messianic interpretation false I don't know, although this does discredit the idea and refute the notion that Rashi was the first Rabbi to say it is about Israel, which is a common misconception held by a majority of people. To point of fact that the eunuch who came Philip to give an example from the NT, was actually asking people about the suffering servant and DID NOT know who it was, and I need to remind the audience that the eunuch was convert to Judaism.
Nakdimon makes an interesting observation regarding Origen (https://sites.google.com/site/nakdimonspage/isaiah-53-part-2), he says:
"Origen: Now this is the only pre-Rashi source that I have been confronted with in my years of debating anti-missionaries that gives us a literal reading of Israel being the servant in Isaiah 53. Note that it’s not even a rabbinic source! That’s how rare this view was. But let’s see what Origen is saying exactly in chapter 55 of his book:
There is an assumption on the part of some of the Rabbinic Jews that they were in uniform agreement that Isaiah 53 is not Messianic, forgive me if I have misrepresented the position of the Rabbinic communities. Does one honestly think that the Jews would of had ONE uniform view of the Messiah in Jesus day? The only uniform view would of been was his ushering in of universal peace, ingathering of the Jewish people and the fact he had to come from the Davidic line.
Now I believe in the inspiration of the New Testament, But for arguments sake, we'll put that aside for now in this article and focus on it being a historical document. It records some of the opinions of the people of that time and how certain passages were deemed Messianic, such as Micah 5:2, Zechariah 9:9 and Daniel 7:13-13.
The Talmud centuries later postulates a possible interpretation of Zechariah 9:9 and Daniel 7:13-14:
"R. Alexandri said: R. Joshua b. Levi pointed out a contradiction. it is written, in its time [will the Messiah come], whilst it is also written, I [the Lord] will hasten it!33 — if they are worthy, I will hasten it: if not, [he will come] at the due time. R. Alexandri said: R. Joshua opposed two verses: it is written, And behold, one like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven34 whilst [elsewhere] it is written, [behold, thy king cometh unto thee … ] lowly, and riding upon an ass!35 — if they are meritorious, [he will come] with the clouds of heaven;36 if not, lowly and riding upon an ass. King Shapur [I] said to Samuel, 'Ye maintain that the Messiah will come upon an ass: I will rather send him a white horse of mine.'37 He replied, 'Have you a hundred-hued steed?'" (Sanhedrin 98b http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_98.html)
Now of course I am not saying the Talmud is my authority on this matter, I am just simply making a point that Zechariah 9:9 and Daniel 7:13-14 being Messianic not only according to Christians, but even some of the Rabbis did too, with obvious differences, considering the Talmudic tradition above speaks of one coming happening or the other depending on how the Jews respond to God. If righteous, the Messiah comes on the clouds of heaven, or if they are wicked, he'll come riding on a donkey, Whereas Christians say the Messiah first came on a donkey and in his second coming will come on the clouds of heaven, which Jesus alludes to numerous times.
Anyway, The point here is that the NT records what some of the Jews in those days had believed, though some of their conclusions where wrong, such as the Messiah coming from Galilee. Jesus was raised in Galilee but born in Bethlehem and raised in Nazareth.
Supposed Oral Tradition
A common assertion made by many, including Contra Brown author Yisroel Blumenthal, and the late Dr Immanuel Schochet, is that Jesus told the apostles to listen to the Rabbinic traditions given by the Pharisees, Often misusing Matthew 23 to justify the idea of an oral Torah in the time of Moses:
"23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
5 “Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6 they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7 they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others."
I have already stated the following in my first article response to "Supplement to Contra Brown" regarding this issue:
"Jesus is anathematizing the Pharisees for their wickedness and hypocrisy. He tells the disciples to obey them but not emulate them. In other words it's to do with the Torah, not the rulings of the Pharisees, although the tradition consistent with the scripture wouldn't of been harmful. He is not saying that we are to accept the Oral Torah because there isn't one, this is Rabbinic Jewish anachronicism being read into the New Testament. The NT may be Jewish, but not necessarily Talmudic."
Simply put, an exhortation from Jesus to pay attention to the Pharisees and submit to them, would not prove a binding oral law was present in that time.
Conclusion
It is possible for many to be subject to reading both the TANAKH and the NT with coloured glasses, That is something that one can end up doing if we are not careful, Hope this article has been of help.
Answering Judaism.
Note: This article if the Lord Wills may be expanded upon.
Tuesday, 12 November 2013
Deuteronomy 4:15-20 re-examined
It is often asserted by Rabbinic Jews that Jesus stands condemned by these texts and thus Christians are guilty of constructing an idol when they bow down to him as God in heaven.
Let's look at the texts individually.
"Deuteronomy 4:15 You saw no form of any kind the day the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, 16 so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, 17 or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air, 18 or like any creature that moves along the ground or any fish in the waters below. 19 And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars—all the heavenly array—do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshiping things the Lord your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven. 20 But as for you, the Lord took you and brought you out of the iron-smelting furnace, out of Egypt, to be the people of his inheritance, as you now are."
Let us start with the first verse. The revelation at Sinai is mentioned and that none of the Israelites ever saw an image when God revealed himself.
There is a warning and exhortation in verse 16-18 against constructing an idol for the sake of worship, considering already in the 613 commandments idolatry is out of the question. This point is hammered home throughout the TANAKH, Especially in the book of Isaiah itself. There is a clear cut and dry statement not to build idols to bow down to worship or even prostrate in mere obeisance to them, especially statues of Mary and Jesus.
If Jesus is God in the flesh, there is nothing wrong with praying to him, singing to him or worshipping him. This doesn't justify bowing to a statue of him which I need to make very clear.
Christians are not guilty of constructing an idol when they bow to Christ, We do not bow to his flesh, we bow to the one who tabernacles among us. No violation of the passage so far.
Now some who are reading this will say: "But limiting to building idols means you are allowing worship of the sun, moon and stars". Well, no we don't, The next passage is also an exhortation not to bow down to the sky, sun, moon, stars and other things. It is not bowing to idols only that is forbidden, but also bowing down to what is in the sky and the seas below.
I have yet to see Christians bowing to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars all the heavenly array in this day and age and in the past.
Hopefully this article will be of use.
Answering Judaism.
Let's look at the texts individually.
"Deuteronomy 4:15 You saw no form of any kind the day the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, 16 so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, 17 or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air, 18 or like any creature that moves along the ground or any fish in the waters below. 19 And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars—all the heavenly array—do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshiping things the Lord your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven. 20 But as for you, the Lord took you and brought you out of the iron-smelting furnace, out of Egypt, to be the people of his inheritance, as you now are."
Let us start with the first verse. The revelation at Sinai is mentioned and that none of the Israelites ever saw an image when God revealed himself.
There is a warning and exhortation in verse 16-18 against constructing an idol for the sake of worship, considering already in the 613 commandments idolatry is out of the question. This point is hammered home throughout the TANAKH, Especially in the book of Isaiah itself. There is a clear cut and dry statement not to build idols to bow down to worship or even prostrate in mere obeisance to them, especially statues of Mary and Jesus.
If Jesus is God in the flesh, there is nothing wrong with praying to him, singing to him or worshipping him. This doesn't justify bowing to a statue of him which I need to make very clear.
Christians are not guilty of constructing an idol when they bow to Christ, We do not bow to his flesh, we bow to the one who tabernacles among us. No violation of the passage so far.
Now some who are reading this will say: "But limiting to building idols means you are allowing worship of the sun, moon and stars". Well, no we don't, The next passage is also an exhortation not to bow down to the sky, sun, moon, stars and other things. It is not bowing to idols only that is forbidden, but also bowing down to what is in the sky and the seas below.
I have yet to see Christians bowing to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars all the heavenly array in this day and age and in the past.
Hopefully this article will be of use.
Answering Judaism.
Monday, 11 November 2013
Examination of some arguments raised by "Supplement to Contra Brown" 5
Here are some more arguments by Yisroel Blumenthal that need addressing at this juncture. Let's carry on then.
" IV. 23. Page 215
Brown acknowledges that the written Torah standing on its own is inadequate to sustain the ongoing life of a people. The question that must then be asked is: How then did God, who presented the Law to Israel, expect it to be observed by all generations of Jews? (Numbers 15:37-41). If His Law is perfect, as Scripture attests (Psalm 19:8, then He would have had to provide, as an integral component of the original Law, some method of dealing with the ever-changing life of a nation. The only viable claim to possession of such a method is the claim of Rabbinic Judaism. There is no competing claim."
That begs the question Mr Blumenthal, How does one determine that the orah Torah goes back to Moshe? I find it strange that an oral Torah was codified after the time of Yeshua. I have been informed however that some Jews regard the Prophets (Nevim) and the Writings (Ketuvim) but I am not sure how they are classified as such. But I find it strange that the Talmud, the Orah Torah, was something that was later written down and not codified through the centuries until years after given at Sinai. It's a bit neat for reality. There is no doubt that general principles in the Torah can be carried out, like the principle of restitution after wrong doing, which is indeed biblical. Hmm, this is a tricky issue indeed.
"IV. 24. Page 215
Brown claims that Yeshua presented a “better way”, a method of observing God’s Law that is superior to the method presented by Rabbinic Judaism.
The test of history invalidates Brown’s claim. Yeshua’s way brought the Crusades, Inquisition and the perpetration of the holocaust unto his followers. Is this the “better way”?
Brown argues that “real” Christians love Jews, and I do not doubt that many Christians today sincerely do love the Jewish people. My question is as follows: Do the Christians today love the Jews more than Jesus and his apostles?
Most Christians would argue that Jesus was the epitome of love, and that their own love is only a mirror of Jesus’ love for Israel. If this premise is true (and I highly doubt it) then how can modern Christians be sure that their own grandchildren will not be killing Jews? If Jesus and Paul, who loved Israel more than modern Christians, and presumably who could see into the future with greater prophetic clarity than modern Christians, could not ensure that such atrocities will not be committed in their name – how then could modern day Christians be guaranteed that their own descendants will not commit atrocities in their name? And if you tell me that precautions are being taken that these atrocities not be repeated, then why could Jesus and Paul not take these same precautions?"
Throughout the subject of my writings, I have come across the constant reminder of atrocities in the name of Jesus. Jesus himself predicted that MANY would fall away from him and Paul even said that there are some who have departed from the Faith, found in Matthew 24:10 and 1 Timothy 4:1. Again, the idea that true Christians would dare commit the holocaust and other atrocities against the Jews is nonsense, the New Testament rejects the idea catergorically and I have to keep reminding Blumenthal of this. Revivals do not cause a permanent change, they allow a return to God and then for while apostatize again. It happened with the Jewish People in the TANAKH and it happened with the Church. It is a sad case but also inevitable because we are a fallen race. We don't know what the future holds, all we know is that not every Jew and Christian who has ever lived will be saved. Again I ask Blumenthal, Did those Christians who killed the Jews do what Jesus said? Yes or No?
"III. 26. Page 186
Brown talks of a “rapidly growing underground movement of Orthodox and Hasidic Jews” who believe in Jesus. Of-course since this imaginary movement is “underground”, Brown will not be able to supply us with names and addresses. He expects his readers to take his word for it."
Why should he? There are conversions to many faiths that happen without our knowledge and right under our noses.
"III. 27. Page 189
“Messianic prophecies are not clearly identified as such.”
This is amazing. Brown believes that the main purpose of the Jewish Bible is to predict the advent of the Messiah, yet the prophecies are not clearly identified?! And on what basis can he make such a preposterous statement? The prophets gave us a clear hope for Israel’s future. There are many prophecies in the Jewish Bible which clearly talk of the Messianic era, and of the Messiah. These include but are not limited to Numbers 24:14-19, Deuteronomy 4:30, 30:1-10, 32:43, Jeremiah 3:14-18, 16:14,15,19, 23:3-5, 30:3,7-11,16-25, 31:1-39, 32:37-44, 33:6-26, 46:27,28,50:4,5,19,20, Ezekiel 11;17-20, 17:22-24, 20:40-44, 28:24-26, 34:9-16,22-31, 36:6-16,22-38,37:1-28,38:1-48:35, Isaiah 1:26, 2:2-4, 4:2-6, 10:33-12:6, 24:21-25:9, 30:26, 34:1, 40:1-11,41:10-20, 43:5-10, 44:1-5 49:8-26, 51:11,22-52:12, 54:1-55:5, 56:7, 60:1-63:9, 65:17-25, 66:10-24, Hosea 2:1-3,16-25, Joel 3;1-5, 4:1-21, Amos 9:11-15, Obadiah 1;17-21, Micha 4:1-7, 5:1-13, 7:8-20, Zephaniah 3;9-20, Zechariah 2:9, 8:2-8, 14:3-21, Malachi 3:4,16-24, Psalms 51:20,21, 69:36,37, 98:1-3, 102:14-23, 126:1-6, Daniel 2;44, 7:18,22,27, 12:2,3, Can anyone question the fact that these prophecies are the hope and promise of Israel’s glorious future? How can Brown say that messianic prophecies are not clearly identified? More important is the question; Why does Brown say that the messianic prophecies are not clearly identified? The obvious answer to this question is that Brown never seems to have approached scripture with an open mind. It seems that he never asked himself; What would a Jew before Jesus’ times have believed about the Messianic era? What would scripture have taught him about the Messiah? Who and what does God encourage us to hope for? Had Brown asked himself these basic questions, he would have realized that the scriptures are very clear on these issues. The problem is that Brown started the other way. He first came to believe in Jesus. He then looked back into the Jewish scriptures and tried to understand Jesus’ claim that the prophets predicted his coming. Things tend to get quite murky if you read the book that way. When Brown tells us that Messianic prophecies are not clearly identified as such, he is admitting that the preconceived notions of Christianity cannot be readily seen in the Bible."
How do we know what is and what isn't Messianic? That is what Brown has often said in his debates with late Rabbis David Blumofe and Immanuel Schochet that it comes down to interpretation of the passages to determine what passage is Messianic or not. That is the ultimate question, The nature of the Messiah and what his mission would entail.
"IV. 2. Objection 5.9
Brown addresses the question of the “virgin birth” of Jesus. How could anyone know if this event ever happened? Aside from Mary herself, no one could verify this event. This fundamental of the Christian faith stands of the testimony of one woman who has every reason in the world to lie – if she ever actually claimed a “virgin birth”."
But for what reason would she lie? Also, How does he know ONLY Mary saw it, Joseph witnessed it as well. But certainly I am happy to set up a page where many people can talk this issue out. There are two options, Either the angel who came to her was telling the truth, or he set up a satanic deception. I am inclined to think it was the former.
"IV. 3. Objection 5.11
Brown discusses the Jewish objection that argues that if Joseph was not Jesus’ biological father, then Jesus was not a descendant of David on his father’s side. This tells us that Jesus could not be the Jewish Messiah. According to the Jewish Scriptures, the Messiah must be a descendant of David from his father’s side.
Brown responds on behalf of Christianity: “Obviously, you don’t believe in the virgin birth, otherwise you would not be raising this objection.”
Here Brown tries to obfuscate the issue with irrelevant witticism. Of-course we do not believe in the virgin birth, but how does this relate to the objection at hand? Christians acknowledge that Jesus’ mother did not claim that her son’s father was a descendant of David. This simple fact disqualifies him from being the Jewish Messiah. The fact that Mary gave us a fantastic story concerning her son’s conception does nothing to change this basic fact. Unless a woman points to a man who is a descendant of Judah as her son’s father, then by Torah law, this child does not belong to the tribe of Judah. If no man from the House of David steps forth and claims to be the father of a given child, then this child has no claim to the Davidic throne."
I have written on the subject of the genealogy issue in three articles under the banner of "Rabbinic Dilemma 101". The next point that Blumenthal raises has to do with tribal lineage coming through the woman, which I do disagree with Brown on. However I contend the virgin birth would not disqualify Jesus, which I explain in the following articles:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/rabbinic-dilemma-101.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/an-addendum-to-rabbinic-dilemma-101.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/rabbinic-dilemma-101-revisited.html
I leave you all, including Blumenthal to judge my words on these pages.
I'll address more points in the future if the Lord Wills me to do so.
Answering Judaism.
" IV. 23. Page 215
Brown acknowledges that the written Torah standing on its own is inadequate to sustain the ongoing life of a people. The question that must then be asked is: How then did God, who presented the Law to Israel, expect it to be observed by all generations of Jews? (Numbers 15:37-41). If His Law is perfect, as Scripture attests (Psalm 19:8, then He would have had to provide, as an integral component of the original Law, some method of dealing with the ever-changing life of a nation. The only viable claim to possession of such a method is the claim of Rabbinic Judaism. There is no competing claim."
That begs the question Mr Blumenthal, How does one determine that the orah Torah goes back to Moshe? I find it strange that an oral Torah was codified after the time of Yeshua. I have been informed however that some Jews regard the Prophets (Nevim) and the Writings (Ketuvim) but I am not sure how they are classified as such. But I find it strange that the Talmud, the Orah Torah, was something that was later written down and not codified through the centuries until years after given at Sinai. It's a bit neat for reality. There is no doubt that general principles in the Torah can be carried out, like the principle of restitution after wrong doing, which is indeed biblical. Hmm, this is a tricky issue indeed.
"IV. 24. Page 215
Brown claims that Yeshua presented a “better way”, a method of observing God’s Law that is superior to the method presented by Rabbinic Judaism.
The test of history invalidates Brown’s claim. Yeshua’s way brought the Crusades, Inquisition and the perpetration of the holocaust unto his followers. Is this the “better way”?
Brown argues that “real” Christians love Jews, and I do not doubt that many Christians today sincerely do love the Jewish people. My question is as follows: Do the Christians today love the Jews more than Jesus and his apostles?
Most Christians would argue that Jesus was the epitome of love, and that their own love is only a mirror of Jesus’ love for Israel. If this premise is true (and I highly doubt it) then how can modern Christians be sure that their own grandchildren will not be killing Jews? If Jesus and Paul, who loved Israel more than modern Christians, and presumably who could see into the future with greater prophetic clarity than modern Christians, could not ensure that such atrocities will not be committed in their name – how then could modern day Christians be guaranteed that their own descendants will not commit atrocities in their name? And if you tell me that precautions are being taken that these atrocities not be repeated, then why could Jesus and Paul not take these same precautions?"
Throughout the subject of my writings, I have come across the constant reminder of atrocities in the name of Jesus. Jesus himself predicted that MANY would fall away from him and Paul even said that there are some who have departed from the Faith, found in Matthew 24:10 and 1 Timothy 4:1. Again, the idea that true Christians would dare commit the holocaust and other atrocities against the Jews is nonsense, the New Testament rejects the idea catergorically and I have to keep reminding Blumenthal of this. Revivals do not cause a permanent change, they allow a return to God and then for while apostatize again. It happened with the Jewish People in the TANAKH and it happened with the Church. It is a sad case but also inevitable because we are a fallen race. We don't know what the future holds, all we know is that not every Jew and Christian who has ever lived will be saved. Again I ask Blumenthal, Did those Christians who killed the Jews do what Jesus said? Yes or No?
"III. 26. Page 186
Brown talks of a “rapidly growing underground movement of Orthodox and Hasidic Jews” who believe in Jesus. Of-course since this imaginary movement is “underground”, Brown will not be able to supply us with names and addresses. He expects his readers to take his word for it."
Why should he? There are conversions to many faiths that happen without our knowledge and right under our noses.
"III. 27. Page 189
“Messianic prophecies are not clearly identified as such.”
This is amazing. Brown believes that the main purpose of the Jewish Bible is to predict the advent of the Messiah, yet the prophecies are not clearly identified?! And on what basis can he make such a preposterous statement? The prophets gave us a clear hope for Israel’s future. There are many prophecies in the Jewish Bible which clearly talk of the Messianic era, and of the Messiah. These include but are not limited to Numbers 24:14-19, Deuteronomy 4:30, 30:1-10, 32:43, Jeremiah 3:14-18, 16:14,15,19, 23:3-5, 30:3,7-11,16-25, 31:1-39, 32:37-44, 33:6-26, 46:27,28,50:4,5,19,20, Ezekiel 11;17-20, 17:22-24, 20:40-44, 28:24-26, 34:9-16,22-31, 36:6-16,22-38,37:1-28,38:1-48:35, Isaiah 1:26, 2:2-4, 4:2-6, 10:33-12:6, 24:21-25:9, 30:26, 34:1, 40:1-11,41:10-20, 43:5-10, 44:1-5 49:8-26, 51:11,22-52:12, 54:1-55:5, 56:7, 60:1-63:9, 65:17-25, 66:10-24, Hosea 2:1-3,16-25, Joel 3;1-5, 4:1-21, Amos 9:11-15, Obadiah 1;17-21, Micha 4:1-7, 5:1-13, 7:8-20, Zephaniah 3;9-20, Zechariah 2:9, 8:2-8, 14:3-21, Malachi 3:4,16-24, Psalms 51:20,21, 69:36,37, 98:1-3, 102:14-23, 126:1-6, Daniel 2;44, 7:18,22,27, 12:2,3, Can anyone question the fact that these prophecies are the hope and promise of Israel’s glorious future? How can Brown say that messianic prophecies are not clearly identified? More important is the question; Why does Brown say that the messianic prophecies are not clearly identified? The obvious answer to this question is that Brown never seems to have approached scripture with an open mind. It seems that he never asked himself; What would a Jew before Jesus’ times have believed about the Messianic era? What would scripture have taught him about the Messiah? Who and what does God encourage us to hope for? Had Brown asked himself these basic questions, he would have realized that the scriptures are very clear on these issues. The problem is that Brown started the other way. He first came to believe in Jesus. He then looked back into the Jewish scriptures and tried to understand Jesus’ claim that the prophets predicted his coming. Things tend to get quite murky if you read the book that way. When Brown tells us that Messianic prophecies are not clearly identified as such, he is admitting that the preconceived notions of Christianity cannot be readily seen in the Bible."
How do we know what is and what isn't Messianic? That is what Brown has often said in his debates with late Rabbis David Blumofe and Immanuel Schochet that it comes down to interpretation of the passages to determine what passage is Messianic or not. That is the ultimate question, The nature of the Messiah and what his mission would entail.
"IV. 2. Objection 5.9
Brown addresses the question of the “virgin birth” of Jesus. How could anyone know if this event ever happened? Aside from Mary herself, no one could verify this event. This fundamental of the Christian faith stands of the testimony of one woman who has every reason in the world to lie – if she ever actually claimed a “virgin birth”."
But for what reason would she lie? Also, How does he know ONLY Mary saw it, Joseph witnessed it as well. But certainly I am happy to set up a page where many people can talk this issue out. There are two options, Either the angel who came to her was telling the truth, or he set up a satanic deception. I am inclined to think it was the former.
"IV. 3. Objection 5.11
Brown discusses the Jewish objection that argues that if Joseph was not Jesus’ biological father, then Jesus was not a descendant of David on his father’s side. This tells us that Jesus could not be the Jewish Messiah. According to the Jewish Scriptures, the Messiah must be a descendant of David from his father’s side.
Brown responds on behalf of Christianity: “Obviously, you don’t believe in the virgin birth, otherwise you would not be raising this objection.”
Here Brown tries to obfuscate the issue with irrelevant witticism. Of-course we do not believe in the virgin birth, but how does this relate to the objection at hand? Christians acknowledge that Jesus’ mother did not claim that her son’s father was a descendant of David. This simple fact disqualifies him from being the Jewish Messiah. The fact that Mary gave us a fantastic story concerning her son’s conception does nothing to change this basic fact. Unless a woman points to a man who is a descendant of Judah as her son’s father, then by Torah law, this child does not belong to the tribe of Judah. If no man from the House of David steps forth and claims to be the father of a given child, then this child has no claim to the Davidic throne."
I have written on the subject of the genealogy issue in three articles under the banner of "Rabbinic Dilemma 101". The next point that Blumenthal raises has to do with tribal lineage coming through the woman, which I do disagree with Brown on. However I contend the virgin birth would not disqualify Jesus, which I explain in the following articles:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/rabbinic-dilemma-101.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/an-addendum-to-rabbinic-dilemma-101.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/rabbinic-dilemma-101-revisited.html
I leave you all, including Blumenthal to judge my words on these pages.
I'll address more points in the future if the Lord Wills me to do so.
Answering Judaism.
Sunday, 10 November 2013
Examination of some arguments raised by "Supplement to Contra Brown" 4
Here is another article taking a look at some more arguments raised within Supplement to Contra Brown. Let's take a look at some more shall we.
"II. 15. Page 131
Missionaries quote Psalm 45:7 as a proof that the Messiah is to be divine. The Psalmist literally addresses the king with the words “Your throne God forever”. The Jewish response to this missionary argument points out that the word used for “God” does not necessarily have to be translated that way. The same word could refer to a human judge. Furthermore, in context of the complete scripture we understand that the verse cannot be calling a human divine. Brown responds to this objection by advising his readers; “Try this simple test: Write out the verse in Hebrew by itself, give it to anyone who is fluent in biblical Hebrew and ask him or her to translate the verse.”
In the same vein I would suggest that the readers take Jesus’ statement to the Jewish people in John 8:44, 45: “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth ye believe me not.” Ask them if the man who spoke these words was or was not a racist anti-Semite."
Psalm 45:7 is used by many to show the Divinity of Christ, including me. However, I am willing to set up a page where one can talk about this Psalm in particular on request. But Blumenthal's challenge about the subject of the anti-Semitic charge supposedly utter by Jesus is to be honest, a red herring, even in it's context it doesn't suggest Anti Semiticism. Psalm 102:25-27 and Hebrews 1:10-12 together both teach the divinity of the Messiah, but Psalm 45:7, can probably be discussed in a forum or even on a page on the blog here.
"III. 16. Page 133
Brown pontificates “we do best to take the scriptures in their most obvious basic sense, allowing the Bible to dictate our theology, rather than imposing our own theology on the word of God.” This remonstration is directed to the Jewish commentators who understand that a man cannot be God and interpret the Bible accordingly. Is Brown not aware that this is not “our own theology” but is firmly rooted in the words of the Bible? Furthermore, in volume two, Brown reinterprets every scriptural passage that explicitly declares the efficacy of repentance to cleanse from sin, in a manner that fits his own theology. It seems that “imposing our own theology on the word of God” is OK for Christians, but not for Jews. "
Brown's whole point regarding repentance is that IN AND OF ITSELF, it is isn't enough to atone, much the same with offering a sacrifice devoid of repentance isn't enough. Every person on the planet can be guilty of projecting their own bias into the Bible and we both, Rabbinic Jews, Messianic Jews and Christians need to step back and think carefully what the scriptures were saying. But it does come back to who is right.
"III. 11. Page 61
Here Brown quotes Origen’s reply to those who argues that Isaiah 53 is a reference to Israel. His argument focuses on verse 8 where the servant is smitten for the sins of “my people”. It is safe to assume that the phrase “my people” is a reference to Israel, so the servant must be someone else. It seems that Origen, like Brown cannot understand that the servant is the righteous remnant. Thus the righteous remnant is smitten for the sins of Israel. In Isaiah 51:12-16 we see clearly how the prophet speaks to the righteous remnant and commissions them to declare to Israel – “you are My nation”.
Another point to consider here is the fact that Brown is contradicting himself. Here he insists that the speakers of this passage must be the people of Israel. Yet when he speaks of the healing brought about through the servant’s suffering, Brown speaks of “a sinning world” (page 52). We challenge Brown to identify the speaker of the passage. Is it specifically Israel, or is it the world at large?
When we focus on the “healing” that Jesus brought to Israel, we see the crusades, the inquisition, and the holocaust. None of these would have occurred had Jesus not been born.
Even when we focus on the nations that put their faith in Jesus, it is hard to find the “healing” that he brought them. The guilt of 2000 years of a deep hatred of God’s firstborn son (Israel) was brought upon the European people through Jesus and his followers. Had Jesus not been born, Europe would have been spared from this scourge. When one steps back and looks at the full scope of history, it becomes clear that Jesus did NOT bring healing to the world or to the Jewish people."
Or has Blumenthal considered the possiblity of the Messiah suffering on behalf of the rightous remnant? Now in my paper to Erano on Isaiah 53 I have said the following:
"Let's look at Isaiah 53:1
"53 Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?"
In this first passage, It is referring to the present time of Isaiah, his report being dismissed, as was also the case with Jesus when the Pharisees in John 12. It is referring to the messages of Messiah and Isaiah being rejected by the people. There is actually first century evidence that Isaiah 53 is referring to the Messiah, although the interpretation differs from Christian one tremendously."
I acknowledge that in the historical context that Israel is the one suffering, however this acknowledgement on my part would not refute the Messianic application. Considering the way the Rabbis had said it referred to the Messiah and that the NT applies such to Christ. However, there are obvious differences in our interpretations which I won't get into this paper. Now, as for those who have had a deep hatred for Israel, God's firstborn son, Were they acting in accordance with Jesus' teaching? The answer is NO.
In fact there is a saying outside the Bible that goes like this this:
"How odd of God to choose the Jews"
and also
"But not so odd, as those who choose, A Jewish God, but spurn the Jews".
Anti-Semitism is foreign to the New Testament and I hope to provide an article in the future on the subject of Anti-Semitism if the Lord Wills.
The healing brought to the world by Jesus' death was the forgiveness of sins of those who would believe on him. Obviously those who killed in the name of Jesus were certainly NOT of his flock.
"III. 17. Page 143-145
Brown is in his lecturing mode again. Here he lectures the Jewish commentators for failing to take note of the priestly role of the Messiah. Brown argues that the scriptures speak of the Messiah and the priest as one person and he upbraids the Rabbis for failing to take note of this. The two scriptural references that Brown provides for his theory are Psalm 110 and Zechariah 6. As it relates to Psalm 110 the Rabbis had no problem acknowledging that this spoke of the Messiah as Brown himself points out on the previous page (142). So Brown’s accusation is simply false. The Rabbis did acknowledge that the Messiah is in some sense a priest. When it comes to the second reference (Zechariah 6) Brown tells us that the Rabbis interpreted the passage as a reference to two separate Messianic figures, a king and a priest. Brown then ridicules this interpretation and informs us that the only correct interpretation is that there is one figure that is both priestly and royal. What Brown fails to tell his readers is that the text in Zechariah explicitly makes reference to “the two of them”- obviously talking about two separate individuals.
My question to Dr. Brown is: Why do the Christian commentators fail to take note of the plurality of the redeemers mentioned explicitly several times in scripture (Obadiah 1:21, Micha 5:4, Zechariah 2:3, 4:14)?"
I have looked at the two texts in Zechariah and I have made note of the two angels mentioned. I speak on Zechariah 3 referring to the angel of the Lord that Christians believe is Jesus but Zechariah 2 which I haven't mentioned and have looked at again, though he is spoken as "the" rather than "a", I am inclined to think that is a different angel from the one mentioned, though he does deliver a message like the other one. However, the angel in chapter 2 who leaves doesn't have the authority to forgive sins like the one found in Zechariah 3.
You can read on the subject of the angel forgiving sins here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/more-on-angel-of-lord.html
Obadiah 1:21 speaks of a group of deliverers that is certain, But I don't see any connection to the Messianic era as such, forgive me Mr Blumenthal if I misunderstood your point. But still, interesting point raised by Blumenthal nonetheless. Granted that Zechariah 6 speaks of 2 anointed ones, it is possible that Christ would carry the functions of those anointed ones.
There is one objection that caught my eye regarding Matthew which I want to address here:
" IV. 7. Objection 5.18
In this objection Brown focuses on Matthew’s fantastic story of many dead people rising from their graves on the occasion of Jesus’ crucifixion and alleged resurrection. Brown addresses those who do not believe this account and responds by pointing to miracles recorded in the Jewish Scriptures and other sacred writings. Brown argues that no miracle is too difficult for an omnipotent God. The only question is: is if Matthew is a trustworthy reporter or not.
As we pointed out in the previous section, there is no reason to believe that Matthew was a trustworthy person. Furthermore, the fact that the other gospel writers said nothing of this extraordinary occurrence should raise some questions even for a Christian. But I think that there is a deeper question that Matthew’s account brings to light.
The entire faith of Christianity (I should say: post-crucifixion Christianity) is built upon the alleged resurrection of Jesus. The claim of Jesus’ resurrection is pointed to as a unique and unparalleled occurrence in the history of mankind. But according to Matthew, a resurrection is no big deal. Matthew claims that many people were resurrected. How then does Matthew know which of these resurrections was the central event and which served as backdrops? It is only the human interpretation of the events that separates one resurrection from the other. Matthew’s incredible account devaluates the resurrection claim. According to Matthew, the resurrection of the dead is not the unique occurrence that the Christian apologists assert it to be."
On that last point, Blumenthal doesn't realise that those who were resurrected were not given glorified bodies at the time. Jesus however has been risen with a GLORIFIED BODY, that is why his resurrection is singled out as central to the Christian faith. Also, The other gospels only record what is relevant to the point that they are trying to make, hence why they don't record the virgin birth either. John is the only one who records the I AM statements of Jesus, and doesn't even record the parables of Jesus either. Does that mean those parables and I AM statements are false because Matthew, Mark and Luke don't record them? No.
"IV. 13. Page 205
Brown quotes Jesus as saying: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets”.
What the historical Jesus said or meant is not the subject of this discussion. What interests us here is the Jesus that lives in the minds and hearts of Christians. Perhaps the historical Jesus intended that his followers remain loyal to the Law. It is also entirely possible that the first several generations of his Jewish followers were indeed obedient to the Law. But the fact remains that over the centuries, Jews who joined Jesus gave up their observance of the Law of Moses. So the historical Jesus may not have meant to abolish the Law, but the Jesus of Christianity certainly did.
On the basis of Jesus’ statement quoted above, Brown comes to the conclusion (page 206) that: “any interpretation of his (Jesus’) words that effectively abolishes the Torah must be rejected”.
My question to Brown is: how do you measure or define the concept: “effectively abolish the Torah”? Is non-observance not enough? Do YOU advocate that Jews observe the Mosaic Law?"
Again, If we read the NT as a whole, even Acts 15 shows Gentiles need not keep the Torah. What Paul condemned in his letters especially Galatians was the observance of the Law to try and justify oneself before God. A Jewish person is allowed to observe Torah if he believes it honors the Messiah and some Jews may probably choose not to keep certain ordinances. But this doesn't mean the Torah is done away with, More like fulfilled in him, considering Christ is described as the telos or fulfillment of the Torah.
"IV. 14. Page 207
Brown argues that Jesus presents himself – as the sole authoritative interpreter of the Jewish Scriptures.
One question that this strange statement brings to mind is: Who is the authoritative interpreter of Jesus’ words and teachings? On whose authority should we accept this interpretation of his words?
Another question that comes to mind is: who was interpreting the Torah before Jesus arrived on the scene? By what authority were these people interpreting the Torah? And who took this authority away from the Judges of Israel authorized by the Law of Moses as interpreters? And if this is not an effective abolishment of the Law then what is? Imagine if one were to present themselves up as the sole interpreter of the Constitution of the United States, ignoring the Supreme Court. Would this not be an effective abolishment of the Constitution?"
The Pharisees where the ones who interpreted the Torah, but the judges were NOT given the authority to interpret the scriptures, they were only allowed to tackle legal disputes which Deuteronomy 17:8-13 deals with. Jesus was disgusted with the Pharisee's interpretation of the Torah considering the Manmade tradtions they added to the Torah itself.
Blumenthal asks who should be the ultimate interpreter of Jesus words, Well, the apostles were the ultimate interpreters of Jesus words, INCLUDING Paul, which I pointed out in the following papers was a true apostle of Jesus:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/response-to-yisroel-blumenthal-on-acts.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/pauline-conspiracy-examining-claims-of.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/pauline-conspiracy-examining-claims-of_30.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/pauline-conspiracy-examining-claims-of_31.html
"IV. 21. Page 214
Brown condemns the decision of the rabbis to discontinue the capital punishments dictated by the Bible once crime became rampant. It is interesting to note that the spiritual reasoning behind this decision is echoed in the Christian Scriptures (John 8:7). In that case, I am sure that Brown is bowled over by the depth of the spiritual insight “revealed” by Jesus, but when the rabbis say the same thing, Brown sees a misapplication of Scripture.
There are two fundamental differences between the statement of Jesus and the position of the rabbis. First of all, Jesus had no authority as a judge of God’s Law. The community of Eternal Israel does not recognize Jesus as any authority for the Law that was entrusted to them (Deuteronomy 33:4). The rabbis on the other hand were and are the judges recognized by the chosen people to arbitrate and to apply God’s Law.
The second difference between the position of the rabbis and that of Jesus, relates to their attitude towards the Law of Moses. The Christian Scriptures make a point of presenting the Law of Moses as simplistic and inadequate (Matthew 5:21). Jesus is portrayed as the one who presents the sophisticated and refined Law. The rabbis on the other hand highlighted the perfection of God’s Law. They were careful to demonstrate how their spiritual insight was drawn from the Scriptures, and that all they were doing was to apply God’s perfect Law as was their responsibility."
In John 8:7, Jesus was pointing out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, They were not keeping the laws about stoning adulterers, because they only brought the woman to him, not both offenders. Even Deuteronomy 22 makes this point:
"Deuteronomy 22:22 If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel."
If Jesus went to stone the adulteress, he would of been guilty of violating the Law. I don't get where Blumenthal makes the point about the scriptures seeing the Mosaic Law as inadequate. The TANAKH as a whole would condemn thought crime but have no punishment for it. Jesus was pointing out "You may not do these things, but by even thinking or considering doing them means you are that". If I have hatred towards my fellow man, I am murderer or if I lusted after someone and thought "I am going to get into bed with them", they are adulterous. This doesn't mean sex is wrong, but that sexual sin is not evil in action only, but by continued thoughts about them too.
I may continue if the Lord Wills responding to more objections raised by the Rabbi in the future.
Answering Judaism.
"II. 15. Page 131
Missionaries quote Psalm 45:7 as a proof that the Messiah is to be divine. The Psalmist literally addresses the king with the words “Your throne God forever”. The Jewish response to this missionary argument points out that the word used for “God” does not necessarily have to be translated that way. The same word could refer to a human judge. Furthermore, in context of the complete scripture we understand that the verse cannot be calling a human divine. Brown responds to this objection by advising his readers; “Try this simple test: Write out the verse in Hebrew by itself, give it to anyone who is fluent in biblical Hebrew and ask him or her to translate the verse.”
In the same vein I would suggest that the readers take Jesus’ statement to the Jewish people in John 8:44, 45: “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth ye believe me not.” Ask them if the man who spoke these words was or was not a racist anti-Semite."
Psalm 45:7 is used by many to show the Divinity of Christ, including me. However, I am willing to set up a page where one can talk about this Psalm in particular on request. But Blumenthal's challenge about the subject of the anti-Semitic charge supposedly utter by Jesus is to be honest, a red herring, even in it's context it doesn't suggest Anti Semiticism. Psalm 102:25-27 and Hebrews 1:10-12 together both teach the divinity of the Messiah, but Psalm 45:7, can probably be discussed in a forum or even on a page on the blog here.
"III. 16. Page 133
Brown pontificates “we do best to take the scriptures in their most obvious basic sense, allowing the Bible to dictate our theology, rather than imposing our own theology on the word of God.” This remonstration is directed to the Jewish commentators who understand that a man cannot be God and interpret the Bible accordingly. Is Brown not aware that this is not “our own theology” but is firmly rooted in the words of the Bible? Furthermore, in volume two, Brown reinterprets every scriptural passage that explicitly declares the efficacy of repentance to cleanse from sin, in a manner that fits his own theology. It seems that “imposing our own theology on the word of God” is OK for Christians, but not for Jews. "
Brown's whole point regarding repentance is that IN AND OF ITSELF, it is isn't enough to atone, much the same with offering a sacrifice devoid of repentance isn't enough. Every person on the planet can be guilty of projecting their own bias into the Bible and we both, Rabbinic Jews, Messianic Jews and Christians need to step back and think carefully what the scriptures were saying. But it does come back to who is right.
"III. 11. Page 61
Here Brown quotes Origen’s reply to those who argues that Isaiah 53 is a reference to Israel. His argument focuses on verse 8 where the servant is smitten for the sins of “my people”. It is safe to assume that the phrase “my people” is a reference to Israel, so the servant must be someone else. It seems that Origen, like Brown cannot understand that the servant is the righteous remnant. Thus the righteous remnant is smitten for the sins of Israel. In Isaiah 51:12-16 we see clearly how the prophet speaks to the righteous remnant and commissions them to declare to Israel – “you are My nation”.
Another point to consider here is the fact that Brown is contradicting himself. Here he insists that the speakers of this passage must be the people of Israel. Yet when he speaks of the healing brought about through the servant’s suffering, Brown speaks of “a sinning world” (page 52). We challenge Brown to identify the speaker of the passage. Is it specifically Israel, or is it the world at large?
When we focus on the “healing” that Jesus brought to Israel, we see the crusades, the inquisition, and the holocaust. None of these would have occurred had Jesus not been born.
Even when we focus on the nations that put their faith in Jesus, it is hard to find the “healing” that he brought them. The guilt of 2000 years of a deep hatred of God’s firstborn son (Israel) was brought upon the European people through Jesus and his followers. Had Jesus not been born, Europe would have been spared from this scourge. When one steps back and looks at the full scope of history, it becomes clear that Jesus did NOT bring healing to the world or to the Jewish people."
Or has Blumenthal considered the possiblity of the Messiah suffering on behalf of the rightous remnant? Now in my paper to Erano on Isaiah 53 I have said the following:
"Let's look at Isaiah 53:1
"53 Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?"
In this first passage, It is referring to the present time of Isaiah, his report being dismissed, as was also the case with Jesus when the Pharisees in John 12. It is referring to the messages of Messiah and Isaiah being rejected by the people. There is actually first century evidence that Isaiah 53 is referring to the Messiah, although the interpretation differs from Christian one tremendously."
I acknowledge that in the historical context that Israel is the one suffering, however this acknowledgement on my part would not refute the Messianic application. Considering the way the Rabbis had said it referred to the Messiah and that the NT applies such to Christ. However, there are obvious differences in our interpretations which I won't get into this paper. Now, as for those who have had a deep hatred for Israel, God's firstborn son, Were they acting in accordance with Jesus' teaching? The answer is NO.
In fact there is a saying outside the Bible that goes like this this:
"How odd of God to choose the Jews"
and also
"But not so odd, as those who choose, A Jewish God, but spurn the Jews".
Anti-Semitism is foreign to the New Testament and I hope to provide an article in the future on the subject of Anti-Semitism if the Lord Wills.
The healing brought to the world by Jesus' death was the forgiveness of sins of those who would believe on him. Obviously those who killed in the name of Jesus were certainly NOT of his flock.
"III. 17. Page 143-145
Brown is in his lecturing mode again. Here he lectures the Jewish commentators for failing to take note of the priestly role of the Messiah. Brown argues that the scriptures speak of the Messiah and the priest as one person and he upbraids the Rabbis for failing to take note of this. The two scriptural references that Brown provides for his theory are Psalm 110 and Zechariah 6. As it relates to Psalm 110 the Rabbis had no problem acknowledging that this spoke of the Messiah as Brown himself points out on the previous page (142). So Brown’s accusation is simply false. The Rabbis did acknowledge that the Messiah is in some sense a priest. When it comes to the second reference (Zechariah 6) Brown tells us that the Rabbis interpreted the passage as a reference to two separate Messianic figures, a king and a priest. Brown then ridicules this interpretation and informs us that the only correct interpretation is that there is one figure that is both priestly and royal. What Brown fails to tell his readers is that the text in Zechariah explicitly makes reference to “the two of them”- obviously talking about two separate individuals.
My question to Dr. Brown is: Why do the Christian commentators fail to take note of the plurality of the redeemers mentioned explicitly several times in scripture (Obadiah 1:21, Micha 5:4, Zechariah 2:3, 4:14)?"
I have looked at the two texts in Zechariah and I have made note of the two angels mentioned. I speak on Zechariah 3 referring to the angel of the Lord that Christians believe is Jesus but Zechariah 2 which I haven't mentioned and have looked at again, though he is spoken as "the" rather than "a", I am inclined to think that is a different angel from the one mentioned, though he does deliver a message like the other one. However, the angel in chapter 2 who leaves doesn't have the authority to forgive sins like the one found in Zechariah 3.
You can read on the subject of the angel forgiving sins here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/more-on-angel-of-lord.html
Obadiah 1:21 speaks of a group of deliverers that is certain, But I don't see any connection to the Messianic era as such, forgive me Mr Blumenthal if I misunderstood your point. But still, interesting point raised by Blumenthal nonetheless. Granted that Zechariah 6 speaks of 2 anointed ones, it is possible that Christ would carry the functions of those anointed ones.
There is one objection that caught my eye regarding Matthew which I want to address here:
" IV. 7. Objection 5.18
In this objection Brown focuses on Matthew’s fantastic story of many dead people rising from their graves on the occasion of Jesus’ crucifixion and alleged resurrection. Brown addresses those who do not believe this account and responds by pointing to miracles recorded in the Jewish Scriptures and other sacred writings. Brown argues that no miracle is too difficult for an omnipotent God. The only question is: is if Matthew is a trustworthy reporter or not.
As we pointed out in the previous section, there is no reason to believe that Matthew was a trustworthy person. Furthermore, the fact that the other gospel writers said nothing of this extraordinary occurrence should raise some questions even for a Christian. But I think that there is a deeper question that Matthew’s account brings to light.
The entire faith of Christianity (I should say: post-crucifixion Christianity) is built upon the alleged resurrection of Jesus. The claim of Jesus’ resurrection is pointed to as a unique and unparalleled occurrence in the history of mankind. But according to Matthew, a resurrection is no big deal. Matthew claims that many people were resurrected. How then does Matthew know which of these resurrections was the central event and which served as backdrops? It is only the human interpretation of the events that separates one resurrection from the other. Matthew’s incredible account devaluates the resurrection claim. According to Matthew, the resurrection of the dead is not the unique occurrence that the Christian apologists assert it to be."
On that last point, Blumenthal doesn't realise that those who were resurrected were not given glorified bodies at the time. Jesus however has been risen with a GLORIFIED BODY, that is why his resurrection is singled out as central to the Christian faith. Also, The other gospels only record what is relevant to the point that they are trying to make, hence why they don't record the virgin birth either. John is the only one who records the I AM statements of Jesus, and doesn't even record the parables of Jesus either. Does that mean those parables and I AM statements are false because Matthew, Mark and Luke don't record them? No.
"IV. 13. Page 205
Brown quotes Jesus as saying: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets”.
What the historical Jesus said or meant is not the subject of this discussion. What interests us here is the Jesus that lives in the minds and hearts of Christians. Perhaps the historical Jesus intended that his followers remain loyal to the Law. It is also entirely possible that the first several generations of his Jewish followers were indeed obedient to the Law. But the fact remains that over the centuries, Jews who joined Jesus gave up their observance of the Law of Moses. So the historical Jesus may not have meant to abolish the Law, but the Jesus of Christianity certainly did.
On the basis of Jesus’ statement quoted above, Brown comes to the conclusion (page 206) that: “any interpretation of his (Jesus’) words that effectively abolishes the Torah must be rejected”.
My question to Brown is: how do you measure or define the concept: “effectively abolish the Torah”? Is non-observance not enough? Do YOU advocate that Jews observe the Mosaic Law?"
Again, If we read the NT as a whole, even Acts 15 shows Gentiles need not keep the Torah. What Paul condemned in his letters especially Galatians was the observance of the Law to try and justify oneself before God. A Jewish person is allowed to observe Torah if he believes it honors the Messiah and some Jews may probably choose not to keep certain ordinances. But this doesn't mean the Torah is done away with, More like fulfilled in him, considering Christ is described as the telos or fulfillment of the Torah.
"IV. 14. Page 207
Brown argues that Jesus presents himself – as the sole authoritative interpreter of the Jewish Scriptures.
One question that this strange statement brings to mind is: Who is the authoritative interpreter of Jesus’ words and teachings? On whose authority should we accept this interpretation of his words?
Another question that comes to mind is: who was interpreting the Torah before Jesus arrived on the scene? By what authority were these people interpreting the Torah? And who took this authority away from the Judges of Israel authorized by the Law of Moses as interpreters? And if this is not an effective abolishment of the Law then what is? Imagine if one were to present themselves up as the sole interpreter of the Constitution of the United States, ignoring the Supreme Court. Would this not be an effective abolishment of the Constitution?"
The Pharisees where the ones who interpreted the Torah, but the judges were NOT given the authority to interpret the scriptures, they were only allowed to tackle legal disputes which Deuteronomy 17:8-13 deals with. Jesus was disgusted with the Pharisee's interpretation of the Torah considering the Manmade tradtions they added to the Torah itself.
Blumenthal asks who should be the ultimate interpreter of Jesus words, Well, the apostles were the ultimate interpreters of Jesus words, INCLUDING Paul, which I pointed out in the following papers was a true apostle of Jesus:
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/response-to-yisroel-blumenthal-on-acts.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/pauline-conspiracy-examining-claims-of.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/pauline-conspiracy-examining-claims-of_30.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/pauline-conspiracy-examining-claims-of_31.html
"IV. 21. Page 214
Brown condemns the decision of the rabbis to discontinue the capital punishments dictated by the Bible once crime became rampant. It is interesting to note that the spiritual reasoning behind this decision is echoed in the Christian Scriptures (John 8:7). In that case, I am sure that Brown is bowled over by the depth of the spiritual insight “revealed” by Jesus, but when the rabbis say the same thing, Brown sees a misapplication of Scripture.
There are two fundamental differences between the statement of Jesus and the position of the rabbis. First of all, Jesus had no authority as a judge of God’s Law. The community of Eternal Israel does not recognize Jesus as any authority for the Law that was entrusted to them (Deuteronomy 33:4). The rabbis on the other hand were and are the judges recognized by the chosen people to arbitrate and to apply God’s Law.
The second difference between the position of the rabbis and that of Jesus, relates to their attitude towards the Law of Moses. The Christian Scriptures make a point of presenting the Law of Moses as simplistic and inadequate (Matthew 5:21). Jesus is portrayed as the one who presents the sophisticated and refined Law. The rabbis on the other hand highlighted the perfection of God’s Law. They were careful to demonstrate how their spiritual insight was drawn from the Scriptures, and that all they were doing was to apply God’s perfect Law as was their responsibility."
In John 8:7, Jesus was pointing out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, They were not keeping the laws about stoning adulterers, because they only brought the woman to him, not both offenders. Even Deuteronomy 22 makes this point:
"Deuteronomy 22:22 If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel."
If Jesus went to stone the adulteress, he would of been guilty of violating the Law. I don't get where Blumenthal makes the point about the scriptures seeing the Mosaic Law as inadequate. The TANAKH as a whole would condemn thought crime but have no punishment for it. Jesus was pointing out "You may not do these things, but by even thinking or considering doing them means you are that". If I have hatred towards my fellow man, I am murderer or if I lusted after someone and thought "I am going to get into bed with them", they are adulterous. This doesn't mean sex is wrong, but that sexual sin is not evil in action only, but by continued thoughts about them too.
I may continue if the Lord Wills responding to more objections raised by the Rabbi in the future.
Answering Judaism.
Friday, 8 November 2013
Response to Uri Yosef on Isaiah 53 4
I know I have been writing more than one article responding to Uri, but some of his points I do need to get into depth, especially with the number of NT verses that I need to address.
He brings up Romans 5:18-19 and John 10:14-18:
"The first of the two New Testament cross-referenced passages to this verse,
John 10:14-18, alludes to (the divine) Jesus claiming equality with the Father
and carrying out his ordained mission by laying down his life and being
satisfied, and how he will be satisfied as the shepherd. The second passage,
Romans 5:18-19, conveys the message that mankind, which became infected
with sin by what Adam had done, is justified through the work of Jesus.
These references reflect the Christian mistranslation and misinterpretation of
this verse, which are not consistent with the Hebrew text and its context.
In addition to the fact that the servant cannot be an individual, and contrary to
Christian theology, this verse explains how the people will be vindicated by
the servant's knowledge and not through his suffering, shed blood, and death."
Paul was quoting from the Septiugant, as did many of the NT writers. Even if one believes that Israel is the suffering servant, which in the historical context is possible, but this doesn't refute the Messianic application given by not only Christians, but also by the Rabbis, despite the difference in interpretation we have. The question is, what knowledge did the Messiah have? and who did he give it to? The knowledge that can be spoken of here is having our sins washed away by the blood of the Messiah, as well as the knowledge of God been taken to the Gentile nations.
" The various New Testament cross-references again reflect Christian
misinterpretations of the Hebrew text, some of which have already
demonstrated that certain verses cannot apply to Jesus.
The Hebrew word ללָשָׁ (shaLAL), booty, which appears in this verse, is used
throughout the Hebrew Bible exclusively to describe the spoils of war in a
literal sense, i.e., taking possession of material goods that belong to others.
Attempting to apply the phrase "… and with the mighty he shall share booty …" to
Jesus raises some poignant questions: Did Jesus ever fight in any war?
Whom did he defeat? What were his spoils? With, or of, whom will Jesus be
sharing the spoils of war?
Lastly, since Jesus was allegedly sacrificed and gave up his human body,
how then could he intercede for anyone? After his crucifixion, was he not up in heaven as “one with the Father”? Should not he himself be the one to forgive?"
The texts in particular were Matthew 26:38-39 and 42, Mark 15:28, Luke 22:37, 2 Corinthians 5:21 and Philippians 2:9-11.
In the last point which is very easy, Jesus died and he was resurrected, thus he can intercede for us, and is still doing so to this day. There isn't a problem here. Jesus does have the authority to forgive sins, but how is this an objection to Isaiah 53 I do not understand, simply because I am unfamiliar with this point.
John Fausset-Brown in his commentary speaks on the subject of spoils in his commentary which can be read here: http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/jamieson-fausset-brown/isaiah/isaiah-53.html:
"12. divide--as a conqueror dividing the spoil after a victory ( Psalms 2:8 , Luke 11:22 ).
him--for Him.
with . . . great--HENGSTENBERG translates, "I will give Him the mighty for a portion"; so the Septuagint. But the parallel clause, "with the strong," favors English Version. His triumphs shall be not merely among the few and weak, but among the many and mighty.
spoil . . . strong--( Colossians 2:15 ; compare Proverbs 16:19 ). "With the great; with the mighty," may mean, as a great and mighty hero.
poured out . . . soul--that is, His life, which was considered as residing in the blood ( Leviticus 17:11 , Romans 3:25 ).
numbered with, &c.--not that He was a transgressor, but He was treated as such, when crucified with thieves ( 15:28 , Luke 22:37 ).
made intercession, &c.--This office He began on the cross ( Luke 23:34 ), and now continues in heaven ( Isaiah 59:16 , Hebrews 9:24 , 1 John 2:1 ). Understand because before "He was
numbered . . . He bare . . . made intercession." His meritorious death and intercession are the cause of His ultimate triumph. MAURER, for the parallelism, translates, "He was put on the same footing with the transgressors." But English Version agrees better with the Hebrew, and with the sense and fact as to Christ. MAURER'S translation would make a tautology after "He was numbered with the transgressors"; parallelism does not need so servile a repetition. "He made intercession for," &c. answers to the parallel. "He was numbered with," &c. as effect answers to cause, His intercession for sinners being the effect flowing from His having been numbered with them."
Now let us move on.
"According to the accounts in the Gospels, the disciples never anticipated a dying
Messiah. Peter acknowledges that Jesus was the Messiah:
Matthew 16:16(KJV) – And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of
the living God.
Yet, when Jesus informs his disciples that he will be going to Jerusalem where he
will be killed (Matthew 16:21), this is Peter's response:
Matthew 16:22(KJV) – Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from
thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
Peter did not appear to have had the expectation that Jesus, as the Messiah, was
to fulfill "Isaiah 53". In fact, Jesus taught his disciples about what is to happen to
him:
Mark 9:31(KJV) – For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is
delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall
rise the third day.
The following account in the New Testament describes their reaction:
Mark 9:32(KJV) – But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him.
These accounts leave no doubt that the disciples did not expect Jesus to fulfill
“Isaiah 53” according to the common Christian interpretation of it as the scenario for
his suffering, crucifixion, and resurrection. Rather, it appears that the common
Christian interpretation of "Isaiah 53" is a later invention by the Church."
Incorrect, The apostles may of been ignorant of Isaiah 53 speaking of Christ before his mission was complete but just because they were ignorant, that doesn't mean they are automatically wrong. Furthermore, when Christ rose from the dead, he opened their minds to understand the scriptures which can be found in Luke 24:44-48 of the NT. I have written a brief article on this issue of the context of that passage which can be found here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/luke-2444-48-forgery.html
I hope I have addressed the points adequately. Thanks for reading.
Answering Judaism.
He brings up Romans 5:18-19 and John 10:14-18:
"The first of the two New Testament cross-referenced passages to this verse,
John 10:14-18, alludes to (the divine) Jesus claiming equality with the Father
and carrying out his ordained mission by laying down his life and being
satisfied, and how he will be satisfied as the shepherd. The second passage,
Romans 5:18-19, conveys the message that mankind, which became infected
with sin by what Adam had done, is justified through the work of Jesus.
These references reflect the Christian mistranslation and misinterpretation of
this verse, which are not consistent with the Hebrew text and its context.
In addition to the fact that the servant cannot be an individual, and contrary to
Christian theology, this verse explains how the people will be vindicated by
the servant's knowledge and not through his suffering, shed blood, and death."
Paul was quoting from the Septiugant, as did many of the NT writers. Even if one believes that Israel is the suffering servant, which in the historical context is possible, but this doesn't refute the Messianic application given by not only Christians, but also by the Rabbis, despite the difference in interpretation we have. The question is, what knowledge did the Messiah have? and who did he give it to? The knowledge that can be spoken of here is having our sins washed away by the blood of the Messiah, as well as the knowledge of God been taken to the Gentile nations.
" The various New Testament cross-references again reflect Christian
misinterpretations of the Hebrew text, some of which have already
demonstrated that certain verses cannot apply to Jesus.
The Hebrew word ללָשָׁ (shaLAL), booty, which appears in this verse, is used
throughout the Hebrew Bible exclusively to describe the spoils of war in a
literal sense, i.e., taking possession of material goods that belong to others.
Attempting to apply the phrase "… and with the mighty he shall share booty …" to
Jesus raises some poignant questions: Did Jesus ever fight in any war?
Whom did he defeat? What were his spoils? With, or of, whom will Jesus be
sharing the spoils of war?
Lastly, since Jesus was allegedly sacrificed and gave up his human body,
how then could he intercede for anyone? After his crucifixion, was he not up in heaven as “one with the Father”? Should not he himself be the one to forgive?"
The texts in particular were Matthew 26:38-39 and 42, Mark 15:28, Luke 22:37, 2 Corinthians 5:21 and Philippians 2:9-11.
In the last point which is very easy, Jesus died and he was resurrected, thus he can intercede for us, and is still doing so to this day. There isn't a problem here. Jesus does have the authority to forgive sins, but how is this an objection to Isaiah 53 I do not understand, simply because I am unfamiliar with this point.
John Fausset-Brown in his commentary speaks on the subject of spoils in his commentary which can be read here: http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/jamieson-fausset-brown/isaiah/isaiah-53.html:
"12. divide--as a conqueror dividing the spoil after a victory ( Psalms 2:8 , Luke 11:22 ).
him--for Him.
with . . . great--HENGSTENBERG translates, "I will give Him the mighty for a portion"; so the Septuagint. But the parallel clause, "with the strong," favors English Version. His triumphs shall be not merely among the few and weak, but among the many and mighty.
spoil . . . strong--( Colossians 2:15 ; compare Proverbs 16:19 ). "With the great; with the mighty," may mean, as a great and mighty hero.
poured out . . . soul--that is, His life, which was considered as residing in the blood ( Leviticus 17:11 , Romans 3:25 ).
numbered with, &c.--not that He was a transgressor, but He was treated as such, when crucified with thieves ( 15:28 , Luke 22:37 ).
made intercession, &c.--This office He began on the cross ( Luke 23:34 ), and now continues in heaven ( Isaiah 59:16 , Hebrews 9:24 , 1 John 2:1 ). Understand because before "He was
numbered . . . He bare . . . made intercession." His meritorious death and intercession are the cause of His ultimate triumph. MAURER, for the parallelism, translates, "He was put on the same footing with the transgressors." But English Version agrees better with the Hebrew, and with the sense and fact as to Christ. MAURER'S translation would make a tautology after "He was numbered with the transgressors"; parallelism does not need so servile a repetition. "He made intercession for," &c. answers to the parallel. "He was numbered with," &c. as effect answers to cause, His intercession for sinners being the effect flowing from His having been numbered with them."
Now let us move on.
"According to the accounts in the Gospels, the disciples never anticipated a dying
Messiah. Peter acknowledges that Jesus was the Messiah:
Matthew 16:16(KJV) – And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of
the living God.
Yet, when Jesus informs his disciples that he will be going to Jerusalem where he
will be killed (Matthew 16:21), this is Peter's response:
Matthew 16:22(KJV) – Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from
thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
Peter did not appear to have had the expectation that Jesus, as the Messiah, was
to fulfill "Isaiah 53". In fact, Jesus taught his disciples about what is to happen to
him:
Mark 9:31(KJV) – For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is
delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall
rise the third day.
The following account in the New Testament describes their reaction:
Mark 9:32(KJV) – But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him.
These accounts leave no doubt that the disciples did not expect Jesus to fulfill
“Isaiah 53” according to the common Christian interpretation of it as the scenario for
his suffering, crucifixion, and resurrection. Rather, it appears that the common
Christian interpretation of "Isaiah 53" is a later invention by the Church."
Incorrect, The apostles may of been ignorant of Isaiah 53 speaking of Christ before his mission was complete but just because they were ignorant, that doesn't mean they are automatically wrong. Furthermore, when Christ rose from the dead, he opened their minds to understand the scriptures which can be found in Luke 24:44-48 of the NT. I have written a brief article on this issue of the context of that passage which can be found here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/luke-2444-48-forgery.html
I hope I have addressed the points adequately. Thanks for reading.
Answering Judaism.
Response to Uri Yosef on Isaiah 53 3
Here we are moving on to Isaiah 53:10 in this article responding to Uri Yosef. Let us continue.
"In cross-referencing this verse and John 1:29, the New Testament points
specifically at the phrase "… when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin …"
as it appears in common Christian translations. However, it was already
demonstrated that the correct (Jewish) context differs significantly from the
context being implied by Christian translations. Consequently, there is no
need to further comment on this reference at John 1:29."
The reference in John 1:29 speaks of the Lamb of God taking away the sins of the world. This point I would need to look into before further comments.
""… And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill …": According to the New
Testament, the only one who was to be crushed by God is Satan, not Jesus
(Romans 16:20). Of what sickness did Jesus suffer? Why would God want
to crush Jesus and make him ill? If he was crushed and sick, then how,
according to the Christian interpretation of this verse, could Jesus be a
perfect and unblemished sacrificial offering? "
Verses 5-6 of Isaiah 53 already tell us why the servant was crushed. I am not sure what the argument is for Satan being crushed. Jesus wasn't crushed for his own iniquities, but ours *. Furthermore, Regarding the subject of Jesus being a perfect unblemished lamb, that is already covered in my first response to Yosef which can be found here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/response-to-uri-yosef-on-isaiah-53.html
Also, John doesn't have the Passover Lamb in mind, At least I have never had that hint at all from reading the text if my memory serves me well. Paul is the one who describes Jesus as the passover lamb which can be found in the article above.
If you want to describe sin as disease or illness, then that is one way Jesus fulfils this part of Isaiah 53:10, not that he became sin, but rather a sin offering and took the wrath of God on our behalf.
""... if his soul would acknowledge guilt …": How could a "sinless" Jesus
acknowledge any guilt? According to the Christian interpretation, this phrase
speaks of Jesus offering himself as a guilt offering, [שׁםָאָ (aSHAM) in the
Hebrew text of the verse], one that is supposed to effect atonement for a
limited class of intentional sins. Yet, the New Testament, pointing at the
Paschal Lamb (Exodus 12), also refers to Jesus as "the Lamb of God, which
taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). So, notwithstanding the fact that
the Paschal Lamb did not serve to atone for any sins, how could Jesus be
both at once? After all, each of these two sacrificial offerings had a different
purpose."
If I recall, isn't an asham a guilt offering? Not to mention the servant isn't guilty, he is rightous. Regarding the note about the Passover Lamb, that's typology again. Plus, Why would God bother crushing the servant if he was already rightous? He is obedient in the context.
The New Testament points to Jesus being the Passover Lamb that has been slain, and Jesus was slain at Passover. Even if though the Exodus story doesn't mention repentance, that isn't what Paul is conveying when he alludes to the Passover. In other words, Just as the blood was used to cover the doorpost and cause the angel of death to Passover the Israelites, so the blood of Christ which we are washed in, causes God's wrath to Passover us. Paul does mention putting away the old leaven (evil and sin), but his point, again, the blood on the door post and the blood of Jesus acting as a protective covering from God's wrath.
I have heard this argument from Michael Skobac and other people regarding this issue of the Passover Lamb and frankly, neither take typology into consideration. But the subject of typologies need a seperate article altogether.
"This phrase "… when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin …" cannot apply
to Jesus even according to the Christian rendition. Did Jesus offer his soul
(spirit), or did he offer his body (flesh)? If this was the purpose for God
coming to earth in the flesh, why is it necessary to have here the conditional
"when" (or, "if" in some Christian renditions)? Was there a chance that Jesus
would not offer himself? As was already noted earlier, Jesus was not
necessarily a willing party to this sacrifice (Matthew 26:39, 27:46; Mark 14:36, 15:34; Luke 22:42, 23:46; John 19:30; Hebrews 5:7). It appears that Jesus
died against his will, so that he really offered nothing at all."
In those contexts of Jesus praying in the Garden of Gethsemane, he is praying for The Father's will to be done. It is not him being unwilling. Jesus only fear was spiritual death, seperation from his Father for a time due to paying the penalty of sin. He was willing to go through with it since it was the Father's will and Hebrews 5:7 has nothing to do with the subject of Jesus being "unwilling" to go to the cross. It simply speaks of his life as a whole that God heard him because he was continually obedient to him. Also, His obedience was to prepare him for his priestly ministry as Jamieson-Fausset-Brown states:
"8. Though He WAS (so it ought to be translated: a positive admitted fact: not a mere supposition as were would imply) God's divine Son (whence, even in His agony, He so lovingly and often cried, Father, Mt 26:39), yet He learned His (so the Greek) obedience, not from His Sonship, but from His sufferings. As the Son, He was always obedient to the Father's will; but the special obedience needed to qualify Him as our High Priest, He learned experimentally in practical suffering. Compare Php 2:6-8, "equal with God, but … took upon Him the form of a servant, and became obedient unto death," &c. He was obedient already before His passion, but He stooped to a still more humiliating and trying form of obedience then. The Greek adage is, "Pathemata mathemata," "sufferings, disciplinings." Praying and obeying, as in Christ's case, ought to go hand in hand."
Now onto the next point.
""… he shall have descendants [or, he shall see progeny] …": It was previously
established that the use in the Hebrew Bible of idiomatic expressions such as
“seeing seed” always refers to physical seed, whether it is plant, animal, or
human seed. According to the New Testament and other Christian sources,
Jesus never fathered any children, so it is evident that he did not enjoy the
promise of this reward. "
Zerah doesn't necessarily mean physical seed in every context it is used. It can refer to metaphorical or spiritual seed. This can be found in Isaiah 57:3-4 and possibly Psalm 22:31, that's the first argument. You can make the argument obviously that one can be the offspring of a sorceress and offspring of adulterers, but does falsehood have a seed? Maybe a discussion page on the blog should be in order to discuss the word Zerah.
Here are the contexts of Isaiah 57:3 and Psalm 22:31
"Isaiah 57:1 The righteous perish,
and no one takes it to heart;
the devout are taken away,
and no one understands
that the righteous are taken away
to be spared from evil.
2 Those who walk uprightly
enter into peace;
they find rest as they lie in death.
3 “But you—come here, you children of a sorceress,
you offspring of adulterers and prostitutes!
4 Who are you mocking?
At whom do you sneer
and stick out your tongue?
Are you not a brood of rebels,
the offspring of liars?"
"Psalm 22:27 All the ends of the earth
will remember and turn to the Lord,
and all the families of the nations
will bow down before him,
28 for dominion belongs to the Lord
and he rules over the nations.
29 All the rich of the earth will feast and worship;
all who go down to the dust will kneel before him—
those who cannot keep themselves alive.
30 Posterity will serve him;
future generations will be told about the Lord.
31 They will proclaim his righteousness,
declaring to a people yet unborn:
He has done it!"
Also, considering Isaiah called the people a brood of vipers, Does that mean that he literally called them actual snakes or descendants of snakes? No of course not.
Second, If Zerah refers to spiritual seed, another way Jesus fulfills this in a second argument. In 1 Corithians 15:45-49, we read the following:
"If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”[f]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we[g] bear the image of the heavenly man."
Jesus is referred to as the second man or Last Adam and in that sense has spiritual descendants by virtue of the fact he is the father of a new humanity, a race redeemed by his blood. Also, If you want to say that Zera means physical, I may grant that, but feel free to check this article out while you are at it: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/seed-of-isaiah-5310.html
""… he shall prolong his days …" It was also previously established that the use
in the Hebrew Bible of the idiomatic expression “[to] prolong days” refers
exclusively to extending a person's mortal lifetime on earth. One of the
psalms speaks of what such a mortal lifetime might be:
Psalms 90:10 - The days of our years among them are seventy years, and if with
might, eighty years; and their proudest success is but toil and pain, for it passes
quickly and we fly away.
It is 70-80 years! Yet, the New Testament contains the following account:
Luke 3:23(KJV) - And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being
(as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
Accordingly, Jesus started his ministry around the age of 30, and he was
crucified some three years later, so that he was in his early thirties when he
died, which hardly qualifies as having prolonged days, even according to
Biblical standards.
The Hebrew Bible teaches that the above two rewards – children and a long
life, the two greatest rewards God gives to mankind here on earth – come at
the same time:
Isaiah 65:20-23 – (20) There shall no longer be from there a youth or an old man
who will not fill his days, for the youth who is one hundred years old shall die, and
the sinner who is one hundred years old shall be cursed. (21) And they shall build
houses and inhabit them, and they shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit. (22)
They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat, for
like the days of the tree are the days of My people, and My elect shall outlive their
handiwork. (23) They shall not toil in vain, neither shall they bear for terror, for they
are seed blessed by the Lord, and their offspring shall be with them. [See also Job
5:25-26.]
Clearly, Jesus enjoyed neither of these rewards during his lifetime. "
By his resurrection, Jesus had his days prolonged eternally when he had died and rose again. His days were prolonged by his resurrection. The servant himself dies in the passage and it is a consistent reading of the text, considering he had been crushed. That is something to take into account. The zerah or seed thing has more or less been covered.
""… and God's purpose shall prosper in his hand ...": According to accounts in the New
Testament, Jesus was well aware of the purpose of his mission, both on
earth and destiny in heaven:
Matthew 16:21(KJV) - From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples,
how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and
chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
John 6:38(KJV) – For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the
will of him that sent me.
John 8:14(KJV) – Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of
myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye
cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.
Why would Jesus, who is God manifest in the flesh according to most
Christians, need to be promised by God a reward for doing God's will, and
that he will be successful? What was the purpose of his being sent to earth if
not to be successful? Would not an omniscient God know in advance that his
incarnate divine "son" will fulfill all that was supposed to be done? Why would
a heaven-bound being have to be promised earthly rewards such as a long
life and children? Perhaps this verse shows that God's servant could not
possibly be divine. "
Or it simply indicates that Jesus is not the Father in heaven which in this context is rightly pointed out. I am not sure what the point is of the objection about the omniscient God not knowing whether his son was going to successful. If Christ is successful, Hallelujah. Christ being divine would not be negated by Isaiah 53:10.
I'll look at Isaiah 53:11 in another article.
Answering Judaism.
* 18th of April 2015. I have no idea why I put "Satan wasn't crushed for our iniquities, but for his own" so I changed this particular point.
"In cross-referencing this verse and John 1:29, the New Testament points
specifically at the phrase "… when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin …"
as it appears in common Christian translations. However, it was already
demonstrated that the correct (Jewish) context differs significantly from the
context being implied by Christian translations. Consequently, there is no
need to further comment on this reference at John 1:29."
The reference in John 1:29 speaks of the Lamb of God taking away the sins of the world. This point I would need to look into before further comments.
""… And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill …": According to the New
Testament, the only one who was to be crushed by God is Satan, not Jesus
(Romans 16:20). Of what sickness did Jesus suffer? Why would God want
to crush Jesus and make him ill? If he was crushed and sick, then how,
according to the Christian interpretation of this verse, could Jesus be a
perfect and unblemished sacrificial offering? "
Verses 5-6 of Isaiah 53 already tell us why the servant was crushed. I am not sure what the argument is for Satan being crushed. Jesus wasn't crushed for his own iniquities, but ours *. Furthermore, Regarding the subject of Jesus being a perfect unblemished lamb, that is already covered in my first response to Yosef which can be found here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/response-to-uri-yosef-on-isaiah-53.html
Also, John doesn't have the Passover Lamb in mind, At least I have never had that hint at all from reading the text if my memory serves me well. Paul is the one who describes Jesus as the passover lamb which can be found in the article above.
If you want to describe sin as disease or illness, then that is one way Jesus fulfils this part of Isaiah 53:10, not that he became sin, but rather a sin offering and took the wrath of God on our behalf.
""... if his soul would acknowledge guilt …": How could a "sinless" Jesus
acknowledge any guilt? According to the Christian interpretation, this phrase
speaks of Jesus offering himself as a guilt offering, [שׁםָאָ (aSHAM) in the
Hebrew text of the verse], one that is supposed to effect atonement for a
limited class of intentional sins. Yet, the New Testament, pointing at the
Paschal Lamb (Exodus 12), also refers to Jesus as "the Lamb of God, which
taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). So, notwithstanding the fact that
the Paschal Lamb did not serve to atone for any sins, how could Jesus be
both at once? After all, each of these two sacrificial offerings had a different
purpose."
If I recall, isn't an asham a guilt offering? Not to mention the servant isn't guilty, he is rightous. Regarding the note about the Passover Lamb, that's typology again. Plus, Why would God bother crushing the servant if he was already rightous? He is obedient in the context.
The New Testament points to Jesus being the Passover Lamb that has been slain, and Jesus was slain at Passover. Even if though the Exodus story doesn't mention repentance, that isn't what Paul is conveying when he alludes to the Passover. In other words, Just as the blood was used to cover the doorpost and cause the angel of death to Passover the Israelites, so the blood of Christ which we are washed in, causes God's wrath to Passover us. Paul does mention putting away the old leaven (evil and sin), but his point, again, the blood on the door post and the blood of Jesus acting as a protective covering from God's wrath.
I have heard this argument from Michael Skobac and other people regarding this issue of the Passover Lamb and frankly, neither take typology into consideration. But the subject of typologies need a seperate article altogether.
"This phrase "… when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin …" cannot apply
to Jesus even according to the Christian rendition. Did Jesus offer his soul
(spirit), or did he offer his body (flesh)? If this was the purpose for God
coming to earth in the flesh, why is it necessary to have here the conditional
"when" (or, "if" in some Christian renditions)? Was there a chance that Jesus
would not offer himself? As was already noted earlier, Jesus was not
necessarily a willing party to this sacrifice (Matthew 26:39, 27:46; Mark 14:36, 15:34; Luke 22:42, 23:46; John 19:30; Hebrews 5:7). It appears that Jesus
died against his will, so that he really offered nothing at all."
In those contexts of Jesus praying in the Garden of Gethsemane, he is praying for The Father's will to be done. It is not him being unwilling. Jesus only fear was spiritual death, seperation from his Father for a time due to paying the penalty of sin. He was willing to go through with it since it was the Father's will and Hebrews 5:7 has nothing to do with the subject of Jesus being "unwilling" to go to the cross. It simply speaks of his life as a whole that God heard him because he was continually obedient to him. Also, His obedience was to prepare him for his priestly ministry as Jamieson-Fausset-Brown states:
"8. Though He WAS (so it ought to be translated: a positive admitted fact: not a mere supposition as were would imply) God's divine Son (whence, even in His agony, He so lovingly and often cried, Father, Mt 26:39), yet He learned His (so the Greek) obedience, not from His Sonship, but from His sufferings. As the Son, He was always obedient to the Father's will; but the special obedience needed to qualify Him as our High Priest, He learned experimentally in practical suffering. Compare Php 2:6-8, "equal with God, but … took upon Him the form of a servant, and became obedient unto death," &c. He was obedient already before His passion, but He stooped to a still more humiliating and trying form of obedience then. The Greek adage is, "Pathemata mathemata," "sufferings, disciplinings." Praying and obeying, as in Christ's case, ought to go hand in hand."
Now onto the next point.
""… he shall have descendants [or, he shall see progeny] …": It was previously
established that the use in the Hebrew Bible of idiomatic expressions such as
“seeing seed” always refers to physical seed, whether it is plant, animal, or
human seed. According to the New Testament and other Christian sources,
Jesus never fathered any children, so it is evident that he did not enjoy the
promise of this reward. "
Zerah doesn't necessarily mean physical seed in every context it is used. It can refer to metaphorical or spiritual seed. This can be found in Isaiah 57:3-4 and possibly Psalm 22:31, that's the first argument. You can make the argument obviously that one can be the offspring of a sorceress and offspring of adulterers, but does falsehood have a seed? Maybe a discussion page on the blog should be in order to discuss the word Zerah.
Here are the contexts of Isaiah 57:3 and Psalm 22:31
"Isaiah 57:1 The righteous perish,
and no one takes it to heart;
the devout are taken away,
and no one understands
that the righteous are taken away
to be spared from evil.
2 Those who walk uprightly
enter into peace;
they find rest as they lie in death.
3 “But you—come here, you children of a sorceress,
you offspring of adulterers and prostitutes!
4 Who are you mocking?
At whom do you sneer
and stick out your tongue?
Are you not a brood of rebels,
the offspring of liars?"
"Psalm 22:27 All the ends of the earth
will remember and turn to the Lord,
and all the families of the nations
will bow down before him,
28 for dominion belongs to the Lord
and he rules over the nations.
29 All the rich of the earth will feast and worship;
all who go down to the dust will kneel before him—
those who cannot keep themselves alive.
30 Posterity will serve him;
future generations will be told about the Lord.
31 They will proclaim his righteousness,
declaring to a people yet unborn:
He has done it!"
Also, considering Isaiah called the people a brood of vipers, Does that mean that he literally called them actual snakes or descendants of snakes? No of course not.
Second, If Zerah refers to spiritual seed, another way Jesus fulfills this in a second argument. In 1 Corithians 15:45-49, we read the following:
"If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”[f]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. 48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the earthly man, so shall we[g] bear the image of the heavenly man."
Jesus is referred to as the second man or Last Adam and in that sense has spiritual descendants by virtue of the fact he is the father of a new humanity, a race redeemed by his blood. Also, If you want to say that Zera means physical, I may grant that, but feel free to check this article out while you are at it: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/seed-of-isaiah-5310.html
""… he shall prolong his days …" It was also previously established that the use
in the Hebrew Bible of the idiomatic expression “[to] prolong days” refers
exclusively to extending a person's mortal lifetime on earth. One of the
psalms speaks of what such a mortal lifetime might be:
Psalms 90:10 - The days of our years among them are seventy years, and if with
might, eighty years; and their proudest success is but toil and pain, for it passes
quickly and we fly away.
It is 70-80 years! Yet, the New Testament contains the following account:
Luke 3:23(KJV) - And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being
(as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
Accordingly, Jesus started his ministry around the age of 30, and he was
crucified some three years later, so that he was in his early thirties when he
died, which hardly qualifies as having prolonged days, even according to
Biblical standards.
The Hebrew Bible teaches that the above two rewards – children and a long
life, the two greatest rewards God gives to mankind here on earth – come at
the same time:
Isaiah 65:20-23 – (20) There shall no longer be from there a youth or an old man
who will not fill his days, for the youth who is one hundred years old shall die, and
the sinner who is one hundred years old shall be cursed. (21) And they shall build
houses and inhabit them, and they shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit. (22)
They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat, for
like the days of the tree are the days of My people, and My elect shall outlive their
handiwork. (23) They shall not toil in vain, neither shall they bear for terror, for they
are seed blessed by the Lord, and their offspring shall be with them. [See also Job
5:25-26.]
Clearly, Jesus enjoyed neither of these rewards during his lifetime. "
By his resurrection, Jesus had his days prolonged eternally when he had died and rose again. His days were prolonged by his resurrection. The servant himself dies in the passage and it is a consistent reading of the text, considering he had been crushed. That is something to take into account. The zerah or seed thing has more or less been covered.
""… and God's purpose shall prosper in his hand ...": According to accounts in the New
Testament, Jesus was well aware of the purpose of his mission, both on
earth and destiny in heaven:
Matthew 16:21(KJV) - From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples,
how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and
chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
John 6:38(KJV) – For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the
will of him that sent me.
John 8:14(KJV) – Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of
myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye
cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.
Why would Jesus, who is God manifest in the flesh according to most
Christians, need to be promised by God a reward for doing God's will, and
that he will be successful? What was the purpose of his being sent to earth if
not to be successful? Would not an omniscient God know in advance that his
incarnate divine "son" will fulfill all that was supposed to be done? Why would
a heaven-bound being have to be promised earthly rewards such as a long
life and children? Perhaps this verse shows that God's servant could not
possibly be divine. "
Or it simply indicates that Jesus is not the Father in heaven which in this context is rightly pointed out. I am not sure what the point is of the objection about the omniscient God not knowing whether his son was going to successful. If Christ is successful, Hallelujah. Christ being divine would not be negated by Isaiah 53:10.
I'll look at Isaiah 53:11 in another article.
Answering Judaism.
* 18th of April 2015. I have no idea why I put "Satan wasn't crushed for our iniquities, but for his own" so I changed this particular point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)