Within this article I wish to deal with two texts which are often raised against Christians by Rabbinic Jews, and occasionally Muslims and other groups to try and say that Christians are guilty of misusing the context of those passages. They are Isaiah 7:14 and Hosea 11:1. Let's look at them.
Isaiah 7:14
"7 When Ahaz son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, was king of Judah, King Rezin of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel marched up to fight against Jerusalem, but they could not overpower it.
2 Now the house of David was told, “Aram has allied itself with[a] Ephraim”; so the hearts of Ahaz and his people were shaken, as the trees of the forest are shaken by the wind.
3 Then the Lord said to Isaiah, “Go out, you and your son Shear-Jashub,[b] to meet Ahaz at the end of the aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the Launderer’s Field. 4 Say to him, ‘Be careful, keep calm and don’t be afraid. Do not lose heart because of these two smoldering stubs of firewood—because of the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram and of the son of Remaliah. 5 Aram, Ephraim and Remaliah’s son have plotted your ruin, saying, 6 “Let us invade Judah; let us tear it apart and divide it among ourselves, and make the son of Tabeel king over it.” 7 Yet this is what the Sovereign Lord says:
“‘It will not take place,
it will not happen,
8 for the head of Aram is Damascus,
and the head of Damascus is only Rezin.
Within sixty-five years
Ephraim will be too shattered to be a people.
9 The head of Ephraim is Samaria,
and the head of Samaria is only Remaliah’s son.
If you do not stand firm in your faith,
you will not stand at all.’”
10 Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, 11 “Ask the Lord your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.”
12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask; I will not put the Lord to the test.”
13 Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you[c] a sign: The virgin[d] will conceive and give birth to a son, and[e] will call him Immanuel.[f] 15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. 17 The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria.”
18 In that day the Lord will whistle for flies from the Nile delta in Egypt and for bees from the land of Assyria. 19 They will all come and settle in the steep ravines and in the crevices in the rocks, on all the thornbushes and at all the water holes. 20 In that day the Lord will use a razor hired from beyond the Euphrates River—the king of Assyria—to shave your head and private parts, and to cut off your beard also. 21 In that day, a person will keep alive a young cow and two goats. 22 And because of the abundance of the milk they give, there will be curds to eat. All who remain in the land will eat curds and honey. 23 In that day, in every place where there were a thousand vines worth a thousand silver shekels,[g] there will be only briers and thorns. 24 Hunters will go there with bow and arrow, for the land will be covered with briers and thorns. 25 As for all the hills once cultivated by the hoe, you will no longer go there for fear of the briers and thorns; they will become places where cattle are turned loose and where sheep run.".
In the context, The child born would be a sign to King Ahaz that the Assyrians and the people of Ephraim, the Northern Kingdom, will not prevail over them, because God would be with them. The child was to indicate that God was on the side of the people of Judah and is set against the Assyrians and the Northern Kingdom and bringing destruction on them if they do not repent. The child himself gave Ahaz hope that Judah would survive and will not be trampled.
Matthew applies Isaiah 7:14 to Jesus as a double prophecy, because his birth would be a sign to the people that the Messiah had come and will deliver Israel from their enemies and that they will not be prevailed against. It was also a sign that God was with them and NOT with their enemies. When Jesus returns, he will come back and deal with those who do wrong against his people be they Jew or Gentile, Just as the Assyrians were dealt with in the TANAKH itself.
So just as the child born was light and hope to the people and Ahaz, so Jesus was light and hope to his people.
Hosea 11:1
Now we turn to the other passage in Hosea 11, Let's read.
"11 “When Israel was a child, I loved him,
and out of Egypt I called my son.
2 But the more they were called,
the more they went away from me.[a]
They sacrificed to the Baals
and they burned incense to images.
3 It was I who taught Ephraim to walk,
taking them by the arms;
but they did not realize
it was I who healed them.
4 I led them with cords of human kindness,
with ties of love.
To them I was like one who lifts
a little child to the cheek,
and I bent down to feed them.
5 “Will they not return to Egypt
and will not Assyria rule over them
because they refuse to repent?
6 A sword will flash in their cities;
it will devour their false prophets
and put an end to their plans.
7 My people are determined to turn from me.
Even though they call me God Most High,
I will by no means exalt them."
In this passage, God speaks of the time he first called Israel out of the land for servitude to him and to be his son. Despite this, the people of Israel rebelled and turned to Baal, Asherah and whatever detestable deity they had decided to worship. Some even tried including Ha Shem in this pantheon, which of course he would not accept and rightly so he didn't.
The point is they were called to be his servant and proclaim his name among the Gentiles and bring the world to himself through them. In the same way, Jesus was called out of Egypt by his Father in heaven, to do his mission of redemption of bringing the Jews and the Gentiles into reconciliation by the vicarious death on the cross. This was the mission of Christ in the will of the Triune God from eternity. After being sent to Earth, Jesus was called for service by his Father to carry a mission and a function and to serve him.
Just as Israel was called to serve God, the Son himself was called for a mission.
That is what is being put across in these passages by Matthew in his Gospel.
Check my words with scripture and study the Word, Hope this article has been a blessing.
Answering Judaism.
Tuesday, 26 November 2013
Sunday, 24 November 2013
Judge Not, Touch Not: What does it mean to touch God's anointed?
I want to address a few passages in their context to see what they actually say and what they do not say.
The first one is judge not, lest you be judged, which ironically condemns those who misuse this text.
Let's look:
"7 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
6 “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."
A careful reading of the context suggests that we are to judge but not in a hypocritical manner. When you are about to condemn someone for lying for example, Make sure that you are not doing the same thing, then you can point out what the person is doing is wrong. Clean up your mess, then you can tell someone else to do the same.
With respect to the other verse, the phrase Touch not God's anointed is often abused quite regularly as well and the historical context is neglected. Let's read the passage in it's context. This is in 1 Samuel 24
"5 Afterward, David was conscience-stricken for having cut off a corner of his robe. 6 He said to his men, “The Lord forbid that I should do such a thing to my master, the Lord’s anointed, or lay my hand on him; for he is the anointed of the Lord.” 7 With these words David sharply rebuked his men and did not allow them to attack Saul. And Saul left the cave and went his way.
8 Then David went out of the cave and called out to Saul, “My lord the king!” When Saul looked behind him, David bowed down and prostrated himself with his face to the ground. 9 He said to Saul, “Why do you listen when men say, ‘David is bent on harming you’? 10 This day you have seen with your own eyes how the Lord delivered you into my hands in the cave. Some urged me to kill you, but I spared you; I said, ‘I will not lay my hand on my lord, because he is the Lord’s anointed.’ 11 See, my father, look at this piece of your robe in my hand! I cut off the corner of your robe but did not kill you. See that there is nothing in my hand to indicate that I am guilty of wrongdoing or rebellion. I have not wronged you, but you are hunting me down to take my life. 12 May the Lord judge between you and me. And may the Lord avenge the wrongs you have done to me, but my hand will not touch you. 13 As the old saying goes, ‘From evildoers come evil deeds,’ so my hand will not touch you."
In context, David was not allowed to attack Saul because he was still in possession of the throne at the time and it was not David's right to remove Saul from power. Saul was still the anointed King of Israel and it wasn't time for David to take the throne at this point. In fact David even killed a man who brought news of Sauls demise. However, This text doesn't say even implicitly that you cannot expose a false prophet. People may have successful ministries and perform supposed signs and wonders, But that doesn't exonerate them from being judged according to scripture. We are to make rightous judgements, as found in Titus 2:15, 3:5 and many other passages. They MUST be called out as false prophets IF they are teaching abhorant doctrinal error, are known to have made false prophecies and have been involved in a false prophetic ministry and must be silenced for teaching and doing things they ought not to. Touch not God's anointed was a ONE TIME event within the context of the Bible, it is NOT a universal principle to all nations.
Also, Let us read Psalm 105:15 in context to see what it says, because it is often misused by many to silence people from correcting prophets. Let's look:
"12 When they were but few in number,
few indeed, and strangers in it,
13 they wandered from nation to nation,
from one kingdom to another.
14 He allowed no one to oppress them;
for their sake he rebuked kings:
15 “Do not touch my anointed ones;
do my prophets no harm.”
16 He called down famine on the land
and destroyed all their supplies of food;
17 and he sent a man before them—
Joseph, sold as a slave.
18 They bruised his feet with shackles,
his neck was put in irons,
19 till what he foretold came to pass,
till the word of the Lord proved him true.
20 The king sent and released him,
the ruler of peoples set him free.
21 He made him master of his household,
ruler over all he possessed,
22 to instruct his princes as he pleased
and teach his elders wisdom."
In context, YHWH or HaShem is rebuking the Gentile Kings for trying to bring desolation and destruction on the people of Israel as they travel to the promised land. The people are referred to as God's anointed ones. The Hebrew in question used is naga (http://lexiconcordance.com/hebrew/5060.html). Here are the meanings:
1) to touch, reach, strike
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to touch
1a2) to strike
1a3) to reach, extend to
1a4) to be stricken
1a4a) stricken (participle)
1b) (Niphal) to be stricken, be defeated
1c) (Piel) to strike
1d) (Pual) to be stricken (by disease)
1e) (Hiphil) to cause to touch, reach, approach, arrive
1e1) to cause to touch, apply
1e2) to reach, extend, attain, arrive, come
1e3) to approach (of time)
1e4) to befall (of fate)
In particular, it means to harm in the context of Psalm 105. It is an exhortation NOT to hurt the Israelites. There is nothing the text at all to say that you cannot speak out against false prophets and expose them. Let's take a look at some examples.
"John 7:24 Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly.”
"Titus 2:15 These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority. Do not let anyone despise you."
"Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. 10 Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. 11 You may be sure that such people are warped and sinful; they are self-condemned."
"Romans 16:17 I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18 For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 19 Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I rejoice because of you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil."
There is nothing wrong with judging a prophet who claims to be true as correct or incorrect based on scripture. In fact it is commanded. If ANYONE claims to be a prophet, they need to be checked out with the words of scripture. If anyone makes a false prophecy, even if it is a favourite teacher of yours, they are to be avoided and should not have their prophetic credentials defended, considering they have disqualified themselves from continuing in that ministry. False prophecy is not unforgivable, but it is nevertheless a very grave and serious matter that needs to be repented of. To say "Don't Touch God's anointed" inevitability leads us not to judge them.
While I don't deny there are true prophets out there, I do believe we need to be careful not to be lead astray, we are to test everything, hold onto what is good and let the bad go or avoid evil as 1 Thessalonians 5:21 states.
I hope and pray that you study these texts carefully and to not distort them out of context. Check my words with scripture and the truth shall set you free. If you find what I am saying in the scriptures, then I am glad I have helped.
God Bless and Take Care.
Answering Judaism.
The first one is judge not, lest you be judged, which ironically condemns those who misuse this text.
Let's look:
"7 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
6 “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."
A careful reading of the context suggests that we are to judge but not in a hypocritical manner. When you are about to condemn someone for lying for example, Make sure that you are not doing the same thing, then you can point out what the person is doing is wrong. Clean up your mess, then you can tell someone else to do the same.
With respect to the other verse, the phrase Touch not God's anointed is often abused quite regularly as well and the historical context is neglected. Let's read the passage in it's context. This is in 1 Samuel 24
"5 Afterward, David was conscience-stricken for having cut off a corner of his robe. 6 He said to his men, “The Lord forbid that I should do such a thing to my master, the Lord’s anointed, or lay my hand on him; for he is the anointed of the Lord.” 7 With these words David sharply rebuked his men and did not allow them to attack Saul. And Saul left the cave and went his way.
8 Then David went out of the cave and called out to Saul, “My lord the king!” When Saul looked behind him, David bowed down and prostrated himself with his face to the ground. 9 He said to Saul, “Why do you listen when men say, ‘David is bent on harming you’? 10 This day you have seen with your own eyes how the Lord delivered you into my hands in the cave. Some urged me to kill you, but I spared you; I said, ‘I will not lay my hand on my lord, because he is the Lord’s anointed.’ 11 See, my father, look at this piece of your robe in my hand! I cut off the corner of your robe but did not kill you. See that there is nothing in my hand to indicate that I am guilty of wrongdoing or rebellion. I have not wronged you, but you are hunting me down to take my life. 12 May the Lord judge between you and me. And may the Lord avenge the wrongs you have done to me, but my hand will not touch you. 13 As the old saying goes, ‘From evildoers come evil deeds,’ so my hand will not touch you."
In context, David was not allowed to attack Saul because he was still in possession of the throne at the time and it was not David's right to remove Saul from power. Saul was still the anointed King of Israel and it wasn't time for David to take the throne at this point. In fact David even killed a man who brought news of Sauls demise. However, This text doesn't say even implicitly that you cannot expose a false prophet. People may have successful ministries and perform supposed signs and wonders, But that doesn't exonerate them from being judged according to scripture. We are to make rightous judgements, as found in Titus 2:15, 3:5 and many other passages. They MUST be called out as false prophets IF they are teaching abhorant doctrinal error, are known to have made false prophecies and have been involved in a false prophetic ministry and must be silenced for teaching and doing things they ought not to. Touch not God's anointed was a ONE TIME event within the context of the Bible, it is NOT a universal principle to all nations.
Also, Let us read Psalm 105:15 in context to see what it says, because it is often misused by many to silence people from correcting prophets. Let's look:
"12 When they were but few in number,
few indeed, and strangers in it,
13 they wandered from nation to nation,
from one kingdom to another.
14 He allowed no one to oppress them;
for their sake he rebuked kings:
15 “Do not touch my anointed ones;
do my prophets no harm.”
16 He called down famine on the land
and destroyed all their supplies of food;
17 and he sent a man before them—
Joseph, sold as a slave.
18 They bruised his feet with shackles,
his neck was put in irons,
19 till what he foretold came to pass,
till the word of the Lord proved him true.
20 The king sent and released him,
the ruler of peoples set him free.
21 He made him master of his household,
ruler over all he possessed,
22 to instruct his princes as he pleased
and teach his elders wisdom."
In context, YHWH or HaShem is rebuking the Gentile Kings for trying to bring desolation and destruction on the people of Israel as they travel to the promised land. The people are referred to as God's anointed ones. The Hebrew in question used is naga (http://lexiconcordance.com/hebrew/5060.html). Here are the meanings:
1) to touch, reach, strike
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to touch
1a2) to strike
1a3) to reach, extend to
1a4) to be stricken
1a4a) stricken (participle)
1b) (Niphal) to be stricken, be defeated
1c) (Piel) to strike
1d) (Pual) to be stricken (by disease)
1e) (Hiphil) to cause to touch, reach, approach, arrive
1e1) to cause to touch, apply
1e2) to reach, extend, attain, arrive, come
1e3) to approach (of time)
1e4) to befall (of fate)
In particular, it means to harm in the context of Psalm 105. It is an exhortation NOT to hurt the Israelites. There is nothing the text at all to say that you cannot speak out against false prophets and expose them. Let's take a look at some examples.
"John 7:24 Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly.”
"Titus 2:15 These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority. Do not let anyone despise you."
"Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. 10 Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. 11 You may be sure that such people are warped and sinful; they are self-condemned."
"Romans 16:17 I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18 For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 19 Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I rejoice because of you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil."
There is nothing wrong with judging a prophet who claims to be true as correct or incorrect based on scripture. In fact it is commanded. If ANYONE claims to be a prophet, they need to be checked out with the words of scripture. If anyone makes a false prophecy, even if it is a favourite teacher of yours, they are to be avoided and should not have their prophetic credentials defended, considering they have disqualified themselves from continuing in that ministry. False prophecy is not unforgivable, but it is nevertheless a very grave and serious matter that needs to be repented of. To say "Don't Touch God's anointed" inevitability leads us not to judge them.
While I don't deny there are true prophets out there, I do believe we need to be careful not to be lead astray, we are to test everything, hold onto what is good and let the bad go or avoid evil as 1 Thessalonians 5:21 states.
I hope and pray that you study these texts carefully and to not distort them out of context. Check my words with scripture and the truth shall set you free. If you find what I am saying in the scriptures, then I am glad I have helped.
God Bless and Take Care.
Answering Judaism.
Concerns about Toronto and Pensacola.
Most people are aware of the Toronto experience as well as the Brownsville/Pensacola revivials that have taken place years back. Most claim that these are authentic moves of God with many coming to "repentance" while others have criticised the movement for unbiblical manifestations. Let me tell you this, I repudiate Toronto and Brownsville. After listening to others about Toronto itself and of course looking for myself, I fail to see how it's an authentic move of God. What is interesting is in a conversation with Keith Thompson I had. We were speaking of Montanis in passing. He quoted from Eusebius to show that what Montanis did. And judging by the quotation, Montanis certainly was off his rocker to put it mildly. Here are some of what Eusebius said:
"They had many suspect views and practices including some of their members writing and distributing their own epistles where their alleged prophetic oracles were recorded (Eusebius, Church History, 5.18.5)."
"According to the 2nd century bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, Apollinarius Claudius, their leader Montanus “became beside himself, and being suddenly in a sort of frenzy and ecstasy, he raved, and began to babble and utter strange things, prophesying in a manner contrary to the constant custom of the Church handed down by tradition from the beginning”" (Apollinarius of Hierapolis, quoted in Eusebius, Church History, 5.16.7).
"It is also reported in early church writings that Montanus’ followers were demon possessed by a false spirit and mention is made of two women who talked wildly and unreasonably reviling the church and were even reproved in an exorcism fashion (Eusebius, Church History, 5.16.8-9)."
We can see that from these quotations how much of a mad-man Montanis really was. His practices were not from an apostolic tradition at all, in fact it was even CONTRARY to this. What makes these quotes interesting is this is the similiar kind of nonsense that you find in counterfeit revivals, such as howling like a wolf, uncontrollable laughter, being "drunk in the spirit" as some people call. How can this be fruit of the Holy Spirit at all?
I have seen video footage of the Toronto Blessing for myself as well as some footage of Rodney Howard Browne and I am just amazed on how anyone can accept this phenomena as being of God. I was even shocked by the quotations of Michael Brown on PFO.org's article dealing with the objections that Brown brought up. One of his quotes was:
"[Critics] will watch a video of a powerful meeting attended by thousands of people and go ballistic because one person at the altar suddenly falls to the floor, totally ignoring the fact that Jesus is being preached in clarity.".
If this is in context, Why is he defending this kind of behaviour? Its one thing to fall down in awe of God, but its another thing to collapse on the floor like what is seen at a Todd Bentley or Benny Hinn 'crusade'.
I am not attacking Brown personally, I harbour no hatred of the man. I can appreciate what he has said regarding bringing Jews to Jesus, but regarding his defence of Pensacola, how can he defend the falling down phenomenon? Moreover as others claim, how does one know that an altar call is even genuine? Someone may be converted through an altar call but I would not see an altar call as evidence of a changed life. I remember when I was confirmed by a bishop years back, but there was no repentance at that time. God did show me mercy much later in 2010, but years before, it was merely emotional feelings when I was confirmed.
There wasn't anything fancy at that confirmation but the same feeling you get at altar calls was there. Anyway, Having revivals like this doesn't prove anything, ANYONE can claim a "descision" to follow Christ yet that is not a sign of their regeneration, their FRUITS are a demonstration of this. I have watched a Benny Hinn crusade in London where he didn't call people to repentance, he called them to "receive the anointing". No fruits of repentance what so ever.
Although I have been looking at some objections Yisroel Blumenthal raised to Brown, I have expressed concerns about Brown in the past before with respect to certain ministries, such as those of Mike Bickle, Lou Engle and Cindy Jacobs, all renowned false prophets. Again, Just because a certain revival teaches repentance, we are not to automatically assume they are from the Lord, because repentance is not the only criteria of truth. It's Brown's attitude to these ministries that makes me hesitant support his ministry, if not compels me not to support him at all. As fivepointbaptist AKA. Chris Gatreau, one of the authors of Reformed Apologetics Ministries had stated when Michael Brown and Jerry Johnson discussed Charles Finney's false teachings, Gatreau noted that even Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons tell others to repent but that doesn't make them true. The context of Gatreau's words can be found in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cFkpCZe2i0
Although this strange phenomena may or may not have been seen in Brown's videos of the revival, I would need to look at it again, the fact is you did have strange phenomena at Brownsville and Toronto in other contexts.
People acting in laughing, drunken hysterics is not even a fruit of the Holy Spirit at all. The fruit of the Holy Spirit is self-control, that's what it is, not acting in a crazy manner. Kundalini Yoga has similiar fruits where people are acting in this insane manner, it's just ridiculous to suggest that these are holy fruits.
James White has noted that Muslims like to take this sort of video as a tool to tell people "If this is the Holy Spirit, then keep away". Jacob Prasch, a moderate Pentacostal as called this "Charismania" and he is correct on this phenomena, it is certainly not biblical charismata.
It is just astounding how many Christians are being mislead by this and it does pain my heart that this even happens. Charismania is increasing at an alarming rate and sadly is taking root in many churches, even false groups like Vineyard Movements are bringing new age practices into the Church under the guise of Christianity. I am even disgusted with the infiltration of the Kansas City Prophets into the church, putting their listeners into fear, making them think they are attacking the anointed of God if they do speak out against their reprobate falsehoods. In other words the "Don't Touch God's Anointed" ploy allows these Kansas City Prophets to be unassailable and continue to perpetuate their falsehoods.
I hope this warning from me is taken to heart by you guys, but I can't make that choice for you at all. Thanks for reading.
Answering Judaism.
Addendum: PFO's article can be found here: http://www.pfo.org/ragriver.htm
"They had many suspect views and practices including some of their members writing and distributing their own epistles where their alleged prophetic oracles were recorded (Eusebius, Church History, 5.18.5)."
"According to the 2nd century bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, Apollinarius Claudius, their leader Montanus “became beside himself, and being suddenly in a sort of frenzy and ecstasy, he raved, and began to babble and utter strange things, prophesying in a manner contrary to the constant custom of the Church handed down by tradition from the beginning”" (Apollinarius of Hierapolis, quoted in Eusebius, Church History, 5.16.7).
"It is also reported in early church writings that Montanus’ followers were demon possessed by a false spirit and mention is made of two women who talked wildly and unreasonably reviling the church and were even reproved in an exorcism fashion (Eusebius, Church History, 5.16.8-9)."
We can see that from these quotations how much of a mad-man Montanis really was. His practices were not from an apostolic tradition at all, in fact it was even CONTRARY to this. What makes these quotes interesting is this is the similiar kind of nonsense that you find in counterfeit revivals, such as howling like a wolf, uncontrollable laughter, being "drunk in the spirit" as some people call. How can this be fruit of the Holy Spirit at all?
I have seen video footage of the Toronto Blessing for myself as well as some footage of Rodney Howard Browne and I am just amazed on how anyone can accept this phenomena as being of God. I was even shocked by the quotations of Michael Brown on PFO.org's article dealing with the objections that Brown brought up. One of his quotes was:
"[Critics] will watch a video of a powerful meeting attended by thousands of people and go ballistic because one person at the altar suddenly falls to the floor, totally ignoring the fact that Jesus is being preached in clarity.".
If this is in context, Why is he defending this kind of behaviour? Its one thing to fall down in awe of God, but its another thing to collapse on the floor like what is seen at a Todd Bentley or Benny Hinn 'crusade'.
I am not attacking Brown personally, I harbour no hatred of the man. I can appreciate what he has said regarding bringing Jews to Jesus, but regarding his defence of Pensacola, how can he defend the falling down phenomenon? Moreover as others claim, how does one know that an altar call is even genuine? Someone may be converted through an altar call but I would not see an altar call as evidence of a changed life. I remember when I was confirmed by a bishop years back, but there was no repentance at that time. God did show me mercy much later in 2010, but years before, it was merely emotional feelings when I was confirmed.
There wasn't anything fancy at that confirmation but the same feeling you get at altar calls was there. Anyway, Having revivals like this doesn't prove anything, ANYONE can claim a "descision" to follow Christ yet that is not a sign of their regeneration, their FRUITS are a demonstration of this. I have watched a Benny Hinn crusade in London where he didn't call people to repentance, he called them to "receive the anointing". No fruits of repentance what so ever.
Although I have been looking at some objections Yisroel Blumenthal raised to Brown, I have expressed concerns about Brown in the past before with respect to certain ministries, such as those of Mike Bickle, Lou Engle and Cindy Jacobs, all renowned false prophets. Again, Just because a certain revival teaches repentance, we are not to automatically assume they are from the Lord, because repentance is not the only criteria of truth. It's Brown's attitude to these ministries that makes me hesitant support his ministry, if not compels me not to support him at all. As fivepointbaptist AKA. Chris Gatreau, one of the authors of Reformed Apologetics Ministries had stated when Michael Brown and Jerry Johnson discussed Charles Finney's false teachings, Gatreau noted that even Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons tell others to repent but that doesn't make them true. The context of Gatreau's words can be found in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cFkpCZe2i0
Although this strange phenomena may or may not have been seen in Brown's videos of the revival, I would need to look at it again, the fact is you did have strange phenomena at Brownsville and Toronto in other contexts.
People acting in laughing, drunken hysterics is not even a fruit of the Holy Spirit at all. The fruit of the Holy Spirit is self-control, that's what it is, not acting in a crazy manner. Kundalini Yoga has similiar fruits where people are acting in this insane manner, it's just ridiculous to suggest that these are holy fruits.
James White has noted that Muslims like to take this sort of video as a tool to tell people "If this is the Holy Spirit, then keep away". Jacob Prasch, a moderate Pentacostal as called this "Charismania" and he is correct on this phenomena, it is certainly not biblical charismata.
It is just astounding how many Christians are being mislead by this and it does pain my heart that this even happens. Charismania is increasing at an alarming rate and sadly is taking root in many churches, even false groups like Vineyard Movements are bringing new age practices into the Church under the guise of Christianity. I am even disgusted with the infiltration of the Kansas City Prophets into the church, putting their listeners into fear, making them think they are attacking the anointed of God if they do speak out against their reprobate falsehoods. In other words the "Don't Touch God's Anointed" ploy allows these Kansas City Prophets to be unassailable and continue to perpetuate their falsehoods.
I hope this warning from me is taken to heart by you guys, but I can't make that choice for you at all. Thanks for reading.
Answering Judaism.
Addendum: PFO's article can be found here: http://www.pfo.org/ragriver.htm
Tuesday, 19 November 2013
AMEN: Talk is Cheap Indeed.
16th of September 2017 The initial link on James 2:24 Keith Thompson was removed ages ago so I have put my article in it's place.
I came across an response to a Christians' letter by Tsvi Jacobson, one of the writers of yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com, and I read his response to the letter itself. The article can be found here: http://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2010/11/16/talk-is-cheap/
Tsvi Jacobson to the best of my knowledge is a former Messianic Jew and he provides a response in that link to the letter itself. The letter you can read in that link, but Jacobson's reply I will post here and comment on it.
This is what he said:
"My reply to this paper is that having spent many years in Christianity, I rarely if ever saw the poor maimed and blind
invited to anyones home except the soup kitchens where the alcoholics and drug addicts had to listen to a sermon
before being served something to eat. Yet in most Orthodox synagogues you will hear the announcement every
Sabbath. ” If you do not have a place for Sabbath dinner let me know as we have many families that would be glad
to have you.” The truth of the matter is that in many respects JEWS ALREADY DO many things that Jesus himself taught, but
Christians just believe on him
Tsvi Jacobson"
Now, It is a rare occurrence that the blind and maimed are invited to anyone's home, although I admit it would be nice if Christians as a whole would be willing to extend this compassion to any person, considering Jesus himself did which Jacobson rightly points out.
Now it is unfortunate that Mr Jacobson encountered Christians who did not have this attitude to those individuals he mentioned. Had he encountered Christians who did what they should of been doing, there is no doubt within my mind the picture would be different and I wouldn't even be writing this paper to begin with.
I think Christians such as myself can benefit greatly from this form of hospitality being applied in our lives, namely us extending this hospitality to many people. But to say "Christians just believe on him" isn't an accurate picture of genuine Christianity.
Yes there is an emphasis on belief, but this is not to the denigration of deeds, considering Ephesians 2:8-10 and of course James 2:17.
"Ephesians 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."
"14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder."
Though one is justified by faith in Christ, this doesn't mean the faith is superficial and has no works. Salvation is by grace, but if one is truly in Christ the works shall be there. James 2 I address in this paper: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/james-2-does-it-refute-justification-by.html
There are works in a Christian's life, but this doesn't justify them before God, it's believing first, THEN Christians do the works that have been prepared for us, not to get saved, but as a demonstration of faith to the world.
Hope this article has been a blessing. May the Triune God YHWH give us the grace to carry out the great commission, Amen.
Answering Judaism.
I came across an response to a Christians' letter by Tsvi Jacobson, one of the writers of yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com, and I read his response to the letter itself. The article can be found here: http://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2010/11/16/talk-is-cheap/
Tsvi Jacobson to the best of my knowledge is a former Messianic Jew and he provides a response in that link to the letter itself. The letter you can read in that link, but Jacobson's reply I will post here and comment on it.
This is what he said:
"My reply to this paper is that having spent many years in Christianity, I rarely if ever saw the poor maimed and blind
invited to anyones home except the soup kitchens where the alcoholics and drug addicts had to listen to a sermon
before being served something to eat. Yet in most Orthodox synagogues you will hear the announcement every
Sabbath. ” If you do not have a place for Sabbath dinner let me know as we have many families that would be glad
to have you.” The truth of the matter is that in many respects JEWS ALREADY DO many things that Jesus himself taught, but
Christians just believe on him
Tsvi Jacobson"
Now, It is a rare occurrence that the blind and maimed are invited to anyone's home, although I admit it would be nice if Christians as a whole would be willing to extend this compassion to any person, considering Jesus himself did which Jacobson rightly points out.
Now it is unfortunate that Mr Jacobson encountered Christians who did not have this attitude to those individuals he mentioned. Had he encountered Christians who did what they should of been doing, there is no doubt within my mind the picture would be different and I wouldn't even be writing this paper to begin with.
I think Christians such as myself can benefit greatly from this form of hospitality being applied in our lives, namely us extending this hospitality to many people. But to say "Christians just believe on him" isn't an accurate picture of genuine Christianity.
Yes there is an emphasis on belief, but this is not to the denigration of deeds, considering Ephesians 2:8-10 and of course James 2:17.
"Ephesians 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."
"14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. 19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder."
Though one is justified by faith in Christ, this doesn't mean the faith is superficial and has no works. Salvation is by grace, but if one is truly in Christ the works shall be there. James 2 I address in this paper: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/james-2-does-it-refute-justification-by.html
There are works in a Christian's life, but this doesn't justify them before God, it's believing first, THEN Christians do the works that have been prepared for us, not to get saved, but as a demonstration of faith to the world.
Hope this article has been a blessing. May the Triune God YHWH give us the grace to carry out the great commission, Amen.
Answering Judaism.
Monday, 18 November 2013
Triad of Texts: The nature of Jesus.
There are three texts that speak of three things that Jesus Christ is.
Psalm 45:7-8 Supremacy of Jesus
"1 My heart is stirred by a noble theme
as I recite my verses for the king;
my tongue is the pen of a skillful writer.
2 You are the most excellent of men
and your lips have been anointed with grace,
since God has blessed you forever.
3 Gird your sword on your side, you mighty one;
clothe yourself with splendor and majesty.
4 In your majesty ride forth victoriously
in the cause of truth, humility and justice;
let your right hand achieve awesome deeds.
5 Let your sharp arrows pierce the hearts of the king’s enemies;
let the nations fall beneath your feet.
6 Your throne, O God,[c] will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
7 You love righteousness and hate wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy."
Though not a text that speaks of Christ's divinity necessarily, this certainly points out the highest honor that has been bestowed on the Son, the second person of the Trinity, the Messianic Kingdom which has been handed to him.
Psalm 102:25-27 Deity of Jesus
"24 So I said:
“Do not take me away, my God, in the midst of my days;
your years go on through all generations.
25 In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
26 They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
Like clothing you will change them
and they will be discarded.
27 But you remain the same,
and your years will never end.
28 The children of your servants will live in your presence;
their descendants will be established before you.”"
The servant in this passage praises YHWH and requests that his life is spared. In the NT, the statement that Christ laid the foundation, is applied to him by the Father, demonstrating that not only is Christ supreme over all, it demonstrates that he is YHWH God just as the Father is. In fact Malachi 3 reinforces the point that God doesn't change and he is forever the same. The Psalmist says this of YHWH, thus according the the Author of Hebrews, Jesus is YHWH, not merely in a agentival sense, but in the true sense.
Psalm 110:1-4 Messiahship of Jesus.
"1 The Lord says to my lord:[a]
“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet.”
2 The Lord will extend your mighty scepter from Zion, saying,
“Rule in the midst of your enemies!”
3 Your troops will be willing
on your day of battle.
Arrayed in holy splendor,
your young men will come to you
like dew from the morning’s womb.[b]
4 The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind:
“You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek.”
Though speaking of David in the historical context, In it's Messianic application, The Father is speaking to the Son and establishing a place for the Son to sit at his right hand to reign over all as the anointed one or Messiah.
These texts together speak about Jesus' supremacy, His unity with the Father in purpose and deity and his task as the Messiah to save man from sin.
Feel free to check my words out with the scriptures.
Answering Judaism.
Psalm 45:7-8 Supremacy of Jesus
"1 My heart is stirred by a noble theme
as I recite my verses for the king;
my tongue is the pen of a skillful writer.
2 You are the most excellent of men
and your lips have been anointed with grace,
since God has blessed you forever.
3 Gird your sword on your side, you mighty one;
clothe yourself with splendor and majesty.
4 In your majesty ride forth victoriously
in the cause of truth, humility and justice;
let your right hand achieve awesome deeds.
5 Let your sharp arrows pierce the hearts of the king’s enemies;
let the nations fall beneath your feet.
6 Your throne, O God,[c] will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
7 You love righteousness and hate wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy."
Though not a text that speaks of Christ's divinity necessarily, this certainly points out the highest honor that has been bestowed on the Son, the second person of the Trinity, the Messianic Kingdom which has been handed to him.
Psalm 102:25-27 Deity of Jesus
"24 So I said:
“Do not take me away, my God, in the midst of my days;
your years go on through all generations.
25 In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
26 They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
Like clothing you will change them
and they will be discarded.
27 But you remain the same,
and your years will never end.
28 The children of your servants will live in your presence;
their descendants will be established before you.”"
The servant in this passage praises YHWH and requests that his life is spared. In the NT, the statement that Christ laid the foundation, is applied to him by the Father, demonstrating that not only is Christ supreme over all, it demonstrates that he is YHWH God just as the Father is. In fact Malachi 3 reinforces the point that God doesn't change and he is forever the same. The Psalmist says this of YHWH, thus according the the Author of Hebrews, Jesus is YHWH, not merely in a agentival sense, but in the true sense.
Psalm 110:1-4 Messiahship of Jesus.
"1 The Lord says to my lord:[a]
“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet.”
2 The Lord will extend your mighty scepter from Zion, saying,
“Rule in the midst of your enemies!”
3 Your troops will be willing
on your day of battle.
Arrayed in holy splendor,
your young men will come to you
like dew from the morning’s womb.[b]
4 The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind:
“You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek.”
Though speaking of David in the historical context, In it's Messianic application, The Father is speaking to the Son and establishing a place for the Son to sit at his right hand to reign over all as the anointed one or Messiah.
These texts together speak about Jesus' supremacy, His unity with the Father in purpose and deity and his task as the Messiah to save man from sin.
Feel free to check my words out with the scriptures.
Answering Judaism.
Quick Examination of Hebrews 9:22, 10:4 and Leviticus 5:11-13
Although I have previously done a video on my bobo577 account on youtube on Leviticus 5:11-13, I somewhat deem my initial response to be unsatisfactory, so I thought I might do it here instead.
Firstly, let us deal with the two texts in Hebrews 10:4 and Hebrews 9:22
"10 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2 Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins. 4 It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
7 Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, my God.’”[a]
8 First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them”—though they were offered in accordance with the law. 9 Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."
"9:18 This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. 19 When Moses had proclaimed every command of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. 20 He said, “This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep.”[e] 21 In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. 22 In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."
Both these texts are pitted against each other to try and say that there is a contradiction. However this isn't the case.
In my response to Yisroel Blumenthal, I have mentioned that in Hebrews 10:4, The point the writer is making is the animals were insufficient in taking away sins completely and all they could do is cover a person until the Messiah came to take away their sins, that's all it is saying. The author is saying that Christ's death is a far superior atonement than the animal sacrifices because it actually takes away our sins. The New Testament states that the sacrificial system was replaced by something better or rather fulfilled in Christ.
Now it has been claimed by many such as Rabbi Michael Skobac of Jews for Judaism and Paul Bilal Williams, A Muslim apologist, that Leviticus 5:11-13 refutes Hebrews 9:22, let's take a look:
Leviticus 5:11-13
"11 “‘If, however, they cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, they are to bring as an offering for their sin a tenth of an ephah[b] of the finest flour for a sin offering. They must not put olive oil or incense on it, because it is a sin offering. 12 They are to bring it to the priest, who shall take a handful of it as a memorial[c] portion and burn it on the altar on top of the food offerings presented to the Lord. It is a sin offering. 13 In this way the priest will make atonement for them for any of these sins they have committed, and they will be forgiven. The rest of the offering will belong to the priest, as in the case of the grain offering.’”"
This text is merely a concession for those who were poor, hence this was only something to carry out in extreme circumstances, it doesn't override the general or overall principle that blood was required. Jamieson-Fausset Brown has made the following point regarding this issue:
"22. almost—to be joined with "all things," namely almost all things under the old dispensation. The exceptions to all things being purified by blood are, Ex 19:10; Le 15:5, &c.; 16:26, 28; 22:6; Nu 31:22-24.
without—Greek, "apart from."
shedding of blood—shed in the slaughter of the victim, and poured out at the altar subsequently. The pouring out of the blood on the altar is the main part of the sacrifice (Le 17:11), and it could not have place apart from the previous shedding of the blood in the slaying. Paul has, perhaps, in mind here, Lu 22:20, "This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you."
is—Greek, "takes place": comes to pass.
remission—of sins: a favorite expression of Luke, Paul's companion. Properly used of remitting a debt (Mt 6:12; 18:27, 32); our sins are debts. On the truth here, compare Le 5:11-13, an exception because of poverty, confirming the general rule."
Now I am familiar with the answer given by Michael Brown when this text has been raised to him by the Rabbinic Camps, but the text doesn't give even implicit support to what Brown has stated regarding the text, leading me to reject his assertion to find a more biblical conclusion.
Check my words with the scriptures and I hope this article has been a blessing.
Answering Judaism.
Firstly, let us deal with the two texts in Hebrews 10:4 and Hebrews 9:22
"10 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2 Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins. 4 It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
7 Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, my God.’”[a]
8 First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them”—though they were offered in accordance with the law. 9 Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."
"9:18 This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. 19 When Moses had proclaimed every command of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. 20 He said, “This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep.”[e] 21 In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. 22 In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."
Both these texts are pitted against each other to try and say that there is a contradiction. However this isn't the case.
In my response to Yisroel Blumenthal, I have mentioned that in Hebrews 10:4, The point the writer is making is the animals were insufficient in taking away sins completely and all they could do is cover a person until the Messiah came to take away their sins, that's all it is saying. The author is saying that Christ's death is a far superior atonement than the animal sacrifices because it actually takes away our sins. The New Testament states that the sacrificial system was replaced by something better or rather fulfilled in Christ.
Now it has been claimed by many such as Rabbi Michael Skobac of Jews for Judaism and Paul Bilal Williams, A Muslim apologist, that Leviticus 5:11-13 refutes Hebrews 9:22, let's take a look:
Leviticus 5:11-13
"11 “‘If, however, they cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, they are to bring as an offering for their sin a tenth of an ephah[b] of the finest flour for a sin offering. They must not put olive oil or incense on it, because it is a sin offering. 12 They are to bring it to the priest, who shall take a handful of it as a memorial[c] portion and burn it on the altar on top of the food offerings presented to the Lord. It is a sin offering. 13 In this way the priest will make atonement for them for any of these sins they have committed, and they will be forgiven. The rest of the offering will belong to the priest, as in the case of the grain offering.’”"
This text is merely a concession for those who were poor, hence this was only something to carry out in extreme circumstances, it doesn't override the general or overall principle that blood was required. Jamieson-Fausset Brown has made the following point regarding this issue:
"22. almost—to be joined with "all things," namely almost all things under the old dispensation. The exceptions to all things being purified by blood are, Ex 19:10; Le 15:5, &c.; 16:26, 28; 22:6; Nu 31:22-24.
without—Greek, "apart from."
shedding of blood—shed in the slaughter of the victim, and poured out at the altar subsequently. The pouring out of the blood on the altar is the main part of the sacrifice (Le 17:11), and it could not have place apart from the previous shedding of the blood in the slaying. Paul has, perhaps, in mind here, Lu 22:20, "This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you."
is—Greek, "takes place": comes to pass.
remission—of sins: a favorite expression of Luke, Paul's companion. Properly used of remitting a debt (Mt 6:12; 18:27, 32); our sins are debts. On the truth here, compare Le 5:11-13, an exception because of poverty, confirming the general rule."
Now I am familiar with the answer given by Michael Brown when this text has been raised to him by the Rabbinic Camps, but the text doesn't give even implicit support to what Brown has stated regarding the text, leading me to reject his assertion to find a more biblical conclusion.
Check my words with the scriptures and I hope this article has been a blessing.
Answering Judaism.
Seed of Isaiah 53:10
I know I have made the argument that zera or seed can be used metaphorically in previous article, although I have recently stumbled upon after some contemplation of a possible theory in scripture. Namely regarding the use of the word zera.
We'll put aside the debate as to whether zera is physical or figurative for this time. In the mean time, let's assume that zera is speaking of physical descendants, but the question is, does the seed in Isaiah 53:10 belong to the Messiah? or is it a different people it belongs to.
"Charge #8: Seed/ זָרַע (Zera) (30:15)
Rabbi Singer then goes on a rampage about the fact that Yeshua didn’t have any seed when the prophet explicitly says this, that is, according to the rabbi. The rabbi says that the servant has to have children. Rabbi Singer argues that the word “בֶן” (ben) is the proper word to refer to non-physical children, not “זָרַע” (zera). He actually goes so far to say that
“the word ‘zera’… can only mean physical children, NEVER spiritual children. By definition the word ‘zera’ means ‘seed’. It’s talking about that which leaves the loins of a man. It’s not talking about those people that follow his teachings. ‘Zera’ only means PHYSICAL children. NEVER does it mean someone’s gonna have spiritual children, that’s IMPOSSIBLE! And therefore it’s clear here that this is talking about physical children. ‘Prove it to me!’ Boy, am I gonna prove it to you!”
Then the rabbi gives us some verses that prove his point and then drills his point home with an account in Genesis 15, a dialogue between God and Abram where God appears to Abram and Abram mistakes Eliezer for his son (בֶן/ben) and says that God didn’t give him any seed (זָרַע/zera). Sounds like a pretty convincing story, doesn’t it? However… yet again rabbi Tovia Singer is not telling the whole story and plays with the mind of his audience. Look at the quotes above again:
zera only means physical seed…
never spiritual seed…
that’s impossible …
boy am I gonna prove it to you…
If what rabbi Singer says is actually true, then we won’t be able to find a single instance where zera is used metaphorically (referring to non-physical seed) in the Tenach since he told his audience that was impossible, right? Okay! Now what the rabbi failed to tell his audience and conveniently left out is the following. A few chapters after Isaiah 53 we see the word seed used again. This is what Isaiah 57:4 says:
Now unless rabbi Tovia Singer is going to argue that the people of Israel are direct descendants and physical offspring of falsehood, this pretty much looks like a metaphorical use of the word “zera”, something that rabbi Tovia Singer, who has great knowledge of Hebrew, said that was IMPOSSIBLE! Why does Isaiah then seem to think otherwise? Didn’t he know enough Hebrew to know what rabbi Singer knows? No, it’s simply because Isaiah doesn’t have to disprove or discredit anyone, but rabbi Singer clearly does! Again, is this just a slip of the tongue or deliberately left out? Now we will proceed to the next example, which comes from Psalm 22:31:
Unless you believe that God married some hot goddess and will have physical children, this pretty much looks like a metaphorical usage of the word “zera”. At least it looks like the word zera is used to describe to other peoples’ offspring and not of the subject itself, God. “But…”, you object, “…this doesn’t speak of Gods children at all. This just says that “a seed” (zera) will serve Him and not that “his seed” (zero) will serve Him!” To which my answer is; don’t you do the exact same thing regarding the servant in Isaiah 53? What does it say?
Exactly! It says “yir’eh zera” and not “yir’eh zero”, so why does rabbi Singer claim that the servant must have children or that he is promised children? The text doesn’t say that at all! Now I am aware of instances that the prophet doesn’t use the possessive form but it is still implied. But who says that he is implying it here? Nowhere in the text of Isaiah 53 is there ever a promise to the servant that he will have children. Maybe people with a double agenda may think so, but looking at the Hebrew text, which is the source of rabbi Singer’s arguments, there is no basis for that argument. Except theological bias, of course. Here are more references to metaphorical uses of zera in Isaiah:
"4 Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evil-doers, children that deal corruptly..." (Isaiah 1)
"20 Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, thou hast slain thy people; the seed of evil-doers shall not be named for ever."(Isaiah 14)
"3 But draw near hither, ye sons of the sorceress, the seed of the adulterer and the harlot." (Isaiah 57)
Also, Read Psalm 22:
We'll put aside the debate as to whether zera is physical or figurative for this time. In the mean time, let's assume that zera is speaking of physical descendants, but the question is, does the seed in Isaiah 53:10 belong to the Messiah? or is it a different people it belongs to.
Firstly, Nakdimon, goes out of his way to show that Zera can be used metaphorically, but that's not what I am speaking of in the article: this is what he says:
"Charge #8: Seed/ זָרַע (Zera) (30:15)
עַל-מִי תִּתְעַנָּגוּ עַל-מִי תַּרְחִיבוּ פֶה תַּאֲרִיכוּ לָשׁוֹן | הֲלוֹא-אַתֶּם יִלְדֵי-פֶשַׁע זֶרַע שָׁקֶר
Against whom do ye sport yourselves? Against whom make ye a wide mouth, and draw out the tongue? Are ye not children of transgression, a seed of falsehood,
A seed shall serve him; it shall be told of the Lord unto the next generation.
He will see seed
"20 Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, thou hast slain thy people; the seed of evil-doers shall not be named for ever."(Isaiah 14)
"3 But draw near hither, ye sons of the sorceress, the seed of the adulterer and the harlot." (Isaiah 57)
Unless one is going to argue that all the parents of the ones being addressed here are truly considered harlots and evildoers, you are going to have to concede that it's implied here to refer to people who follow the evil works and the ways of adultery like the generations before them, regardless if they are their physical children or not. For all we know most of the parents of those being addressed here have been righteous while they wandered off. This clearly refers to the works of their predecessors rather than their origins. So this charge remains without teeth, is made up from thin air and rabbi Singer is caught lying yet again!"
The one point I want to drive home is not that Zera is metaphorical, I'll grant for arguments sake it's physical, because Nakdimon has made the excellent point that the seed that is seen is not the Messiah's seed.
I postulate that the seed of Isaiah 53:10 is not the Messiah's seed, but it is the seed of Israel whom the Messiah died for. This is the theory that I am putting forward.
Also, Read Psalm 22:
""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!""
We know contextually this is not the seed of God in a physical sense, so who is it referring to? The seed of the Gentiles who come to faith and love the God of Israel as a result of the Messiah. Remember, in my previous articles I have often mentioned that Psalm 22 is Messianic in nature.
In Isaiah 53, we have Jesus the Messiah seeing seed, but not his own seed, but the seed of Israel.
As for seed being spiritual, I direct you to this article right here http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/response-to-uri-yosef-on-isaiah-53-3.html
Hope that this article helps.
Answering Judaism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)