Welcome to our Anti-Missionary Arguments information page.
Recently there has been an increasing, enthusiastic, genuine, and positive response from Jewish people, like myself, to the message that Yeshua (Jesus) is our long awaited and hoped for, Messiah. This response, unprecedented in modern times, has generated opposition from Jewish religious authorities. One type of opposition has been the formation of anti-missionary organizations. These organizations teach that Yeshua is not the Messiah and that the New Testament is a flawed, unreliable, propaganda device designed to lure unsuspecting Jews into Christianity.
At HaDavar Messianic Ministries, we demonstrate that it is the anti-missionary arguments that are, in reality, flawed. At the same time, we confirm three things: the truth and accuracy of Messianic prophecy; the Brit Chadashah (New Testament); and the fact that Yeshua is the Jewish Messiah, the light to the Gentiles. We accomplish this task by showing the truth in God's Word and by showing why the anti-missionary arguments are flawed.
A note of caution: In my experience, anti-missionaries tend to avoid dealing with the issues. Instead, they tend to use other strategies aimed at discouraging consideration of the Messiahship of Yeshua. These tactics, unfortunately, include scorn, shame, and social ostracism. Please do not let intimidation tactics like these dissuade you from considering the issues. Here are the issues. Is the Hebrew Bible true and trustworthy? Does Yeshua fulfill the Messianic picture presented in the Hebrew Bible? At HaDavar Messianic Ministries, we are convinced that the answer to both issues is a resounding "YES!" We leave agreement with that assessment in your hands. Please examine the arguments and decide for yourself.
It is our hope that these replies will convince and persuade all who are genuinely seeking truth that Yeshua is the Messiah of Israel and the Savior of the world. We expect that these replies will confirm, equip, strengthen, and empower those who already personally trust Yeshua as their Messiah and Savior.
A. WHAT IS AN ANTI-MISSIONARY?
An anti-missionary is a rabbi or a lay volunteer who is somewhat knowledgeable in the New Testament or New Testament theology. They are earnest and honest people who feel that the Jewish community is threatened by Christian evangelism. They believe this so strongly that they dedicate their time and their lives to countering Christian evangelism efforts.
B. WHAT DO THEY DO?
The mission of the anti-missionary is to rescue Jews caught in the clutches of the church or to steady wavering Jews who are coming under the influence of evangelical Christians. Anti-missionaries accomplish their mission by teaching Jewish people that Jesus is not the Messiah and that Jesus is not for the Jew. They do their best to refute the Christian understanding of Messianic Prophecy and the person and work of the Messiah. They do this by teaching in synagogue presentations, synagogue classes and through one-to-one counseling.
When I lived in Seattle I was familiar with one anti-missionary. He went so far as to picket churches that were hosting Jews for Jesus presentations. This is a sticky point today because evangelical Christians are the Jewish community's best friends. This is a sticky point today because eighty percent of the Jewish people won to the Lord are won through the influence of a personal friend. You are the front-line soldiers when it comes to Jewish outreach.
We hope you see the dilemma the anti-missionary faces. On the one hand he has to convince the Jewish person that Jesus is not the Messiah and the Christians are all wrong, but on the other hand he does not want to erode the good relations the Evangelical community and the Jewish community enjoy.
C. WHY DO THEY EXIST?
Anti-missionary organizations exist because of four needs that have cropped up in the Jewish community during the last 40 years.
The first reason they exist is the success of Jewish outreach since the mid-1960's. In 1965-1967 the Jesus movement hit America. God moved in an unusual way among the young people of our country and especially among Jewish young people. Hundreds and hundreds of Jewish people became believers during those years. Many of us in ministry today were saved during that movement of God; I became a believer in 1966.
Those numbers have continued to grow for the last 40 years. Today there are more Jewish believers around than there has been for 2,000 years. Jewish Christians only number about one percent or less of the total Jewish population, we are a distinct minority. The faithful remnant is very small today; however the Jewish community sees this growth as a horrifying and unacceptable trend. Anti-missionary organizations have been formed especially to offset this challenge.
A second reason for their existence is the ignorance of the rabbis. Most rabbis are biblically ignorant. They know the Talmud and the traditions but they spend very little time in the Bible. A common approach when confronted with Messianic Prophecy is to turn to the commentaries. They look in the commentaries and whatever the respected commentators or sages say is good enough for them. The anti-missionaries are called in because they specialize in understanding the Bible.
A third reason for the anti-missionary lies in the ignorance of the Jewish masses. We are no longer the "people of the book." Ninety percent of the Jewish community today is biblically ignorant. Ninety percent of the Jewish community today is secular and atheist or agnostic in position. Only about nine percent of the Jewish community believe in God, the Orthodox, and they focus on the traditions - the Talmud rather than the Bible. When you approach a Jewish person with the Gospel you are probably more biblically literate than they are. In order to deal with this problem the anti-missionary experts are brought in.
The final reason they exist is the fact that specialization is needed to deal with the missionary threat. The average rabbi is like the average pastor, they have too much to do to be an expert in this area. So in order to fill that need anti-missionary organizations have been founded.
D. WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN A FRIEND CALLS IN AN ANTI-MISSIONARY?
Three things:
Do not panic. The arguments of the anti-missionary will sound impressive on the surface but when examined they lack substance.
Stick with the Scriptures. In my experience I have found that anti-missionaries do not like to stick to the biblical text. They like to head off in other directions. So do not let them do that, stick with what the text of Scripture says. We can beat the rabbis with one hand held behind our back if we just stick with the Scriptures. Why? Because they say what they say and there is no getting around that.
Do not be intimidated. As I said, in my experience anti-missionaries tend to avoid dealing with the issues. Instead, they tend to use other strategies aimed at discouraging consideration of the Messiahship of Yeshua. These tactics, unfortunately, include scorn, shame, and social ostracism. The tactics also include quibbling, creating smoke screens, creating diversions and confusion and even intellectual intimidation. Please do not let tactics like these dissuade you from dealing with the true issues, the biblical issues and the biblical text. Here are the true issues:
Is the Hebrew Bible true and trustworthy?
Does Yeshua fulfill the Messianic picture presented in the Hebrew Bible?
If He does what are you going to do about it?
These are the only three issues you really have to stick with tenaciously.
E. WHAT THIS STUDY IS NOT...
This is not a Messianic Prophecy study. I will be touching on Messianic Prophecy, but I will be dealing with only one small segment of the subject-objections. I will not be going into all the details of the prophecies. I will not be dealing with all the objections out there, only the ones I have had to deal with in my interactions with anti-missionaries. All the objections I will present to you have come from exchanges with Jewish people, some have been formal anti-missionaries and some have not. The common denominator is that they all object to our position that Jesus is the Messiah and Savior of the World.
In regard to Messianic Prophecy itself, I expect you to know and be able to clearly present the prophecies to your Jewish friend. After you do that and your Jewish friend goes to the rabbi and comes back with an objection is where this study fits in.
This is not a highly detailed technical study. I know some of you are going to think this is a highly detailed and technical class, but I will do my best not to make it so. I will do my best to present you with what you need to know, not with everything there is to know. A lot of this material will be new and strange to some of you and that's because it comes from a Jewish frame of reference and out of Jewish culture. Believe me, it will not be highly detailed or technical. However, the fact that it is unfamiliar will probably make it seem that way.
F. WHAT THIS STUDY IS...
Okay, if that is what the study is not-then what is it?
I will be preparing you to deal with common objections that your Jewish friend may present when you witness to him. This will provide you with a valid reply to the objection. You will see very clearly that all the objections that people throw at the Bible have valid and reasonable solutions.
I will be showing you that there is very little substance behind a good number of the objections. They look significant on the surface, but they evaporate when examined. This should build your confidence in the Scriptures and in your ability to stay on track with the true issues.
I will be providing you with resources that will enable you to dig deeper into the objections if you desire. You may find that you enjoy the challenge of apologetics. The word apologetics is not a negative or defeatist word. The word apologetics does not mean you are making an apology, or saying you are sorry for the Bible. The definition of apologetics is this:
"The branch of theology that is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines.1"If you find you like challenging objections, this course will provide you with resources to do so. I will be sharing from a Jewish perspective. That means I will be sharing rabbinic material with you. This material could be very new and strange to many of you. Even though this may be new and strange, it will give you a glimpse at the way the rabbis have handled Scripture for centuries. You will see and understand the reasoning that led to the rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus.
Finally, I will become a resource for you when you get stuck or when you are faced with an objection that you cannot answer. With that in mind I want to encourage you to take a look at the HaDavar witnessing packet that we have developed. You can order that packet from HaDavar.
This material is a recommended starting point. It contains essential information that will be frequently referenced.
In the Jewish community, there are four basic methods of interpretation used to understand the Scriptures. According to the Encyclopedia Judaica, they are:
This consists of applying to the text of the Bible the normal standards of diction, style, and arrangement in order to understand the plain meaning. P'shat deals with the explanation the plain meaning of the text. Of the four, this is the interpretive method the rabbis prefer.
In the Talmud, in Shabbat 63A, this statement is found:
"A verse cannot depart from its plain meaning,1"
The importance of this statement is revealed by Rabbi Aharon Feldman in his book The Juggler and the King. Rabbi Feldman describes the comment, "a verse cannot depart from its plain meaning" as the "Sages dictum." A dictum is an "authoritative declaration."2 He goes on to say that it is an authoritative declaration of the rabbinic sages that "the simple meaning of the text is always true."3 So, the rabbinic sages understood that this interpretive method was to be preferred.
This method consists of deriving from Scripture the allegorical meaning of the text. An allegory is a symbolic explanation. The rabbis tend to see extensive symbols in the biblical text. However, most of their symbolic interpretations cannot be substantiated by the text. The vast majority of rabbinic Remez is simply clever, intellectual, imaginative speculation.
This method consists of selecting from the teaching of the rabbis' lessons of an edifying or practical nature which the text suggests. D'rash deals with day to day practical application of Scripture.
This method consists of finding hints or allusions in the Bible on the nature of God and the soul, etc.4
This approach to Biblical interpretation is four-fold in method and very fluid in application. By fluid I mean that it is considered valid to apply each of these four methods to the same verse in the Bible in order to determine the meaning. As a result, in the rabbinical mind, any particular verse can have four levels of meaning:
The writers of the New Testament quote the Hebrew Scriptures using the cultural mindset of the day in which they lived. The result is that they used this "four-fold-fluid" approach rather than any single or rigid method. In fact, Matthew uses all four methods, one after the other, in Chapter 2 of his book. This reflects his first-century Jewish mindset and culture. In Matthew 2:5-6, he views Micah 5:2 as a literal fulfillment, a P'shat. In Matthew 2:15, he views Hosea 11:1 philosophically or typically; in other words, he uses Remez. In Matthew 2:17-18, he views Jeremiah 31:15 homiletically, a D'rash; Matthew 2:17-18 is a practical application of Jeremiah 31:15. Finally, in Matthew 2:23, he makes a summary statement covering all that the prophets (note: plural) as a group taught about the Messiah. In Matthew 2:23, he is approaching the text from a mystical point of view, he is using the technique called Sod.
All quotes of the Hebrew Scriptures in the New Testament will always fit into one of these four categories. The New Testament, because it is a Jewish book and written by Jewish authors, is very consistent in the way it uses the Hebrew Scriptures. The following terminology will be used when referring to these four categories. I will call them:
You would be wise to master this material. A mastery of these ideas will go a long way to aid your understanding of prophecy and your ability to defend the Bible against critics.
1 The Soncino Talmud (©1973 Judaica Press, Inc. and ©1965, 1967, 1977, 1983, 1984, 1987, 1988, & 1990 Soncino Press, Ltd.) is a product of Judaica Press, Inc. Brooklyn, NY, and, if included, is incorporated herein pursuant to exclusive license.
2 WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
3 Feldman, Rabbi Aharon, The Juggler and the King, (Spring Valley: Philipp Feldheim, Inc.) 1990, pg. xxii
4 Encyclopedia Judaica, CD Rom Edition Version 1.0, s.v. "Literature, Jewish"
5 Fruchtenbaum, Dr. A.G., Manuscript #134 - "How the New Testament Quotes the Old Testament," (Tustin:Ariel Ministries, 1991), pp 2-9; see also Cooper, Dr. David L., Messiah: His Historical Appearance (Los Angeles, California: Biblical Research Society, 1958), pp. 174-178
When dealing with messianic prophecy it is very important to understand that there are four categories of messianic prophecy, and these distinctions are essential. In his book Messianic Christology (pgs. 10-11), Dr. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum discusses the fact that messianic prophecies fall into four categories:
Some prophecies are very straightforward and deal exclusively with either the First Coming (category 1) or the Second Coming (category 2).
The third category of prophecies includes verses that blend the First and Second Comings together in such a way as to negate or conceal the period of time in between. It becomes necessary to study other parallel Scriptures in order to see the distinction. Zechariah 9:9-10 is a good example of this: Verse nine deals with the First Coming, and verse 10 deals with the Second. These verses alone do not distinguish between the two, but this is clarified by other passages.
The fourth category refers to passages which cover the entire messianic program and include four elements: First Coming, Interval of Time, Second Coming and the Messianic Kingdom.
When you study messianic prophecy, carefully note which category the prophecy belongs to.
Another factor influencing the use of the Hebrew Scriptures by the New Testament writers is the "Targumim Factor." This refers to the interpretive translation style of the Targumim that was prominent in the first century. The word "targum" means "translation" or "to translate." Targumim is the plural form-"translations." The Targumim are Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Bible. Aramaic was one of three languages in common use in first century Israel (Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic).
The Targumim are not word-for-word translations; rather, they were paraphrastic in nature. They were interpretive translations; they would be equivalent to the Living Bible we have today. The Living Bible is not a translation, it is a paraphrase. The goal of the Living Bible is the same as that of the Targumim, the aim-the goal-was to communicate understanding. The aim was to communicate what the passage meant in the clearest possible terms. They were not interested in producing a one-for-one, literal translation. For example, Isaiah 52:13 literally says, "My servant will prosper …," in contrast, Targum Jonathan says, "My servant, the Messiah, will prosper …" Isaiah 52:13 does not contain the words "the Messiah" in the Hebrew text. However, Jonathan understood the verse to refer to the Messiah, and accordingly, he paraphrased the text when he translated it into Aramaic.
He added the paraphrastic comment "the Messiah." He did this in order to communicate his understanding of the text to the reader.1 Could we say that the Jewish New Testament writers did the same? Yes, we can. They are Jews writing in the same Jewish, cultural context as the Targumim.
They are communicating their understanding of the Hebrew text to their readers, just like Jonathan. This is a very different approach than what we are used to. We live in 21st century, not the first century. We live in America, not Israel. Our culture is high-tech, high-speed, urbanized, linear, and time-fixated. Accordingly, we tend to view the Hebrew Scriptures from our perspective. We do not consider adjusting our point-of-view to fit the perspective of the writer and his audience. However, we must do our best to make that adjustment. We need to do this out of fairness to the author and to the text. Without making this adjustment we can misunderstand the meaning of the text.
This desire to communicate understanding is explained by biblical archaeologist, James A. Sanders, in his book The Dead Sea Scrolls after Forty Years:
"Early manuscripts were written to be read to the community - Tradents wanted their communities to understand, so they would slightly alter the text to facilitate understanding."
The key sentence is that last one:
Tradents wanted their communities to understand, so they would slightly alter the text to facilitate understanding.
I need to define one word in that key sentence; the word is "tradent." The word "tradent" means: "The person who delivers or hands over any property to another.2" I believe his point is that the Jewish and Christian communities considered the Bible to be the property of God. Those who taught or read the Bible to others considered themselves as stewards passing on God's property; they considered themselves "tradents." In order to fulfill that duty in a responsible manner they would do what they felt necessary to facilitate understanding. That is the basis for the Targumim.
The Aramaic paraphrases would alter the biblical text if the translator felt that the alteration would facilitate a proper understanding of the text. The translator felt that amending the translation was a responsible action to take in order to communicate the intended meaning.
The value of the Targumim lies in the fact that they help us to understand the first-century Jewish understanding of the text. In consequence, the first-century Messianic Jews were not concerned by this factor. They considered this technique of amending the text to gain understanding a valid technique. As a result, a free translation of a verse from the Hebrew Bible did not present in their minds the problems it presents to us. We, in the 21st century are much less tolerant of free translations. However, the quotations we have in the New Testament are not always word for word from the Hebrew Bible. They can be slightly different than the original in order to facilitate proper understanding.
My point: when an anti-missionary accuses the Church of tampering with the text he is using an invalid argument. This is a common charge the anti-missionaries level at the New Testament. However, amending the text to produce understanding was an accepted practice in the first-century Jewish community, and the New Testament is a first-century Jewish document. It simply reflects the Jewish culture in which it was written. Altering the text is not the practice of a devious Gentile whose intention is to deceive unsuspecting and gullible Jews into believing a false religion.
This brings up the question of the inspiration and reliability of the New Testament. The Targumim factor does not compromise the inspiration, reliability and authority of the New Testament. If we believe in divine inspiration, then, since the practice is found in the New Testament, the practice does not bother God.
Remember, the practice is found in the New Testament. Matthew Chapter 2 is a prime example. Since God oversaw the production of the New Testament then we can have confidence in the New Testament text. God saw to it that the proper understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures was communicated through the pages of the New Testament. As a result, slight differences in quotations should not bother us as well. You should understand this attack by an anti-missionary to be invalid.
1 "Life of the Messiah" tape series, Ariel Ministries
2 The Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed., 1989)
A similar situation exists in relation to the Septuagint. First of all let me define the word "Septuagint." The Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, it is a translation made by the Jewish community somewhere between the third and first centuries BC. As a result, this Greek version of the Old Testament existed at the beginning of the first century AD.
In other words, this Greek version of the Bible was made by the Jewish community long before Jesus or the Church came on the scene. The Septuagint found widespread use in the Greek speaking Jewish community before Jesus or the Church came on the scene. As a result, the writers of the New Testament quoted from the Septuagint frequently. The importance of all this lies in the translation technique that the Jewish scholars utilized when they produced the Septuagint.
Encyclopedia Judaica describes their translation technique as "targumic" in nature.1 Its objective was essentially to teach and explain the Hebrew text. As a result we run into the occurrence of free translation again. The Septuagint does not always quote the Hebrew Bible in a word for word manner. When the New Testament quotes the Hebrew Bible it often is quoting from the Septuagint.
Anti-missionaries claim that the Church and the New Testament tamper with the text of the Hebrew Bible. Again, this is an invalid argument. The first-century Messianic Jews were simply quoting from a version of the Bible that was widespread in their community. They were simply quoting from a version of the Bible that was widely accepted in the Greek speaking Jewish community. There is no tampering with the text going on.
What is going on is Messianic Jews simply quoting a recognized Jewish translation. This brings us to the issue of reliability again. Can we trust the Septuagint? I will say the same thing I said in relation to the Targumim Factor. If we believe in divine inspiration, since the practice is found in the New Testament, the practice does not bother God. Since God oversaw the production of the New Testament then we can have confidence in the New Testament text.
God saw to it that the proper understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures was communicated through the pages of the New Testament. God was quite willing to use the Septuagint in this process. Therefore, slight differences in quotations should not bother us as well.
The anti-missionaries use this as an argument to discredit the New Testament. When they do that they are actually criticizing Jewish translators.
1 EJ, CD Rom Edition, Bible Translations: Greek, The Septuagint
We have to consider these factors when we read the New Testament. These four factors are:
Considering these four factors sufficiently answers the majority of objections raised by anti-missionaries, especially when those objections center on the idea that the Church tampered with the text. We are simply recognizing what was going on in the Jewish community during the first century for the purpose of communicating understanding. Slight differences in quotations did not invalidate the New Testament text. Slight differences in quotations did not invalidate the Targumim in the Jewish community. Slight differences in quotation did not invalidate the Septuagint in the Jewish community either.
Let me emphasize, free renderings of the Old Testament in the New Testament are of no concern. They simply reflect the Jewish literature of the First Century. To criticize the New Testament because of free translations is simply rabbinic quibbling. What does it mean to "quibble"? The meaning of "quibble" is to evade the truth or importance of an issue by raising trivial distinctions and objections; to find fault or criticize for petty reasons. Let me close this summary with two statements by A. Lukyn Williams on pg. 111 of Christian Evidences for the Jewish People:
...it is doubtful if a single Jewish writer of ancient times can be found who is punctilious about the exact accuracy of his quotations from Scripture. What does R. Joshua haLevi say (after 1467 A.D.) in his Halikoth 'Olam, II, 2?
"The method of traditional teaching is to shorten the passages of Scripture, and it does not bring them forward as they are."
Also on pg. 79 of Christian Evidences for the Jewish People:
With Jewish writers mere verbal accuracy in a quotation is almost of no importance at all. When a Jew, in arguing with a Gentile, pretends that it is, he is presuming on the Gentile's ignorance of things Jewish.
You would be wise to master this information. With this background information in mind let us move on to our first section of Scripture that anti-missionaries challenge.
THE ANTI-MISSIONARY'S CHARGE:
This objection comes from an anti-missionary with Christianity Revealed.
Matthew 2:5-6 says:
"But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will be the shepherd of my people Israel."
Micah 5:2 says:
"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the rulers/clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins/goings out are from of old, from ancient times/from days of eternity."
These are very different verses. Matthew does not translate the verse correctly, it shows tampering or editing by the Council of Nicea and Trent.
Micah was telling of King Ahaz's son, King Hezekiah. In Hebrew it means the Mighty God, the Prince of Peace, the Wondrous Adviser, and the Government that was on his shoulder as predicted in Isaiah chapter nine. Hezekiah was the King of the Jews, he was anointed, and there was peace in the land for many years. He was truly the Messiah!
HADAVAR'S RESPONSE:
The anti-missionary objects to the fact that Matthew's quote of Micah 5:2 did not match Tanakh exactly. However, we maintain that there is no need to see this as a problem.
We need to go back to "The Four Ways the Brit Chadashah (New Testament) Uses The Hebrew Scriptures." Matthew was not interested in exactness; rather, he was interested in communicating his understanding of Yeshua's (Jesus) birth. What he understands is that a literal ruler will come out of a literal city, and Jesus literally did that.
This is an example of P'shat-a literal prophecy and a literal fulfillment. Remember this is the interpretive method most preferred by the rabbis. Remember what they said in the Talmud-Shabbat 63A:
"A verse cannot depart from its plain meaning…"
He is directing the reader back to Tanakh to verify his understanding. This quotation, though differing verbally, agrees substantially with the Hebrew and the Septuagint.1 The fact that he did not quote the Hebrew Scriptures exactly is not a case for tampering with the text.
What Matthew has done here is to combine Micah 5:2 and 2 Samuel 5:2. Combining the two verses emphasizes Matthew's conviction that the King who brings the kingdom is a Shepherd-King.2 Which, by the way, is the same thought communicated two verses further on in Micah 5:3 (Micah 5:4 in English):
"He shall stand and shepherd by the might of the Lord, by the power of the name of the Lord his God, and they shall dwell [secure]. For lo, he shall wax great to the ends of the earth;"3
Matthew would not have been concerned with rendering Micah 5:2 freely as long as he communicated accurate understanding. He has achieved that communication goal, a literal ruler was to come out of Bethlehem. That King would act as God's Shepherd over Israel and Jesus is that Shepherd/King. The reader can then study Micah chapter 5 to decide whether Matthew is correct or not.
Now, is this literal ruler the Messiah or not?
Matthew is convinced that he is and Jesus is that person. Matthew is not alone in coming to the conclusion that this verse is Messianic. The translator of Targum Jonathan felt that the verse was Messianic:
"And you, O Bethlehem Ephrath, you who were too small to be numbered among the thousands of the house of Judah, from you shall come forth before Me the Messiah, to exercise dominion over Israel, he whose name was mentioned from before, from the days of creation."4
Please notice that Targum Jonathan is a free rendering of Micah 5:2 as well. Jonathan understood the verse to be Messianic so he inserted the paraphrastic phrase "the Messiah" to facilitate understanding. This is exactly the kind of thing Matthew has done. This kind of free quote is entirely in keeping with the Jewish culture and thinking of the first century. This is not the Church "tampering with the text."
In addition to Targum Jonathan, let us see what Rabbi David Kimchi said about Micah 5:2:
"… out of thee shall come forth unto me a Judge to be Ruler in Israel, and this is the King Messiah."
Targum Palestine renders the verse in a similar manner:
"Out of thee Bethlehem shall Messiah go forth before me to exercise dominion over Israel."
In the Soncino Books of the Bible, Chapter 5 is summarized with this statement.
"A prophecy of the Messianic king and Israel's destiny among the nations."
In that commentary verses 1-5 are entitled "The Messianic King." The commentator, Rabbi Goldman's first phrase is, "This prophecy of the Messiah…" Rabbi Goldman also comments regarding the phrase "from ancient of days." He states:
"It is possible that the phrase gave rise to the later Jewish doctrine that the Messiah existed in the mind of God from time immemorial as part of the Creator's plan at the inception of the universe. In the Talmud, the name of the Messiah is included among the seven things created before the world was brought into being."
Dr. Alfred Edersheim (a Messianic Jewish scholar) makes the same point. In his book, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, he states that this is Messianic in nature and refers the reader to Pirque de R. Eliezar.
We think it is fair to say that this is a Messianic prophecy. The fact that it is a Messianic prophecy is well supported by rabbinic literature.
But does it refer to Jesus?
We think it does.
Why?
First of all, the language used to describe the origin of the ruler is much too strong to apply to any human being like Hezekiah. We think Rabbi Goldman's comment supports the strong language describing the ruler to come. In addition, the Hebrew phrase rendered "the days of eternity" uses the strongest Hebrew words for eternity past. These words are also used of God in Psalm 90:2. In that Psalm God is described as "from eternity to eternity." From eternity to eternity is the rendering found in the Tanakh version. The Tanakh is the most recent English translation by the Jewish Publication Society. Their older translation uses the terms "everlasting to everlasting." The same terminology is likewise used of God's wisdom personified in Proverbs 8:22-23. The older Jewish Publication Society version uses the terminology "from everlasting" to describe God's wisdom.
The Tanakh renders the words:
"in the distant past I was fashioned, at the beginning, at the origin of earth."5
Hezekiah's origins are not from eternity past or during the origin of the Earth. Hezekiah cannot be the one referred to here. However, the message of the New Testament is that Jesus fits the data, He fits this description. The New Testament teaches that Jesus has existed from eternity past. Examples of this are found in John 1:1 and John 1:14:
John 1:1 (NASB95)
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."John 1:14 (NASB95)
"And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth."
Yeshua was around at the origin of the Earth. The New Testament states that He created the Earth:
John 1:10 (NASB95)
"He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him."
So, Yeshua was around at the origin of the Earth. He also existed from eternity past. We just read that in John 1:1. In addition, Jesus stated it himself in John 8:58:
John 8:58 (NASB95)
"Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.'"
He affirms that His origins are from eternity past as well. In making this statement, Jesus is either a liar, a lunatic, or He is the Son of God. There is no middle ground. However, the words of the New Testament do not describe a liar, or a lunatic. The words of Jesus and the story of Jesus has blessed untold thousands of people. The New Testament does not relate the story of a liar or a lunatic. The only option left before us is that Jesus is the Son of God who existed from eternity past.
Can we say the same of Hezekiah? Hezekiah does not come close to fulfilling this requirement. Matthew and the other Jewish authors of the New Testament did not think so either. That is why they wrote the New Testament, to put forth their case for Jesus. We are not alone in feeling that Hezekiah is not a good candidate for Messiahship.
Neither did Rabbi Joseph in Sanhedrin 99a. Rabbi Joseph is involved in a discussion regarding the book of Zechariah with Rabbi Hillel. The interaction begins with Rabbi Hillel's position:
"Rabbi Hillel said, 'There shall be no Messiah for Israel, because they have already enjoyed him in the days of Hezekiah.'"6
In other words, Rabbi Hillel says that Hezekiah was the Messiah. He has come and gone already, there is no Messiah for Israel in the future.
Rabbi Joseph responds to Hillel's understanding
"Rabbi Joseph said, 'May God forgive him (for saying so).'"7
Rabbi Joseph was quite upset with Rabbi Hillel for taking the position that Hezekiah was the Messiah. I do not blame him, Hezekiah is a poor candidate for Messiahship. Granted, Hezekiah was the godliest King that Israel ever had, his character is praised in 2 Kings 18:5:
"(Hezekiah) trusted in the Lord, the God of Israel; so that after him there was none like him among all the kings of Judah, nor among those who were before him."
Yet, in contrast to his godliness, Hezekiah had a rebellious streak of pride in his character. 2 Chronicles 32:24-25 reveals the dark side of Hezekiah's character:
"In those days Hezekiah became mortally ill; and he prayed to the Lord, and the Lord spoke to him and gave him a sign. But Hezekiah gave no return for the benefit he received, because his heart was proud; therefore wrath came on him and on Judah and Jerusalem."8
Hezekiah was all too human and not a good candidate for the Messiah. Hezekiah struggled with sin and his origin was not found in eternity past. Jesus is a much better candidate. What we are saying about the Messiah having an origin in eternity past is not something of Gentile or "Christian" origin. In fact, the Israeli scholar Raphael Patai devotes an entire chapter to the subject of the "Preexistence and Names of the Messiah" in his book The Messiah Texts. He explains the concept, then devotes two pages to rabbinic quotes-eight quotations-supporting the idea of the preexistence of the Messiah. This is not a thought alien to the Jewish people. This is not the Church "tampering with the text." The implications of all this are staggering.
Jesus fulfills the biblical data. Jesus is our long awaited Messiah.
1 Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. (1997). A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments. On spine: Critical and explanatory commentary. (Mt 2:6). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
2 New Geneva study Bible. 1997, c1995. C1995 by Foundation for Reformation. (electronic ed.) (Mt 2:6). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
3 Jewish Publication Society. (1997, c1985). Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures : A new translation of the Holy Scriptures according to the traditional Hebrew text. Title facing t.p.: Torah, Nevi'im, Kethuvim = Torah, Nevi'im, Ketuvim. (Mic 5:3). Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society.
4 Huckel, T. (1998). The Rabbinic Messiah (Mic 5:2). Philadelphia: Hananeel House.
5 Jewish Publication Society (1997, c1985) Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures : A new translation of the Holy Scriptures according to the traditional Hebrew text. Title facing t.p.: Torah, Nevi'im, Kethuvim = Torah, Nevi'im, Ketuvim. (Pr 8:23). Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society.
6 The Soncino Talmud (©1973 Judaica Press, Inc. and ©1965, 1967, 1977, 1983, 1984, 1987, 1988, & 1990 Soncino Press, Ltd.) is a product of Judaica Press, Inc. Brooklyn, NY, and, if included, is incorporated herein pursuant to exclusive license.
7 Ibid.
8 New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (2 Ch 32:24). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.
THE ANTI-MISSIONARY'S CHARGE:
In Luke 24:46-47, Luke tells us that Jesus rose on the third day:
"Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem."
Paul wrote in I Corinthians 15:4:
"…and Jesus was buried and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures".
However, the Jewish Scriptures say something quite different. Hosea 5:15 sets the scene and explains the situation very clearly:
"I (God) will go, I will return to My place until they will acknowledge their guilt and seek My face; in their distress they will seek Me."
Hosea explains in verse 15 that God sent a clear-cut message to Israel through His prophets; you heard and refused to repent, so My offer resulted in your death sentence. How could I vindicate you after such defiance? Then Hosea says in Hosea 6:1-2:
"Come let us return to God for He has mangled us and He will heal us; He has smitten and He will bandage us. He will heal us after two days; on the third day He will raise us up and we will live before Him."
We, of course, refers to the nation of Israel.
HADAVAR'S RESPONSE:
The anti-missionary is absolutely correct.
We do not believe for a moment that Paul or Luke was referring to Hosea 6:2 when he wrote, "…and Jesus was buried and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures." The Hosea passage is not related to Yeshua's (Jesus) resurrection on the third day. This is an example of a "straw man" argument. What is a "straw man" argument? A "straw man" argument is an argument deliberately set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated. Instead, Paul and Luke are referring to the book of Jonah, chapter 2:1-11 in the Hebrew Bible (Jonah 1:17-20 in the English Bible). There Jonah drowned, is in the belly of the great fish three days and three nights, was resurrected and then regurgitated. He went through an experience similar to the experience that Yeshua went through. This is an example of Literal Prophecy plus Typical Fulfillment (Remez).
Jonah is a type. The word "type" is generally used to denote a resemblance between something present and something future. The future item is called the "antitype." Chapter 2 of Jonah is where we should look to find the reference made by Paul and Luke, "written … according to the Scriptures." This would be Jonah 2:1 in the Hebrew Bible or Jonah 1:17 in the English Bible.
"And the LORD appointed a great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was in the stomach of the fish three days and three nights."
Paul and Luke handle Jonah in this manner because this is exactly how Yeshua used the verse in Matthew 12:40:
"…for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."
In addition, note Yeshua's words recorded in Luke 11:30:
"For just as Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites, so shall the Son of Man be to this generation."
The sign that Yeshua is referring to is the sign of resurrection. The resurrected Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites. The resurrected Jesus was a sign to Israel. In summary, Paul was right on track when he made his comment "according to the Scriptures." The objection misses the mark because the objection goes to the wrong Scripture verse. We should take our direction from what the Brit Chadashah (New Testament) has to say about the "third day." The Brit Chadashah directs us to Jonah and not to Hosea.
THE ANTI-MISSIONARY'S CHARGE:
The King James Version and the Tanakh both say in Zechariah 12:10, "and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced." When John is writing in John 19:37 and quotes Zechariah 12:10, he has changed it to say, "They shall look on him (instead of me) whom they pierced."
HADAVAR'S RESPONSE:
John understands Zechariah 12:10 to be a Literal Prophecy plus Literal Fulfillment. See The Four Ways the Brit Chadashah(New Testament) Uses the Hebrew Scriptures. This is also a Second Coming prophecy. See The Four Types of Messianic Prophecy. John is convinced that Jesus is God Himself appearing and living among Israel as a man, as the Messianic person. John then communicates his understanding of the scene he witnessed when Jesus was pierced by the Roman spear. He knew that the Messianic person had to be pierced according the Zechariah 12:10. He believes that Jesus is the Messianic person. When he sees Jesus pierced by the Roman soldier, he understands that moment to be a literal fulfillment of what was predicted in Zechariah 12:10.
John makes a slight alteration of the Hebrew text to facilitate understanding. He does a Targum here. He renders the text in an explanatory manner. The alteration is slight but fully consistent with his First Century Jewish culture; John does not quote the Septuagint here. Apparently, John personally translates the verse. The Hebrew text literally reads, "They will look unto me whom they pierced." John translates the verse into Greek in this manner, "They will look unto whom they pierced." I will admit that the majority of the standard English translations do a disservice to John when they add the non-existent pronoun "him." The majority of standard English translations render the phrase in question "… look onto Him whom …" Of the standard English translations the New International Version does the best job by rendering the phrase in this manner:
"They will look on the one they have pierced."
Unfortunately, the standard English translations have provided some fuel for the objection of the anti-missionary. The objection evaporates when the original Greek is consulted. The standard English translations are actually doing a 21st century English Targum. They are rendering the verse in an explanatory manner. For a rabbi to object is simply more quibbling. However, rendered into the English, John's translation does the job and communicates his understanding of the scene he witnessed. Jesus is the pierced one. Jesus is the Messiah. Jesus is the one who Israel will look to. John's personal Targum explains the verse.
This action by John is consistent with his first-century Jewish culture. John directs the reader to Zechariah so that the reader can study the scripture and decide for himself if he is correct or not. Now we have to ask the question, is John correct when he sees this verse as messianic?
John is not alone in his understanding that the Messianic person is being referred to here. Ancient Jewish sages carried the same understanding. Here are a few quotes found in rabbinic literature:
Babylonian Talmud Sukkah 52a:
It's well according to him who explains that the cause (of the mourning) is the slaying of the Messiah the son of Joseph, since that well agrees with the Scripture verse: 'And they shall look upon me, whom they have pierced; and shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son'.1
Jerusalem Talmud, Sukkah 52A:
And the land shall mourn, every family apart (Zech. 12:12). Two have interpreted this verse. One said: "This is the mourning over the Messiah," and the other said: "This is the mourning over the Evil Inclination" (which will be killed by God in the Messianic days).2
Babylonian Talmud Sukkah 52A:
and the land shall mourn (Zech 12:12). What is the reason of this mourning? R. Dosa and the rabbis differ about it. R. Dosa says: "(They will mourn) over the Messiah who will be slain," and the rabbis say: "(They will mourn) over the Evil Inclination which will be killed (in the days of the Messiah) …."3
Rashi (and also RaDak):
Our Rabbis interpreted it as referring to Messiah ben Joseph.4
Rabbi Moses Alshech:
'They shall look unto Me, for they shall lift up their eyes unto Me in perfect repentance, when they see Him whom they have pierced, that is Messiah, the Son of Joseph; for our Rabbis, of blessed memory, have said that He will take upon Himself all the guilt of Israel, and shall then be slain in the war to make atonement in such manner that it shall be accounted as if Israel had pierced Him, for on account of their sin He has died; and, therefore, in order that it may be reckoned to them as perfect atonement, they will repent and look to the blessed One, saying that there is none beside Him to forgive those that mourn on account of Him who died for their sin; this is the meaning of 'They shall look upon Me'.5
It appears that John is in good company when he communicates his understanding of the event. He believes that the Messianic person is being referred to here and so do other respected Jewish commentators. John understands Jesus to be fulfilling the role of Messiah ben Joseph. Messiah ben Joseph is the rabbinic name for the "Suffering Messiah."
1 How to Recognise the Messiah, (Johannesburg: Good News Society, 2000), p. 16
2 Patai, Raphael, The Messiah Texts, (New York, New York: Avon Books, 1979), p. 167
3 Ibid
4 How to Recognise the Messiah, p. 16
5 Ibid, pp. 16-17
THE ANTI-MISSIONARY'S CHARGE:
The Jewish Tanakh, written in the present tense, says:
"Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman (alma) is with child, and she will bear a son and she shall call his name Immanuel."
The Greek Septuagint changed the Hebrew word, alma, from young woman to virgin and put it in the future tense. These two changes definitely gives it a Christian slant. From Matthew 1:22-23:
"Behold, a virgin shall be with child and shall bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel."
HADAVAR'S RESPONSE:
This anti-missionary is absolutely correct.
The sign promised to Israel is contained the phrase "the young woman/virgin is with child." The sign promised to Israel is worded in the present tense in the original Hebrew. The Tanakh English version renders the Hebrew accurately, "is with child." However, the sign has not been given yet. The giving of the sign is still future. The sign "the young woman/virgin is with child" will become a reality sometime in the future. This sign will not appear until sometime after Isaiah's conversation with King Ahaz.
We have to start our analysis of the sign prior to the phrase "is with child." We have to start with the phrase "shall give you a sign." The verb translated "shall give" is in the imperfect tense in the Hebrew text. The imperfect tense communicates incomplete action. Verses in the imperfect tense are legitimately translated as events to be completed in the future. The Septuagint translators made a legitimate decision and rendered the verb in the future tense in their Greek translation. The rendering is appropriate because the sign is promised for the future, grammatically and contextually. The Jewish translators are simply doing a Targum, an explanatory rendering. With the time frame of the sign determined, we now have to analyze the sign itself.
So what is the sign? Let us start with the Hebrew Definite Article. The text uses the Hebrew Definite Article, appropriately translated into English by the word "the." This indicates that a specific virgin is in view. "The virgin" is pregnant. But more than that, she is bearing a son and called Him "God with us." Yes, Isaiah does word the sign itself in the present tense. She is giving birth at that moment. Isaiah can do this because he is seeing the birth from a prophet's point of view-unlimited by space or time. He is viewing the actual birth as it occurs in the future. It is doubtful that he is, at that moment, viewing the actual birth of a child in his present time. If he was, he would be viewing a birth taking place out in the open, in a public place. If he was, he would be viewing a birth "at the end of the conduit of the upper pool, on the highway to the fuller's field" (Isaiah 7:3). In addition, Ahaz and his entourage would be looking on as well, according to Isaiah 7:3. The context indicates some sort of a public scene. Probably Ahaz is inspecting Jerusalem's water supply in preparation for the expected conflict with Aram and Israel (Isaiah 7:1-2). It is highly unlikely that a woman would be there giving birth in that kind of situation.
What is the explanation? I think the explanation lies in the fact that this is a future event that Isaiah can see occurring in his "mind's eye." He can see it occurring in the future from his prophet's perspective. In addition, this birth has to be a "sign." The word "sign" either signifies the unusual event itself or in some way points to that unusual event. It may point backward to a historical event such as the stones in the Jordan (Josh. 4:6). A sign can even look forward to such a promise as a thornless future world (Isa. 55:13).1
The point of the text is that this birth has to be unusual. It has to qualify as a sign. A non-virgin girl, a young woman, giving birth is hardly an unusual event. It happens every day. It has happened to my daughter four times already. This is not a reference to a young woman giving birth in a public place. This sign is of a virgin giving birth. The physical state of the woman is the sign, not the physical location of the birth. The physical location will be covered in Micah 5:2-Bethlehem, but that is not the point here. A woman, in her virginity, giving birth would be a sign. That does not happen every day.
The anti-missionary claims that the Septuagint tampered with the text by changing the tense to future. I have already demonstrated that the rabbis who translated Isaiah 7:14 into Greek made a legitimate translation decision. If that is tampering, then it was done by Jewish rabbis. The Septuagint was in place long before Jesus came on the scene. The Septuagint translation was made around 285-244 BC. There was no "Christian slant" possible at the time the Septuagint was written. The rabbis who translated the Septuagint apparently understood the text to speak of the future and that it spoke of a virgin. They translated according to their understanding of the Hebrew text. They did not translate the text in agreement with a non-existent "Christian" understanding. In addition, we do not need the Septuagint to determine if the Hebrew word alma means virgin. A word study of alma will do that.
In Biblical Hebrew, alma exclusively means virgin with no clarifying information needed. The Septuagint simply supports that conclusion. Again, Matthew simply uses the Jewish, textual resources available to him in the first century CE/AD. As he compares the text and his experience with Jesus, he sees a literal prophecy uttered by Isaiah and literal fulfillment in the life of Jesus. He then passes that understanding on to the reader. The reader can then decide for himself if Matthew is correct or not.
This brings us to a corollary objection. For this let us move to our next objection, a discussion of the word "virgin" found in the same passage.
1 Harris, R. Laird, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1999, c1980), p.19
THE ANTI-MISSIONARY'S CHARGE:
A common objection voiced by the anti-missionary runs along these lines: Since alma does indeed mean "literal virgin" in Isaiah 7, who was this sinless second Adam that was born during the reign of Ahaz? And further, what two kings or kingdoms were conquered during the childhood of Jesus?
HADAVAR'S RESPONSE:
Since there is an admission that alma means virgin we have crossed the major barrier. The conception and birth that is predicted has to be a sign - something out-of-the-ordinary. A young woman conceiving and giving birth is hardly a sign - it happens every day. However, a virgin conception and subsequent birth is out-of-the-ordinary and serves as a genuine sign. That is why the word alma is important.
The word alma clearly means "virgin" in spite of the objections of the Rabbis. In contrast to the vast majority of rabbis today, who will not admit that alma means virgin. We have the opinion of Dr. Cyrus Gordon, Professor of Assyriology and Egyptology in Dropsie College, in his article Almah in Isaiah 7:14 (The Journal of Bible & Religion, vol. 21 [April 1953], p.106):
The commonly held view that "virgin" is Christian, whereas "young woman" is Jewish is not quite true. The fact is that the Septuagint, which is the Jewish translation made in pre-Christian Alexandria, takes almah to mean "virgin" here. Accordingly, the New Testament follows Jewish interpretation in Isaiah 7:14. Therefore, the New Testament rendering of almah as "virgin" for Isaiah 7:14 rests on the older Jewish interpretation,...
In addition, the respected biblical commentator Rashi (Rabbi Shelomoh Ben Yitzhaki) states that alma means virgin in his commentary on Song of Solomon 1:3. Specifically, Rashi states that alma is synonymous with another Hebrew word that means virgin, the word betulah. The rabbis unequivocally state that betulah means virgin as well. Almah and betulah are nearly synonymous terms, meaning "virgin." However, alma is the more restricted term and never needs explanatory information. In contrast the range of meaning of betulah includes virginity and marriage. The result is that betulah sometimes requires an explanatory phrase to indicate a virgin (see Gen. 24:16). Finally, Encyclopedia Judaica states in its article entitled "Virgin, Virginity" (Encyclopaedia Judaica - CD ROM Edition © Judaica Multimedia (Israel) Ltd.
The biblical betulah usually rendered "virgin," is in fact an ambiguous term which in nonlegal contexts may denote an age of life rather than a physical state.
The implication of this statement is that almah is the better term for virgin, as found in Isaiah 7:14.
The second point we need to realize is the fact that Isaiah chapter 7 contains two prophecies, a long-term prophecy (the fulfillment lies well into the future) and a short-term prophecy (the fulfillment lies within the lifetime of the prophet).
Isaiah 7:14 is a long-term prophecy designed to encourage the Davidic dynasty over the next 700 turbulent years until the Messiah comes. The House of David needed to know this. Over those long and dreary years they would read this prophecy and be encouraged regarding the arrival of the Messiah/King. The reference is to the sinless second Adam but it is not a statement that he would be born during the reign of Ahaz. He will be born 700 years later. This is why Matthew directs us to the verse in Matthew 1:23.
In contrast, Isaiah 7:15-25 is a short-term prophecy designed to encourage the house of Ahaz as well as chastise them for their lack of faith. Isaiah 7:15-25 would encourage Ahaz because it tells him that the Davidic dynasty will survive the warfare planned against it. However, it also chastises Ahaz for his lack of faith exhibited in verse 12. Judgment will descend and bring hardship because of his unfaithfulness-but the House of David will survive. Ahaz needed to know that. Please remember that Isaiah's son, Shaar YaShuv, is present in Isaiah's arms.
In Isaiah 7:3 God commanded Isaiah to bring along his young son. There has to be a reason why God wanted him to do this. The reference to the boy eating curds and honey and refusing evil and choosing good in verses 15-16 is a reference to Shaar YaShuv. In other words, in just a few years the foes that Ahaz fears (Pekah and Rezin - verses 1-9) will be gone. Shaar YaShuv will function as a sign for Ahaz. That is the reason why he is present. The sign lies in the timing. The timing is the crucial element. Before that little boy reached the age of moral discrimination, the enemies will be gone. The speed and precise nature of the timing is the out-of-the-ordinary element.
This sign would also authenticate Isaiah as a genuine prophet and support the inclusion of his book in the canon of Scripture. You see, Shaar YaShuv is so young that he is still nursing. The earliest food to be given to him after his mother's milk would have been honey, followed later by milk. This will all happen in 2-3 years and amaze Ahaz. The kingdoms that will be destroyed in such a short time are those of Pekah and Rezin.
Let us combine the two thoughts with first-century historical perspective. The first-century Jewish reader of Isaiah 7 would know from past history that the virgin-sign had not occurred in Ahaz's day. Past history would tell them that Isaiah 7:14 had not come to pass as yet. Past history would have also told them that verses 15-25 had come to pass exactly as stated. They would know from history that the timing-sign had occurred. Pekah and Rezin had fallen. Ahaz had survived and the land did suffer devastation by the Assyrians. However, the House of David and Judah had survived that as well. They would easily see what Matthew was driving at. Emmanuel had arrived after 700 years of waiting.
THE ANTI-MISSIONARY'S CHARGE:
In Isaiah 9:5-6 the original Hebrew reads:
"For a child has been born to us, a son has been given us and authority has settled on his shoulders. He has been named 'The Mighty God.'"
This passage is referring to King Hezekiah, son of Ahaz. The King James Version (KJV) had to change the tense from the present to the future making it:
"A child is born, a son is given and the government shall be upon his shoulder and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God."
In Hebrew, Hezekiah means "the mighty God."
HADAVAR'S RESPONSE:
A paraphrase of this argument would be:
Let us start by examining point four and work backward to point one. That Hezekiah was the Messianic person or is a Messianic person appears to be the implication of the objection. In other words, the statement cannot refer to Jesus because it has already been fulfilled. The anti-missionary probably would like to direct our attention to the rabbinic belief that in every age there is someone who is a potential Messiah. Therefore, Hezekiah was the Messianic person referred to in Isaiah 9:6. He was the Messiah in his age. That is not a very strong position for a number of reasons. Let us ask a couple of questions-first:
Targum Jonathan to the Prophets:
"The prophet announced to the house of David that: 'A boy has been born unto us, a son has been given unto us, who has taken the Torah upon himself to guard it; and his name has been called by the One who gives wonderful counsel, the Mighty God, He who lives forever: "Messiah," in whose day peace shall abound for us. He shall make great the dignity of those who labor in the Torah and of those who maintain peace, without end; on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to build it in justice and in righteousness, from this time forth and forever. This shall be accomplished by the Memra of the Lord of Hosts.'"1
Babylonian Talmud (Tract Derech Erez Zutha):
"Rabbi Hose the Galilean said: Also the name of the Messiah is called Peace, for it is written (Isaiah 9:6): 'Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.'"2
Midrash Rabbah (Debarim 1):
"The Rabbis lay the following words in the mouth of the patriarch Jacob: "I have still to bring forth the King Messiah as it is written: 'Unto us a child is born.'"3
Iggereth Teman (Rabbi Moses ben Maimon writes to Jacob Alfajumi):
"God named Him (the Messiah) with six names as He says concerning Him: 'For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon His shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, God, Mighty, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace'. That He calleth Him God in a distinctive manner, is to say with it, that His glory surpasses that of all other children of men."4
Aben Ezra:
"There are some interpreters who say that 'Wonderful, Everlasting Father' are names of God and only 'Prince of Peace' is the name of the child. But according to my view the interpretation is right (which says): all are the names of the child."5
Targum Isaiah:
"The prophet saith to the house of David, A child has been born to us, a son has been given to us; and He has taken the law upon Himself to keep it, and His name had been called from of old, Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, He Who Lives Forever, The Anointed One (or Messiah), in whose days peace shall increase upon us.6
Most assuredly the passage is about the Messiah, but there will be only one Messiah, not a multitude of Messiahs. There will be only one Messiah. Only one candidate will fit the Messianic requirements.
"Rabbi Hillel said, 'There shall be no Messiah for Israel, because they have already enjoyed him in the days of Hezekiah.' Rabbi Joseph said, 'May God forgive him (for saying so).'"
Rabbi Joseph vigorously denied this teaching.
Finally, we come to the objection that the statement is all in the past and, therefore, speaks of Hezekiah. This is an important exegetical and interpretive decision. The verbs in Isaiah 9:6 are a mixture of perfects and imperfects. The perfects are in the first half of the verse and the imperfects are in the last half of the verse. The perfect aspect denotes completed action in the past, present, or future. The imperfect aspect denotes incomplete or repeated action in the past, present, or future. The mixture of verb aspects means that this is no simplistic decision. We need to "scratch our heads" over this one. We need to really think about this one. We have some options to choose from.
The anti-missionary has chosen the past or present option. The implication of that choice is that Hezekiah is or was the Messiah. By the way, the anti-missionary is making the exact same type of exegetical/interpretive decisions that the KJV makes. The only difference lies in the fact that he is choosing the past/present option. This is because of the mixture of verb aspects in the verse. The KJV has not "tampered with the text" any more than he has. The only difference is the fact that the KJV is choosing a different exegetical option. The anti-missionary's choice is the weaker option for three reasons:
However, we still have one more option to consider and that is the future option. In the case of the perfect aspect it would be the usage called the "Prophetic Perfect." The prophetic perfect occurs when the prophet sees the future action so vividly that the action is deemed "as good as done."7 The use of the prophetic perfect in the first half of the verse (child has been born, son has been given) fits with the imperfects in the last half of the verse (government shall be upon his shoulder, shall be called).
Considering the context and force of Isaiah 9:1-7, the data about the Messianic person developed in other parts of Scripture and the New Testament data about Jesus in contrast to what we know about Hezekiah, the future option is preferable. Jesus is a good fit. He is a much better choice than Hezekiah (700 BC), Bar Kochba (135 AD), or Rebbe Schneerson (1994 AD). If Jesus is not the Messiah, then who is?
Jesus is the:
Wonderful Counselor - Colossians 2:3 "…in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."
Mighty God - Hebrews 1:8 "But of the Son He says, 'Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever, And the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom.'" (Quoting Psalm 45)
Eternal Father - John 1:1-2 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God."
Prince of Peace - John 14:27 "Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives, do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful."
The Jewish Publication Society (JPS) also translates the verse as "child is born" and "son is given." So the JPS and the KJV happen to agree on the rendering of the first part of the verse. Then, being consistent with their decision to render the verse in the present tense, the JPS translators continue with the wording "government is" and "name is." This rendering would put the anti-missionary at odds with the JPS and open them up to the charge of "tampering." However, that is not necessary. The JPS translators did a reasonable and consistent job of translation. They do not agree with HaDavar's evaluation of the text. Their rendition is a fair but, from our point-of-view, regrettable interpretive decision.
1 Huckel, T. (1998). The Rabbinic Messiah (Is 9:6). Philadelphia: Hananeel House.
2 "How to Recognise the Messiah" Pg. 11
3 "How to Recognise the Messiah" Pg. 11
4 "How to Recognise the Messiah" Pg. 24
5 "How to Recognise the Messiah" Pg. 24
6 McDowell, Josh, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, (San Bernardino, CA: Here's Life Publishers) 1972, pg. 151
7 Williams, Ronald J., Hebrew Syntax: An Outline, Second Edition, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press) 1967
THE ANTI-MISSIONARY'S CHARGE:
The Jewish translation of Isaiah 53:10 is the most accurate. This is the rendering found in Tanakh:
"And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill; if his soul makes itself restitution (acknowledge guilt) he shall see children, he shall prolong his days and God's purpose shall prosper in his hand."
The King James Version (KJV) renders the Hebrew in such a way that is implies Jesus and is inaccurate. Isaiah 53:10 KJV:
"Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he had put him to grief: when thou shall make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand."
In addition, Jesus never had children so Jesus cannot be referred to in Isaiah 53:10.
HADAVAR'S RESPONSE:
The anti-missionary is objecting to the KJV's rendering of Isaiah 53:10. He points out that the KJV differs from the Jewish rendering found in the Tanakh version. He feels that the KJV is making a deliberate effort to twist the meaning of the verse. He feels that the verse is being distorted so that it will appear to talk about Jesus when, in reality, it does not. Let us take a look at the important phrases and see if the essential meaning of the text is being changed.
Regarding Jesus not fathering children, the entire argument centers around whether the term seed, "zerah" has a metaphorical use or whether it is limited strictly to a literal use in Scripture. If the term can rightfully be viewed in a metaphorical sense then the "seed" of the suffering individual in Isaiah 53:10 can be spiritual descendants or disciples rather than literal offspring. If the term cannot be viewed metaphorically then it is a reference to children born to the suffering individual.
Firstly, let's consider the context of Isaiah 53:10. The key question to ask is, "How can a dead man who has been sacrificed as a guilt offering (vs. 10), see his literal children and prolong his days?" It is affirmed by scores of respected Jewish commentators that the suffering individual of Isaiah 53:10 actually dies in verses 8-10. (See: The Suffering Servant of Isaiah, Driver and Neubauer, pages lxx-ixxii) The only way this can happen is if the individual is resurrected. So, there is something more going on here than the normal. God is intervening with the miraculous. This immediately should alert us to the possibility that normal, natural course of events may be superseded. The literal offspring of the servant may not be the intended thought. The context supports a metaphorical meaning of the word zerah.
Secondly, let's explore the range of meaning found in the word "zerah."1
Already a number of metaphorical uses have made their appearance. It is self-evident that usage number one, sowing, does not mean "literal descendants."
Under usage number two we discover a figurative or metaphorical usage as well. The idolatry of Judah is likened to seed in Isaiah 17:11. In Psalm 126:6 the fortunes of Zion are likened to seed and sheaves (See also Ezk. 17:5).
Another self-evident metaphorical usage is usage number three where seed means "semen" rather than literal descendants.
Usage number four is the usage the anti-missionary wants to emphasize. Zerah often means literal offspring, but it does not mean that exclusively. This is the fact that the anti-missionary is trying to obscure. One notable aspect of this usage is the fact that the word can refer to future generations2 (e.g. Deuteronomy 28:46). To quote Dr. Michael L. Brown, from his book Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus (Vol. 3, page 84), "In the context of Isaiah 53:10, this would mean that the servant of the Lord would see future generations of his people serving the Lord." This is a very apt description of the fulfillment of this verse in Jesus.
Finally, the fifth usage is highly metaphorical. One example is Proverbs 11:21. If you take Proverbs 11:21 as strictly meaning "literal descendants" that would mean that the literal descendants of a wicked person are doomed to punishment even if they live a Godly life. Why? Because they are not the children of a righteous man. You would be forced to interpret Proverbs 11:21 as teaching that your punishment or deliverance is decided by your forbears, no matter what your personal righteousness happens to be. Of course that is a ridiculous interpretation that is totally nullified by the lives of righteous individuals whose forbears were wicked. Godly King Hezekiah, the direct descendent of wicked King Ahaz comes to mind, as does Ezekiel 18:20 (Tanakh),
The person who sins, he alone shall die. A child shall not share the burden of a parent’s guilt, nor shall a parent share the burden of a child’s guilt; the righteousness of the righteous shall be accounted to him alone, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be accounted to him alone.
In contrast, according to Proverbs 11:21, the righteous person will be delivered because he is identified with and united with a group that shares a common quality. In this case he is considered among the descendents of the righteous not because his father is necessarily righteous but because he shares that common quality personally and with all those people who live by God's standards.
In addition, the metaphorical aspect of zerah is an interpretive tool the sages of old utilized. In his book The Rabbinic Messiah, Tom Huckel points out metaphorical nature of Genesis 3:15. In Genesis 3:15 there will be enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. In the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and in the Fragmentary Targum of the Pentateuch the woman represents good and the serpent represents evil.
The Sforno, likewise viewed the serpent metaphorically. In his commentary the serpent is the evil inclination. Now, good, evil and the evil inclination are abstract concepts that do not bear children except in a metaphorical sense. Consequently, the rabbis utilize the metaphorical sense in their interpretation. By the way, both renderings of Genesis 3:15 in the Targumim are linked to the coming of the Messiah by the rabbis.
Another metaphorical usage of zerah is linked with Genesis 4:25. There, when Eve stated “God has provided me with another offspring in place of Abel,” (Tanakh) the rabbis say she alluded to the Messiah (Jewish Encyclopedia, Internet Edition, Article: Seth). The rabbis say that the word offspring (zerah) is not a reference to Seth, the literal offspring of Eve, but an allusion to the Messiah.
Finally, let me quote Dr. Brown again (page 84),
...the weakness of this argument is seen when we realize that no less a traditional Jewish authority than Sa'adiah Gaon applied Isaiah 53 to Jeremiah the prophet, yet God commanded Jeremiah never to marry or have children (Jer. 16:1) … More recently, Isaiah 53 was applied to the late Lubavitcher Rebbe, yet he and his wife were unable to have children.
These two rabbinic applications refute the anti-missionary who states that the servant of the Lord has to bear literal children of his own.
I hope I have established my point. This anti-missionary objection is again baseless. It depends upon an unfamiliarity with Hebrew or lack of access to resources that enable close examination of the statement. Since the term zerah can rightfully be viewed in a metaphorical sense then the "seed" of the suffering individual in Isaiah 53:10 can be spiritual descendants or disciples rather than literal offspring.
In the case of Jesus the unusual did occur. He did offer Himself as a guilt offering. He actually died and was miraculously resurrected. Today He lives, prolonging His days. He sees His disciples, His spiritual offspring, and the will of the Lord does prosper in His hand.
Summary: There is no tampering with the text but simply some stronger or weaker translations into English. The essential meaning of the text is not changed. The texts of Isaiah 52 and 53 are about the Messianic Person. The modern rabbinic position states that the text of Isaiah 52 and 53 speak of the nation of Israel rather than the personal Messiah. However, the ancient rabbis agree with my statement in spite of the modern rabbinic position. The ancient rabbinic position preponderantly sees Isaiah 52 and 53 referring to the personal Messiah. A few examples will suffice to establish this fact.
Isaiah 52:13 — Targum Jonathan to the Prophets.
Behold, My servant the Messiah shall prosper; he shall be exalted and great and very powerful.
Isaiah 53:4 — Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 98b.
…What is his [the Messiah's] name?-"The School of R. Shila said: His name is Shiloh, for it is written, until Shiloh come. The School of R. Yannai said: His name is Yinnon, for it is written, His name shall endure forever: e'er the sun was, his name is Yinnon. The School of R. Haninah maintained: His name is Haninah, as it is written, Where I will not give you Haninah. Others say: His name is Menahem the son of Hezekiah, for it is written, Because Menahem ['the comforter'], that would relieve my soul, is far. The Rabbis said: His name is 'the leper scholar,' as it is written, Surely he hath born our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted."
Isaiah 53:5 — Midrash Rabbah, Ruth V, 6.
…The fifth interpretation makes it refer to the Messiah. COME HITHER: approach to royal state. AND EAT OF THE BREAD refers to the bread of royalty; AND DIP THY MORSEL IN THE VINEGAR refers to his sufferings, as it is said, But he was wounded because of our transgressions (Isa. LIII, 5).3
Isaiah 52 and 53 describe the Messianic Person. The Messianic Person will be the ultimate substitutionary sacrifice for sin-a "Guilt Offering." Isaiah 52 and 53 are quoted over and over again in the Brit Chadashah (New Testament). The sections are used because the first-century Jewish Believers in Jesus literally understood the passage in that manner. They saw in Jesus a literal fulfillment of that expectation.
1 Brown, Driver, Briggs. Brown-Driver_Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (electronic ed.) Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems.
Vine, Unger, White. Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. Nashville: T. Nelson.
Harris, Archer, Waltke. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed.) Chicago: Moody Press.
2 Ibid. Brown, Driver, Briggs.
3 Huckel, T. (1998). The Rabbinic Messiah (Is. 52:13). Philadelphia: Hananeel House.
THE ANTI-MISSIONARY'S CHARGE:
The English Bible misquotes the Hebrew Scriptures in Romans 11:26 when Paul says:
"And so all Israel shall be saved; as it is written. There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob."
The Hebrew Bible tells a completely different story. Isaiah 59:20 says:
"A redeemer will come to Zion, and to those of Jacob who repent from willful sin."
Is it in or out of Jerusalem?
HADAVAR'S RESPONSE:
This is an interesting question. The Hebrew says "to Zion." The Septuagint says "for the sake of Zion." The New Testament says "from Zion." There is a lot going on here.
I believe the solution lies in the fact that Paul is not producing a one-to-one quote in the context. He is weaving together several thoughts from the Scriptures rather than quoting one passage. He is doing that in order to facilitate understanding. This is a perfectly acceptable practice in the Jewish culture of his time. He appears to be referring the reader to such passages as Isaiah 59:20, 27:9, 59:21; and Jeremiah 31:31.
This is a clear use of the first-century "fluid" approach to using Scripture mentioned earlier in The Four Ways the Brit Chadashah (New Testament) Uses the Hebrew Scriptures. This is an example of Literal Prophecy plus Summation. Paul is summarizing all that the Scriptures teach about the Second Coming and the institution of the Messianic Kingdom. It is at the Second Coming of Yeshua that He fulfills the role of "Messiah Son of David," the "King Messiah." He already has fulfilled the role of the suffering Messiah. Paul is directing the reader to a number of verses that paint a complete picture of what the Redeemer will accomplish when He comes again.
According to the great Messianic Jewish scholar, Dr. Alfred Edersheim, Isaiah 59:19-20 is applied to the Messiah and Messianic times in Sanhedrin 98a and Pesiqta 166b. The relevant paragraph of Sanhedrin 98a reads:
R. Johanan said: When you see a generation ever dwindling, hope for him [the Messiah], as it is written, And the afflicted people thou wilt save. R. Johanan said: When thou seest a generation overwhelmed by many troubles as by a river, await him, as it is written, when the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord shall lift up a standard against him; which is followed by, And the Redeemer shall come to Zion. 1
Clearly the Talmud connects the redeemer who will come to Zion with the Messiah. Pesiqtâ de-Rab Kahanâ, Supplement 5, 4 reads:
…Also "beautiful upon the mountains" is he that announceth redemption (Isa. 52:7), namely the redeemer of whom it is said "The redeemer shall come unto Zion" (Isa. 59:20). 2
Here the Messiah of Isaiah 52:7 is the same person referred to in Isaiah 59:20. There are solid Messianic connections to this verse. Paul affirms that connection through his use of the quotes.
All in all, the three renderings present no real difficulty because all three are true. Does not the Deliverer come "for the sake of Zion," that is, to rescue Zion, as rendered in the Septuagint? Does He not also come "to Zion," as rendered in the Masoretic Text? How else could He save Zion? It is also true that Jesus the Messiah came "out of Zion," as in the New Testament since He is Jewish. Each of the renderings would emphasize one factor or another of the institution of the glorious Messianic Kingdom. There are textual differences but not conceptual differences. By referring to each of them we get fuller and more complete picture of the Messiah's ministry to Zion.
1 The Soncino Talmud (©1973 Judaica Press, Inc. and ©1965, 1967, 1977, 1983, 1984, 1987, 1988, & 1990 Soncino Press, Ltd.) is a product of Judaica Press, Inc. Brooklyn, NY, and, if included, is incorporated herein pursuant to exclusive license.
2 Huckel, T. (1998) The Rabbinic Messiah (Is 60:1) Philadelphia: Hananeel House.
THE ANTI-MISSIONARY'S CHARGE:
The King James Version (KJV) of Psalm 2:11-12 reads:
"Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry and you perish from the way."
In the Jewish Tanakh, Psalm 2:11-12 says:
"Do homage in purity (nash-ku bar) lest He be angry and you perish."
The meaning of the Hebrew word bar is pure or clear. Yes, in Aramaic, the word bar does mean son, but it's used only as a combination of two words-"son of." If in Aramaic, the author wanted to mean just the son, he would have used the phrase ber'a with the letter alef at the end. By simply leaving off one Aramaic word, the entire verse is altered.
HADAVAR'S RESPONSE:
This objection is actually a moot point. We can go into all the technicalities of Aramaic and Hebrew, but the result would be the same. The point of verse 12 is submission to Israel's sovereign King.
There is ample evidence in rabbinic writings that this is a Messianic psalm. The great Messianic Jewish scholar, Dr. Alfred Edersheim, in his classic work The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, documents this fact. In Appendix 9 of that work, he lists one complete page of rabbinic quotes and references attesting to the fact that Psalm 2 is a Messianic psalm. Rev. Tom Huckel in his book The Rabbinic Messiah lists 14 rabbinic quotes attesting to the Messianic nature of Psalm 2.
Psalm 2 is one of the most quoted psalms in the New Testament supporting the Messiahship of Jesus. The first-century Jewish believers were taught by the rabbis that Psalm 2 spoke of the Messiah. They were convinced that it applied to Jesus, and they proclaimed that message at the risk of their lives. I am trying to make a point here. The point to be made is the fact that the Messianic nature of the psalm and its application to Jesus does not rest upon verse 12 in any way. Verse 12 can be translated in various ways and it will not affect the impact of Psalm 2. The controversy about nash-ku bar is well known. Translators have struggled with the unusual construction and have come up with various renderings:
Kiss the son, lest he be angry, and ye perish in the way, for his wrath will soon be kindled. Blessed are all they that take refuge in him. (American Standard Version)
Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him. (King James Version)
Do homage to the Son, that He not become angry, and you perish in the way, for His wrath may soon be kindled. How blessed are all who take refuge in Him! (New American Standard Bible)
Kiss the Son, lest he be angry and you be destroyed in your way, for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him. (New International Version)
Kiss his feet, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way; for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him. (Revised Standard Version)
Do homage in purity, lest He be angry, and ye perish in the way, when suddenly His wrath is kindled. (Jewish Publication Society)
Unusual in the verse is the apparent use of bar, an Aramaic word for son. Therefore, the versions translate it differently. Jerome rendered it, "Give pure (bar is a Hebrew word for pure) worship," or "Worship in purity," rather than translating the word as son. (The Bible Knowledge Commentary)
"Son" is a defendable translation just as "purity," "pure," and "feet" are defendable, but it is not a necessary translation. The Messianic nature of the psalm is not determined by the translation of the Aramaic word bar. The point of the thought is submission to the Jewish Messianic King. There is no "tampering" here. It is simply an example of a translator's normal struggle as he goes through the translation process. This struggle for accuracy is especially apparent when the construction is unusual. All the possible renderings support the same idea, submit to Israel's sovereign king. None of the references to Psalm 2 in the New Testament demand that "Son" be the required translation in verse 12. It would be nice, as well as providing more support to the Messiahship of Jesus. However, it is not a rendering necessary to the Messianic nature or message of Psalm 2.
With all due respect, the anti-missionary's objection entirely misses the point of the psalm. He misses the mark by unduly focusing on a technicality of translation regarding one phrase. The phrase in question does not alter the message of the psalm no matter what rendering is chosen. This is a psalm that is well attested to by the rabbis as Messianic. The first-century Jewish believers simply agreed and applied the psalm to Jesus.
The objection is simple an example of quibbling. To quibble is
Learn to recognize quibbling when it occurs and call it for what it is - an evasion of truth.
*The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, fourth ed., copyright 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company
THE ANTI-MISSIONARY CHARGE:
In the King James Version (KJV), Psalm 16:9-10 says:
"Therefore my heart is glad and my glory rejoiceth; my flesh also shall rest in hope. For thou will not leave my soul in hell, neither will you suffer thine Holy One to see corruption."
Why not continue to the next verse? They cannot because David was not talking about Jesus. David was talking about himself. Verse 16:11 says:
"Thou will show me the path of life. In your presence is fullness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore."
In the Hebrew translation, Psalm 16:9-10 says:
"Therefore, my heart rejoiced and my soul was glad; even my flesh shall dwell in safety. For You shall not forsake my soul to the grave; You shall not allow Your pious one to see the pit."
Where is "hell" and "corruption" as the KJV puts it? The Hebrew translation of Psalm 16:10-11 tells of David talking to God, rejoicing that God will not forsake his soul to the grave. While David is alive, he will dwell in safety because God will protect his flesh from injury. Since verse 10 does not relate to Jesus, how can verse 11 relate to Him?
HADAVAR'S RESPONSE:
We have some significant areas of agreement here. First, we need to review the earlier comments entitled The Four Ways the Brit Chadashah (New Testament) Uses the Hebrew Scriptures. It was stated there that the New Testament consistently uses the Hebrew Scriptures in four ways. This is an example of Literal Prophecy plus a Philosophical or Typical Fulfillment (Remez). Some comments from the Bible Knowledge Commentary deal with the passage quite well. The Bible Knowledge Commentary is written by conservative, dispensational scholars from Dallas Theological Seminary. Dallas Theological Seminary is an independent seminary, it is unaffiliated with any particular denomination and very solid theologically.
"David was assured that the Lord would preserve his life in the face of death. He rejoiced because God enabled his body to rest securely even when confronted with death. The reason he could rest is that God would not abandon him to the grave, nor let His holy one see decay. This verse refers to David, who describes himself as God's "holy one," that is, one of God's saints (cf. v. 3). He took comfort in the fact that God would not, at that time, allow his body to die and decay in the grave. In fact, God had caused him to know the path of life so he anticipated experiencing further joy in God's presence (vs. 11)."
"Verses 8-11 were cited by Peter on the day of Pentecost (Ac. 2:25-28) and Psalm 16:10b was quoted by Paul at Antioch (Ac. 13:35-37) in reference to Christ's resurrection. So the words of David are also typological; they transcended his own experience and became historically true in Christ. Preservation from the decaying grave is the idea behind both David's and Jesus' experiences, but with David it came through a deliverance from death, whereas with Jesus it came through a resurrection from death."
Now we need to read Acts 2:25-32.
Peter writes:
"For David says of Him, 'I was always beholding the Lord in my presence; for He is at my right hand, that I may not be shaken. Therefore my heart was glad and my tongue exulted. Moreover my flesh also will abide in hope; because Thou wilt not abandon my soul to Hades, nor allow Thy Holy One to undergo decay. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; Thou wilt make me full of gladness with Thy presence.' Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. And so, because he was a prophet, and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath to seat one of his descendants upon his throne, he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that He was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did His flesh suffer decay. This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses."
First of all, please note that Peter does quote verse 11 (Ac. 2:28). He considers the verse germane to his argument, so he includes it. His main point is that this psalm could not be totally true of David. Why? Because David's body did indeed suffer corruption and decay when David eventually died. David cannot be referring only to himself. David's words transcend David's personal experience. However, Peter has been part of another literal event that fits David's words without qualification. Therefore, in Peter's thinking, David's words foreshadow what happened in regard to Jesus. David was a prophet and was looking ahead to the Messianic King.
Let us see what Paul has to say in Acts 13:35-37:
"Therefore He also says in another psalm, 'Thou wilt not allow Thy Holy One to undergo decay.' For David, after he had served the purpose of God in his own generation, fell asleep, and was laid among his fathers, and underwent decay; but He whom God raised did not undergo decay."
Note that Paul does not quote verse 11. He did not consider verse 11 necessary to his argument. However, his point is still the same as Peter's (verse 37). Paul also says that we cannot limit the message in this psalm to David because David does not fit the statement. David eventually experienced corruption. However, Jesus did not experience physical corruption because He was resurrected. Again, it is a Literal Prophecy with a Typical Fulfillment (Remez).
Both are arguing from the lesser to the greater. David was temporarily preserved from the grave during his lifetime and eventually did undergo the grave and corruption. That is the lesser. However, Jesus conquered the grave and corruption through resurrection. That is the greater.
Finally, the Hebrew word for hell (KJV) is Sheol, the place of the dead, the grave, the pit, the underworld. It is agreed that "hell" is not a very good translation since it is really the rendering of a Saxon word rather than the Hebrew. However, while the KJV translators did a poor job in 1611, modern translators do not. "Sheol" is the word of choice in the New American Standard Bible (NASB), American Standard Version (ASV), and the Revised Standard Version (RSV). The New International Version (NIV) uses "grave" which is quite acceptable and the Jewish Publication Society (JPS) uses "nether-world"-also quite acceptable.
The Hebrew word for corruption (KJV) is Shahat which means "pit" (both a literal pit and the pit of Sheol) and "destruction." The JPS and RSV choose pit-certainly an acceptable choice. Other solid translations focus on this idea of destruction and so use appropriate terms-NASB, NIV (decay), ASV, KJV (corruption). Certainly these are acceptable choices as well.
The first-century Messianic Jews, Peter and Paul, obviously understood the term to refer to decay and corruption. It is up to the reader to hear their message and decide whether they agree or not. However, there does not seem to be a tremendous amount of difference between pit and corruption. Jesus conquered both the pit and corruption through resurrection. David did eventually experience the pit and his body underwent corruption. However, David's soul was not abandoned to the nether-world (JPS) because of his personal relationship and trust in God. David's earthly body may be dust today, but he lives on, experiencing the glory of God at this very moment.
In the final analysis, there is no tampering with the text here. The KJV is not the unassailable and unquestionable standard of English translation. The text is available to us and every English translation, Jewish or non-Jewish, has its strength and weaknesses. Nobody is trying to deceive anybody in order to get them to change religions.
THE ANTI-MISSIONARY'S CHARGE:
The Hebrew Bible correctly translates Psalm 22:16 and says, "They surrounded my hands and feet like a lion." The word ka'ari clearly means "like a lion" as evident from its use in Isaiah 38:13 and other writings in the King James Version (KJV). David, while being pursued by his enemies, often referred to them as "lions" (see Psalms 7 and 17). Yet, when read out of context and wanting to allude to Jesus, the KJV mistranslates the verse to say, "They pierced my hands and feet." The passage intentionally makes you think of Jesus.
HADAVAR'S RESPONSE:
This is a situation where we need not be diverted from the force of the psalm by defendable translations. We can go into all the ins-and-outs of whether the word in question is the noun ari plus the preposition, meaning "like a lion" or whether it is derived from the root cur with a medial aleph meaning "pierced."1
However, we need not do so for the simple reason that the point of the text is not changed no matter what translation decision is adopted. Both translation options are acceptable. There is no problem accepting the translation "like a lion." This is not "tampering" with the text. This charge is really a non-issue. It is another example of quibbling.
Here is a quote from a good, Bible-believing, conservative, Christian commentary who recognizes the textual issue. This commentator is recognizing and accepting both positions as reasonable.
"The words 'they have pierced my hands and my feet' figuratively describe such a tearing as if by animals. Of course in the New Testament, these words in reference to Jesus Christ have greater significance (cf. Luke 24:39-40)."2
We do recognize that a Christian translation is going to lean toward "pierced" (New International Version, New American Standard Bible, Revised Standard Version, American Standard Version, and KJV). A Jewish translation is going to lean toward "like a lion" (Jewish Publication Society). The LXX uses a word that means "to dig a trench." That is graphic, is it not? We all have our theological bias. However, the integrity of the text is not compromised if we are dealing with a translation decision that is possible, defendable, and fits the context. Both renderings do exactly that. However, this word is simply one small detail in the overall message of the psalm itself.
A plea to the reader would be to consider the entire message of the entire psalm rather than fixate on one word that fits either way. Do not make a mountain out of a molehill. Could this be a play on words that is deliberately designed to get the reader to think of mauling and piercing at the same time? That is a distinct possibility, as well. Jesus referred to the psalm during his crucifixion experience (Matt. 27:46, Mk. 15:34). This is what draws our attention to the entire psalm. Actually, Psalm 22:16 is never quoted in the New Testament. The Jewish writers of the gospels saw numerous exact parallels in the psalm to the crucifixion of Jesus. Likewise, the rabbinic writing Yalkut sees Messianic connections in verses 8 and 16.
One of those details is the mauling of the hands and the feet. It does not matter one bit which way we take the word (as a noun or a verb). The fact of the matter is that the hands and feet are injured. The rendering "like a lion" is good because of the animal imagery found throughout the psalm. If a lion bites the hands or feet of a victim, the large canine teeth of the lion would pierce the victim's hands or feet just like a large Roman nail. The fact that the psalm is considered Messianic is well established in rabbinic material.
Dr. Michael Brown summarizes that material in his book Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, volume three, pages 118, 121-122:
"Rashi explains verse 26[27] with reference to, 'the time of our redemption in the days of our Messiah,' then interprets verses 27-29[28-30] with reference to the Gentile nations turning to the Lord, the end of the age, and the final judgment.
"Pesikta Rabbati, the famous eighth-century midrash, put some of the words of this psalm on the lips of the suffering Messiah (called Ephraim, but associated with the son of David), citing Psalm 22:8, 13, 14, and 16 in the context of Messiah's sufferings. In fact, the midrash explicitly states that 'it was because of the ordeal of the son of David that David wept, saying My strength is dried up like a potsherd (Ps. 22:16).' Did you catch that? According to this respected Rabbinic homily, David described the Messiah's sufferings in Psalm 22!
"Let us look at the key texts more fully:
"During the seven year period preceding the coming of the son of David, iron beams will be brought low and loaded upon his neck until the Messiah's body is bent low. Then he will cry and weep, and his voice will rise to the very height of heaven, and he will say to God: Master of the universe, how much can my strength endure? How much can my spirit endure? How much my breath before it ceases? How much can my limbs suffer? Am I not flesh and blood?
It was because of the ordeal of the son of David that David wept, saying My strength is dried up like a potsherd (Ps. 22:16). During the ordeal of the son of David, the Holy One, blessed be He, will say to him: Ephraim, My true Messiah, long ago, ever since the six days of creation, thou didst take this ordeal upon thyself. At this moment, thy pain is like my pain.
"At these words, the Messiah will reply: 'Now I am reconciled. The servant is content to be like his Master'" (Pesikta Rabbati 36:2).3
It is taught, moreover, that in the month of Nisan the Patriarchs will arise and say to the Messiah: Ephraim, our true Messiah, even though we're thy forbears, thou art greater than we because thou didst suffer for the iniquities of our children, and terrible ordeals befell thee… For the sake of Israel thou didst become a laughingstock and a derision among the nations of the earth; and didst sit in darkness, in thick darkness, and thine eyes saw no light, and thy skin cleaved to thy bones, and thy body was as dry as a piece of wood; and thine eyes grew dim from fasting, and thy strength was dried up like a potsherd-all these afflictions on account of the iniquities of our children. Pesikta Rabbati 37:14
Ephraim is a darling son to Me…My heart yearneth for him, in mercy I will have mercy upon him, saith the Lord (Jer. 31:20). Why does the verse speak twice of mercy: In mercy I will have mercy upon him? One mercy refers to the time when he will be shut up in prison, a time when the nations of the world will gnash their teeth at him everyday, wink their eyes at one another in derision of him, nod their heads at him in contempt, open wide their lips to guffaw, as is said All they that see me laugh me to scorn; they shoot out the lip, they shake the head (Ps.22:8); My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my throat; and thou layest me in the dust of death (Ps. 22:16). Moreover, they will roar over him like lions, as is said They open wide their mouth against me, as a ravening and roaring lion. I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is become like wax; It's melted in mine inmost parts (Ps. 22:14-15). Pesikta Rabbati 37:15
"As for Psalm 22:16[17], almost all of the standard medieval Hebrew manuscripts (known as Masoretic) read ka'ari, followed by the words "my hands and my feet." According to Rashi, the meaning is "as though they are crushed in a lion's mouth," while the commentary of Metsudat David states, "They crush my hands and my feet as the lion which crushed the bones of the prey in its mouth." Thus, the imagery is clear: These lions are not licking the psalmist's feet! They are tearing and ripping at them.6 Given the metaphorical language of the surrounding verses (cf. cc. 12-21[13-22]), this vivid image of mauling lions graphically conveys the great physical agony of the sufferer. Would this in any way contradict the picture of a crucified victim, his bones out of joint, mockers surrounding him and jeering at him, his garments stripped off of him and divided among his enemies, his feet and hands torn with nails, and his body hung on pieces of wood?7
"Actually, the Septuagint, the oldest existing Jewish translation of the Tanakh, was the first to translate the Hebrew as "they pierced my hands and feet" (using the verb oruxan in Greek), followed by the Syriac Peshitta version two or three centuries later (rendering with baz'u). Not only so, but the oldest Hebrew copy of the Psalms we possess (from the Dead Sea Scrolls, dating to the century before Yeshua) reads the verb in this verse as ka'aru (not ka'ari, "like a lion"),8 a reading also found in about a dozen medieval Masoretic manuscripts-recognized as the authoritative texts in traditional Jewish thought-where instead of ka'ari (found in almost all other Masoretic manuscripts) the texts say either ka'aru or karu.9 (Hebrew scholars believe this comes from a root meaning "to dig out" or "to bore through.") So, the oldest Jewish translation (The Septuagint) translates "they pierced"; the oldest Jewish manuscript (from the Dead Sea Scrolls) reads ka'aru, not ka'ari; and several Masoretic manuscripts read ka'aru or karu rather than ka'ari. This is not a Christian fabrication."10
The anti-missionaries try to make the case that Christian translations of Psalm 22:16 contain subtle, intentional, fabrications that are deliberate attempts to get the reader to think of Jesus. However, we believe that when the evidence is examined there are no subtle, intentional fabrications present. We freely admit that the text of Psalm 22:16, as well as the entire Psalm for that matter, definitely makes the reader think of Jesus. Why? Because He, the Messiah of Israel, perfectly fulfilled all that was predicted about His crucifixion. There is no tampering with the text here, only marvelous Divine revelation.
1 Harris, R. Laird, Archer Gleason L., Waltke, Bruce M, Eds., Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, (Chicago, IL: Moody Press) 1980
2 Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc., 1983, 1985), Logos Research Systems Electronic Edition
3 From the standard translation of William G. Braude, Pesikta Rabbiti: Homiletical Discourses for Festal Days and Special Sabbaths, 2 vols. (New Haven: Yale, 1968), pp. 680-81
4 Ibid., pp. 685-86
5 Ibid., 686-87. All of these citations can be found in the useful Internet article on Psalm 22 found on http://www.messianicart.com/chazak/ps22.htm.
6 It should be noted that the reading ka'ari, "like a lion", is not without problems, since there is no verb in this clause. In other words, the Hebrew literally reads, "like a lion my hands and feet," necessitating the addition of the words "they are at" in most contemporary Jewish translations. Thus, the NJPSV translates, "Like lions [they maul] my hands and feet" (with reference to Rashi and Isaiah 38:13 in the footnote). Cf. Rozenberg and Zlotowitz, The Book of Psalms, 122, 127. Stone translates, "Like [the prey of] a lion are my hands and my feet."
7 This observation undermines the claim of Rabbi Singer that "when the original words of the Psalmist are read, any allusion to a crucifixion disappears" (http://www.outreachjudaism.org/like-a-lion.html).
8 Cf. Martin Abegg Jr., Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich, eds. and trans., The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1999), 519: "Psalm 22 is a favorite among Christians since it is often linked in the New Testament with the suffering and death of Jesus. A well-known and controversial reading is found in verse 16, where the Masoretic text has 'Like a lion are my hands and feet,' whereas the Septuagint has 'They have pierced my hands and feet.' Among the scrolls the reading in question is found only in the Psalms scroll found at Nahal Hever (abbreviated 5/6HevPs), which reads, "They have pierced my hands and my feet!"
9 In contrast with this, only one Masoretic manuscript reads ka'aryeh ("like a lion", 'aryeh is a variant spelling for 'ari, "lion"). Delitzsch (Psalms, 1039) points out this same form, and he notes that "perceiving this [difficulty of the translation 'like a lion' in the context], the Masora on Isa xxxviii. 13 observes, that k'ari in the two passages in which it occurs (Ps. Xxii. 17, Isa. Xxxviii. 13), occurs in two different meanings, just as the Midrash then also understands k'ri in the Psalm as a verb used of marking with conjuring, magic characters."
10 The exact evidence as documented in the standard edition of Kennicot and de Rossi lists seven Masoretic manuscripts reading k'rw, while three other manuscripts have the reading krw in the margins. It has also been pointed out by some scholars that the Hebrew word used for "lion" in Psalm 22:13[14] is the more common 'aryeh, making it more doubtful that a different form of the word, namely, 'ari, would be used just two verses later. Yet this is what the normative reading in the Masoretic manuscripts would call for.
THE ANTI-MISSIONARY'S CHARGE:
John tries to make Jesus the perfect, sacrificial Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, and then he tries to relate this to the Jewish Passover. He even makes Jesus die on Passover while the other Gospels say Jesus died the day after. John 19:32-36 tells of soldiers breaking the legs of the crucifixion victims to hasten their deaths, yet sparing Jesus because he was already dead. John then quotes the Hebrew Scripture saying,
"For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, a bone of him shall not be broken." (The New Testament also refers to Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12, and Psalm 34:20.)
Notice how conveniently John changed the entire meaning by simply changing the word "it" to "him." Exodus 12:46 refers to the Passover offering, "…and you shall not break a bone in it (the animal)." Numbers 9:12 again refers to the Passover offering, "…nor shall they break a bone of it." Psalm 34:20 refers to David saying no one becomes truly righteous and great without his share of mishaps. The verse says, "He guards all his bones, even one of them was not broken."
There is no indication that this psalm is intended as prophetic or applying to Jesus. And Jesus was physically disqualified as a Passover sacrifice because the female lamb had to be "without blemish." Jesus was wounded, whipped and mutilated.
HADAVAR'S RESPONSE
Please refer to the comments regarding The Four Ways the Brit Chadashah (New Testament) Uses the Hebrew Scriptures. John 19:32-36 is an example of Literal Prophecy plus Typical Fulfillment (Remez).
As with Hosea 11:1 (see Matt. 2:15) this is not even a prophecy as such. Hosea 11:1, Exodus 12:46, and Numbers 9:12 all refer to a literal, historical event. However, as a first century Messianic Jew, John understands the literal, historical event to prefigure something greater. The literal Passover lamb prefigures the greater Lamb, the Messiah. John is communicating his understanding of the significance of the Passover lamb. The redemption from Egypt points to a greater redemption-from sin. He is asking the reader to look at the Passover lamb from a philosophical, symbolic point of view. He is not trying to deceive anyone. He is simply operating within the accepted interpretive norms of his society. This type of thing is not unusual for the rabbis to do.
Remez is accepted as a valid approach to scripture. John is directing the reader to consider Exodus 12:46 and Numbers 9:12 which are acceptable verses to guide the reader to. We agree with the anti-missionary in regards to Psalm 34:20. There is no direct reference by the New Testament to Psalm 34:20. John 19:36 is a direct reference to Exodus 12:46 and/or Numbers 9:12, but it is not a quote of Psalm 34:20. John might have Psalm 34:20 in mind, but it is not necessary to his argument.
The cross reference that an editor of a modern English version supplies is not inspired and always needs to be evaluated for validity. Some people get real wild and loose in the area of Messianic prophecy and make statements that are simply not justifiable. However, Psalm 34:20 could possibly be applied to Jesus, if it was considered as an example of Literal Prophecy plus Application (D'rash). Because of one point of similarity, the verse could be homiletically applied to Jesus. He was the epitome of a righteous man, and His bones were not broken. We would not object to a person making that link, but it is not necessary and perhaps not even part of John's argument.
We have to disagree with the anti-missionary when he says that Jesus was physically disqualified for being the Passover Lamb. First of all, a male lamb was specified in Exodus 12:5 unlike the anti-missionary's statement that a female was specified. The lamb was selected on the 10th of Nisan and inspected and evaluated for blemishes until the 14th when it was sacrificed. Note that the lamb was unblemished until it was killed. The act of sacrificing the lamb, slitting its throat, would have definitely blemished it.
Parallel to that, Jesus entered Jerusalem as the perfect Passover Lamb on the 10th of Nisan (Matt. 21, Mk. 11, and Lk. 19) and was hailed as the Messiah. Then He underwent testing and evaluation for blemishes by the Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes and Herodians until the 14th of Nisan. By answering all their questions and objections, Jesus showed that He was without blemish in regard to doctrine and character. Then, Jesus observed the Passover with His disciples and after that the process of execution began. Just as the Passover lamb was without physical blemish until the process of death began, so Jesus was without physical, character, or doctrinal blemish until the process of killing Him began.
Most definitely the process of killing Him involved wounding, whipping, and mutilating. The slitting of the lamb's throat is parallel to the mistreatment He suffered that culminated in His death. There has been much controversy generated over the alleged difference between the Synoptics and John's Gospel regarding the day of Jesus' death. We feel the best position is that taken by the great Messianic Jewish scholar, Dr. Alfred Edersheim, in his classic work The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. He establishes the point that all four accounts are in harmony. Jesus observed the Passover.
The point of concern centers around the fact that the Synoptic Gospels appear to state that Jesus died on the 15th of Nisan while John's Gospel appears to state that He died on the 14th of Nisan. Dr. Edersheim tackles the controversy head on in the following quote:
"It is recorded that they who brought Him would not themselves enter the portals of the Palace, 'that they might not be defiled, but might eat the Passover.'
"Few expressions have given rise to more earnest controversy than this. On two things at least we can speak with certainty. Entrance into a heathen house did Levitically render impure for that day-that is, till the evening. The fact of such defilement is clearly attested both in the New Testament (Acts 10:28) and in the Mishnah, though its reasons might be various*. A person who had so become Levitically unclean was technically called Tebhul Yom ('bathed of the day'). The other point is, that, to have so become 'impure' for the day, would not have disqualified for eating the Paschal Lamb, since that meal was partaken of after the evening, and when a new day had begun. In fact, It is distinctly laid down that the 'bathed of the day,' that is, he had been impure for the day and had bathed in the evening, did partake of the Paschal Supper, and an instance is related, when some soldiers who had guarded the gates of Jerusalem 'immersed,' and ate the Paschal Lamb. It follows, that these Sanhedrists could not have abstained from entering the Palace of Pilate because by so doing they would have been disqualified for the Paschal Supper.
"The point is of importance, because many writers have interpreted the expression 'the Passover' as referring to the Paschal Supper, and have argued that, according to the Fourth Gospel, our Lord did not on the previous evening partake of the Paschal Lamb, or else that in this respect the account of the Fourth Gospel does not accord with that of the Synoptists. But as, for the reason just stated, it is impossible to refer the expression 'Passover' to the Paschal Supper, we have only to inquire whether the term is not also applied to other offerings. And here both the Old Testament (Deut. 16:1-3; 2 Chron. 35:1, 2, 6, 18) and Jewish writings* show, that the term Pesach, or 'Passover,' was applied not only to the Paschal Lamb, but to all the Passover sacrifices, especially to what was called the Chagigah, or festive offering (from Chag, or Chagag, to bring the festive sacrifice usual at each of the three Great Feasts). According to the express* rule the Chagigah, was brought on the first festive Paschal Day.* It was offered immediately after the morning-service, and eaten on that day-probably some time before the evening, when, as we shall by-and-by see, another ceremony claimed public attention. We can therefore quite understand that, not on the eve of the Passover, but on the first Paschal day, the Sanhedrists would avoid incurring a defilement which, lasting till the evening, would not only have involved them in the inconvenience of Levitical defilement on the first festive day, but have actually prevented their offering on that day the Passover, festive sacrifice, or Chagigah. For, we have these two express rules: that a person could not in Levitical defilement offer the Chagigah; and that the Chagigah could not be offered for a person by some one else who took his place."1
To summarize Dr. Edersheim's argument, all the Gospel accounts record Jesus being crucified on the 15th of Nisan. The confusion comes from commentators who are unfamiliar with Jewish terminology and the Temple services. The mistake lies in not recognizing that the term "Passover" in John 18:28 is a generic term referring to all the Passover sacrifices including the Chagigah. The reference in John 18:28 is in regard to the Chagigah. The Chagigah was offered on the 15th of Nisan and eaten by the priests later that day. The Chagigah is the offering that concerns them, not the Passover Lamb (the Pesach in Hebrew).
With that understanding in mind, the apparent conflict is resolved. Jesus died on the 15th of Nisan. All four Gospels agree. Jesus paralleled the Passover lamb. The Passover lamb was a male, selected on the 10th of Nisan, evaluated until the 14th of Nisan, found to be without blemish, and killed. Jesus too was a male, presented to Israel on the 10th of Nisan, evaluated by the political and religious leadership until the 14th of Nisan, found to be without blemish, and killed.
No wonder the Messianic Jews of the first century, who wrote the New Testament, considered Him the true Passover Lamb -Acts 8:32ff; 1 Peter 1:19; Revelation chapters 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 21; 1 Corinthians 5:7ff.
*Marginal note: Ohol. xviii. 7; Tohar. vii. 3
*The subject has been so fully discussed in Wieseler, Beitr., and in Kirchner, Jud. Passahfeier , not to speak of many others, that it seems needless to enter further on the question. No competent Jewish archaeologist would care to deny that "Pesach" may refer to the "Chagigah," while the motive assigned to the Sanhedrists by St. John implies, that in this instance it must refer to this, and not to the Paschal Lamb.
*Marginal note: Chag. i. 3
*But concession was made to those who had neglected it on the first day to bring it during the festive week, which in the Feast of Tabernacles was extended to the Octave, and in that of Weeks (which lasted only one day) over a whole week (see Chag. 9 a; Jet. Chag. 76 c). The Chagigah could not, but the Paschal Lamb might, be offered by a person on behalf of another.
1 Edersheim, Alfred, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (electronic ed., 2002, E4 Group), p. 593
THE ANTI-MISSIONARY'S CHARGE:
Matthew 22:43 says:
How then does David in spirit call him 'Lord,' saying, 'The LORD said unto my Lord'..."
Jesus continues in verse 45:
"If David then calls him 'Lord', how is He his son? And no man was able to answer him..."(Matthew 22:42-46).
The New Testament then quotes Psalm 110:1 to back up this claim.
The issue here is the phrase, "The LORD said to my Lord..." Notice, the New Testament capitalized both "L's" in Lord. The correct Hebrew translation is "my master" or "my lord" in small letters, "The Lord God said to my master..." The Hebrew word "adonee" never refers to God by itself anywhere in the Jewish Bible. It is only used to describe a person, or a title of a person, not a deity. The Hebrew dictionary defines "adonee" as "sir or my master."
Even the Christian Revised Standard Version (RSV) and the New English Bible (NEB) correctly render the Hebrew word adonee as "my lord" (small "l") in Psalm 110:1, thus indicating that it is not speaking of God. The Jewish Bible reads, "The Lord said to my lord..." meaning master.
HADAVAR'S RESPONSE:
The question in Matthew 22:41-46 is this: if David called the Messiah LORD, how could the Messiah be David's son? The idea is that David, the progenitor of the Davidic Dynasty, would experience priority over any descendant. Therefore, if the Messiah were merely human (since he is a descendant of David), the Messiah would defer in respect to David.
However, in Psalm 110 we see David deferring to the Messianic person. Why? When reading Psalm 110, it is very important to know exactly who is talking and to whom. It is crystal clear in the Hebrew. In an attempt to avoid confusion in English, we are going to represent God's personal name, the Tetragrammaton, in this manner Y-H, where Y stands for the Hebrew letter Yod, and H stands for the Hebrew letter Heh.
Psalm 110 begins with David recording a conversation for us. He is an onlooker to a conversation between Y-H and the Messianic person. David now repeats the conversation he heard between Y-H and the Messiah. He says in verse 1, "An Oracle, Y-H to my lord: Sit..." David has just called the Messianic person his lord-his master. The anti-missionary is quite correct regarding the rendering of the verse. Now we need to establish that Psalm 110 is Messianic.
Here is some research into Jewish backgrounds that will verify this position.
Yalkut Shimoni on Tehilim 110
"Rabbi Yusan said for Rabbi Aha Bar Hananiah: in the future the Holy one blessed be He will sit the King Messiah at his right and Abraham at his left, and Abraham's face crumpled and he said: the son of my son sits at the right and I sit at the left? but the Holy one blessed is He reconciled him by saying: the son of your son sits at your right and I sit at your right hand..."
T'fillat R. Shimon ben Yochai
And the Holy one, blessed be he, will fight for Israel and will say to the Messiah: 'Sit at my right' [Psalm 110:1]. And the Messiah will say to Israel: 'Gather together and stand and see the salvation of the Lord'."2
Midrash Rabbah, Genesis LXXXV: 9
… AND THY STAFF alludes to the royal Messiah. as in the verse The staff of thy strength the Lord will send out of Zion (Ps. CX, 2).
Midrash Rabbah, Numbers XVIII, 23
...That same staff also is destined to be held in the hand of the King Messiah (may it be speedily in our days!); as it says, The staff of thy strength the Lord will send out of Zion: Rule thou in the midst of thine enemies (Ps. CX, 2).47
Artscroll Tenach Commentary Tehillim
Sforno says that this Psalm is dedicated to the future king Messiah. He is on God's right hand and the ministering angels are on the left. The armies of Gog and Magog will attack, but HaShem will subdue them until they come crawling to the feet of the Messiah.
In reference to the staff or scepter of verse 2; Midrash Yelamdeinu perceives this as a reference to the wooden staff which participated in many wondrous events throughout the course of Jewish history. This rod was first used by Jacob when he split the Jordan River (Genesis 32:11). Moses and Aaron used the same staff to perform wonders in Egypt before the eyes of Pharaoh (Exodus 4:3, 7:10). David held this staff in his hand when he went forth to battle Goliath (1 Sam. 17:40). It served as a scepter in the hands of each king of David's dynasty until the Temple was destroyed; then, the staff was hidden. In the future, it will be revealed to the Messiah, who will use it to conquer all the nations of the world.
In reference to Verse 3: The Messiah will inspire the masses to enlist in his cause.
In reference to verse 5: Yalkut Shimoni states, "in the future, God will place the Messiah at His right hand and Abraham at his left."
In reference to verse 7: According to the Targum, this verse describes the ultimate victory for which all men of faith yearn, because Abraham, David, and the Messiah don't seek blood but truth.
Alfred Edersheim (Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Appendix 9)
Verse 7 is also applied in Yalkut to Messianic times, when streams of the blood of the wicked should flow out, and birds come to drink that flood.
The obvious conclusion is that David's master is the Messianic person. Why would he defer to the Messiah? One reason, in the context, is the fact that He sees the Messiah at God's right hand. The right hand was the place of honor and equality. This implies that the Messiah is more than a mere human. He is a God/man. Whether the anti-missionary accepts that idea or not, he has to admit that David sees the Messiah as his superior, at the very least.
However, the question remains. Are the New Testament translations trying to imply something that simply is not there? Did the Christian translators try to insinuate things that are not in the original text? There are some translations that did miss the point, but as even the anti missionary Rabbis claim, in order to support their objections, there are also Christian translations that accurately translated the text. For that, let us deal with the area of capitalizations (sometimes a confusing convention).
The convention the anti-missionary is concerned about is carefully explained in the Preface or Forward of the specific translation. For example:
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
The Proper Name of God in the Old Testament: In the Scriptures, the name of God is most significant and understandably so. It is inconceivable to think of spiritual matters without a proper designation for the Supreme Deity. Thus, the most common name for the deity is God, a translation of the original Elohim. One of the titles for God is Lord, a translation of Adonai. There is yet another name which is particularly assigned to God as His special or proper name, that is, the four letters YHWH (Exodus 3:14 and Isaiah 42:8). This name has not been pronounced by the Jews because of reverence for the great sacredness of the divine name. Therefore, it has been consistently translated LORD. The only exception to this translation of YHWH is when it occurs in immediate proximity to the word Lord, that is, Adonai. In that case it is regularly translated GOD in order to avoid confusion.
The NASB very clearly tells the reader that God's personal name will be rendered capital L, capital O, capital R, capital D. The word Adonai will be rendered capital L, small o, small r, small d. The convention is explained. What is also explained is the reason why they chose to follow that convention-out of respect for the Jewish people. This is an attempt to honor and defer to Jewish religious convictions.
New International Version (NIV)
In regard to the divine name YHWH, commonly referred to as the Tetragrammaton, the translators adopted the device used in most English versions of rendering that name as "LORD" in capital letters to distinguish it from Adonai, another Hebrew word rendering "Lord," for which small letters are used.
The NIV also explains the convention to the reader. They are not trying to deceive anyone. The standard translations all follow this convention. The following is a comparison of Psalm 110:1 from several major works:
The LORD says to my Lord:-NASB
The LORD says to my Lord:-NIV
The LORD says to my lord:-RSV
Jehovah saith unto my Lord,-American Standard Version
The LORD said unto my Lord,-King James Version
The LORD said to my Lord,-New King James Version
All the standard Bibles make the distinction between Y-H and adonee. Because the Preface or Forward clearly states what the rendering will be, there is no deception being practiced here. A careful review of whatever standard translation is being used would be in order.
The point therefore is: why do David call the Messiah My Lord if he is merely his son in the flesh? Yeshua quotes verse 1 of Psalm 110 in order to explain that the Messiah is not merely a son, flesh and blood. Their objection focuses on the controversy regarding the translation of the word Adoni in the English language and therefore misses the point and is simply another example of anti-missionary quibbling and has no substance whatsoever.
1 How to Recognize the Messiah, Good News Society (Johannesburg, 2000), p.21
2 Aharon Jellniek, "T'fillat R. Shimon ben Yohai," Bet haMidrash (Jeruslam: Wharmann Books, 1967), part 4, p.125-2
THE ANTI-MISSIONARY'S CHARGE:
"And he (Jesus) came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets" (Matthew 2:23).
ONE: Which prophets said that? TWO: According to scholars, rabbis and historians, the city of Nazareth did not exist during the writings of Hebrew Scriptures. The word "Nazareth" does not appear anywhere in Hebrew scripture, as verified by the New Testament Concordance. However, the word "Nazirite" does appear in the Hebrew Bible, meaning a special kind of Jewish sect.
Therefore, Nazareth and Nazarene are Christian words, not Hebrew words. Nazareth is not mentioned in non-Christian sources until the third or fourth century. Nazarites are not a sect but rather it is an individual oath taken by a person to be in effect for a time period. During this time the person is not allowed to cut their hair, go near a corpse, eat grapes or drink wine. Afterward he must bring special offerings to the Beith Hamikdash and shave his hair.
HADAVAR'S RESPONSE
For Matthew 2:23 please review our comments entitled "The Four Ways the Brit Chadashah (New Testament) Uses the Hebrew Scriptures."
Jacob, you are totally correct, not a single prophet makes the statement found in Matthew 2:23. This has generated all kinds of comments from all kinds of people. The remark is a mystery to many.
The key to understanding Matthew is the plural use of the word prophet. In all his previous fulfillments in chapter 2, Matthew has used the singular “prophet” (2:5, 15, 17). Here he uses the plural. This is an example of a “literal prophecy plus summation.” By using the plural Matthew is telling us that verse 23 is a summary of all that the prophets taught. This is an example of “Sod.”
What did the prophets as a group teach about the Messiah? One of the clear streams of thought taught about the Messiah is the fact that he would be a despised and rejected individual. For example, Isaiah 53:3 “He was despised and forsaken of men.” From Nathaniel’s remark in John 1:46, “Can any good thing come from Nazareth,” it is quite clear that individuals from Nazareth were despised individuals.
So you are quite correct, not one single prophet has made these remarks. This is a summary statement of what the prophets, as a group, taught about the Messiah.
I am surprised at your comments about the non-existence of Nazareth. Encyclopaedia Judaica makes this remark regarding Nazareth,
“Archaeological evidence has shown that the area was settled as early as the Middle Bronze Age, and tombs have been found dating from the Iron Age to Hasmonean times."
The Middle Bronze Age is approximately 2,000 BCE. It appears Nazareth has been around for a long time. The Hasmonean times would extend from approximately 166 BCE to 63 BCE, or in other words, just before Jesus came on the scene. What the archeologists are saying is that Nazareth experienced Jewish occupation before the New Testament was written. Therefore, it would not be a town that Christians fabricated in order to make their story about Jesus believable. Just because a town is small, insignificant, and not mentioned in the Hebrew Bible does not mean it did not exist. That is simply an argument from silence. There must have been 100’s of small and insignificant towns in Israel, that existed during the writing of the Scriptures, that are not mentioned in the Bible. That does not mean they never existed. I believe you need to document your sources for the statement that “Nazareth did not exist during the writings of the Hebrew Scriptures.”
I think you are stretching it when you say that these are Christian words not Hebrew words. Encyclopaedia Judaica remarks,
“the Hebrew and Arabic terms for Christians (Nozeri, Nasrani) are derived from the town's name.”
Encyclopedia Judaica is saying the exact opposite of what you have said. You have said, “Nazareth and Nazarene are Christian words.” EJ says that the Hebrew term for Christian, Nozeri, was derived from the town’s name, Nazareth (see quote below and underlined for the Hebrew root). Therefore, the city named Nazareth had to precede the term Nozeri. Nazareth would then be a Jewish/Hebrew word. This is consistent with the fact that Nazareth was a Jewish town before Jesus came on the scene, just as the NT indicates.
EJ continues:
“Nazareth is not mentioned in non-Christian sources until the third or fourth century, when it was recorded in an inscription found at Caesarea listing the priestly courses and their seats in Galilee. According to this list (which is reproduced in the seventh-century liturgical poems of Kallir and others), the family of Happizzez (I Chron. 24:15) settled in Nazareth, a name derived in this source from the root nsr (to guard). It is described by Jerome as a very small village in Galilee (Onom. 141:3). Constantine may have included it in the territory of Helenopolis, a city which he founded, but the town remained purely Jewish in the fourth century.”
According to the Archeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land, “After the destruction of the Second Temple Jews lived at Nazareth and it was the seat of the priestly family of Pises.”
It appears that Nazareth has had a long history of continuous Jewish occupation, before and after Jesus. The evidence indicates that it was an insignificant (despised?) village during those times, just as the New Testament records. Finally, these sources show that the site has a Hebrew name. Do you know of any alternate name for the site besides Nazareth? At this point the evidence, and you are quite free to disagree with me, supports the New Testament.
You are quite correct when you state that Matthew 2:23 is not a reference to the Nazarite Oath. I do not agree with those who make that connection. That is a tenuous conclusion at best, although you will find it in a good number of commentaries.
THE ANTI-MISSIONARY'S CHARGE:
Judaism does not believe in the nature of God being “Trinity.” This is a pagan concept.
HADAVAR'S RESPONSE:
INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS
This is quite a serious charge as it deals with the very nature of God. It is a profound subject and one that must be dealt with thoroughly.
The anti-missionary indicates that the concept of the Trinity is a pagan concept. However, the rabbis express two views of the Trinity. The anti-missionary has presented one point of view. However, not all in the Jewish community share this view. For example, Rabbi Alfred J. Kolatch, from his book The Second Jewish Book of Why, asks the question, "Why does Jewish law not consider the Christian belief in the Trinity to be idolatrous?" He then states that there are two ways to view the Trinity in the Jewish community. One view is the view of Maimonides, which the anti-missionary subscribes to, that the Trinity is an idolatrous concept. However, there is also a second view:
Scholars such as the French-born Rabbenu Tam (1100-1171), the grandson of Rashi who spent his life in Christian Europe, accepted the view of Christian theologians, who explained that the Trinity is consistent with the concept of one God. To these theologians the three personages are part of the one God; they are not individual gods. Just as spokes of a wheel are not in themselves wheels but components that are integral to the actual wheel, so the three personages are not gods but together they comprise the one God.1
Under a different question, we find this related comment by Rabbi Kolatch:
This view of Maimonides (that the Trinity is idolatrous) does not appear in our editions of the Mishneh Torah and was never accepted by normative Judaism. Beginning with Rabbenu Tam, a contemporary of Maimonides, almost all authorities agree that despite their belief in a Trinity Christians are monotheists. Rabbenu Tam notes in his commentary that despite outer appearances Christians truly believe in one God, as do Jews.2
In the footnote to the comment above, we find these words:
Bechorot 2b. This opinion has prevailed over the centuries. The great German rabbinic scholar Jacob Israel Emden (1697-1776) expressed the attitude of most scholars when he wrote that Christians cannot be considered idol worshippers and that it's incumbent upon every Jew to befriend Christians in their hour of need, as was taught by the Sages of the Talmud (Gittin 61a).3
This position is echoed by the National Jewish Scholars Project. They issued a document entitled A Jewish Statement on Christians and Christianity. In that document, we find this assessment:
Jews and Christians worship the same God. Before the rise of Christianity, Jews were the only worshippers of the God of Israel. But Christians also worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; creator of heaven and earth. While Christian worship is not a viable religious choice for Jews, (please realize that HaDavar does not accept that statement) as Jewish theologians we rejoice that, through Christianity, hundreds of millions of people have entered into relationship with the God of Israel.4
The preceding statement is rife with implications, one of which deals with the nature of God. If we are dealing with the same God, then what is He like? Another implication of that statement affects the idea of idolatry and polytheism. If we are dealing with the same God, then we are not dealing with paganism. The Trinity is not a pagan concept.
In contrast, there is solid evidence in the Jewish community to the contrary. The concept of the Trinity is not rejected outright, and we must look at what the Bible has to say in as neutral a manner as possible. We believe that the concept of the Trinity is defensible from the Biblical data.
Now for one final comment before we actually get into the biblical text about the relationship between paganism and the Trinity. The Trinity is biblical truth that has become distorted by people who do not have access to or interest in God's revelation. The Bible is the only source of accurate revelation about God found in this world. However, as mankind scattered over the face of the earth (Gen. 11:8), the knowledge of God became distorted and forgotten. That revelation was eventually entrusted to the care and keeping of the Jewish people (Gen. 12, Rom. 3:2) where it has been safeguarded ever since.
The Brit Chadashah (New Testament) puts it this way:
And in the generations gone by He permitted all the nations to go their own ways; and yet He did not leave Himself without witness ... 5
In Acts 4, Rabbi Shaul, the Apostle Paul, is speaking to a Gentile crowd in the city of Lystra in Asia Minor. His comment indicates that as the nations went their own way, they strayed from the knowledge of the truth. Truth degenerated into partial truth, partial truth disintegrated into untruth. The correct understanding of the one true and living God degenerated into polytheism and idolatry. Polytheism is simply a horribly distorted and barely recognizable perversion of biblical truth.
All men once knew that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was a complex or compound unity. The Bible, which we, the Jewish people, have faithfully safeguarded for millennia, contains the true and accurate revelation about God, His program for humanity, and the Messiah. We should examine that data objectively and thoroughly.
Another biblical principle to keep in mind is that God's revelation is "progressive." We learn more and more about God and His plan for the Jewish people and humanity as God unfolds history and His revelation to us. For example: no one who lived previous to Isaiah would know that the Messiah would die as a guilt offering. No one knew until that fact was revealed to Isaiah in Isaiah 53:10. My point in saying this is to acknowledge that the complex, indivisible unity of God is not clearly revealed in Tanakh (Old Testament). However, the complex, indivisible unity of God is fully revealed in the New Testament. The revelation in the Brit Chadashah is not contradictory to the revelation found in Tanakh. If it were contradictory, we would not accept it. This is why we do not accept other claims such as Mormonism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. Their writings contain material contradictory to Tanakh. The concept of the Trinity is defensible from Tanakh due to a number of lines of evidence. Here are some of them.
1 Kolatch, Alfred J., The Second Jewish Book of Why (New York: Jonathan David Publishers, Inc., 1985), p.77
2 Ibid, p. 92
3 Ibid, p. 92
4 http://www.icjs.org/programs/ongoing/njsp/dabruemet.php
5 New American Standard Bible, Acts 14:16-17 (LaHabra, CA., The Lockman Foundation, 1995)
Philosophically, the idea of a complex, indivisible unity is not foreign to the Bible. The nation of Israel is a complex, indivisible unity-one nation made up of 12 tribes, the Law of Moses is a complex, indivisible unity-one law made up of 613 commandments, and marriage is a complex, indivisible unity-a one flesh relationship consisting of man and woman. Is it inconsistent if the God of the Universe is a complex, indivisible unity as well?
There is a book written by Dr. J. David Bleich entitled With Perfect Faith-The Foundations of Jewish Belief. In this book Dr. Bleich develops Jewish thought around Maimonides' Thirteen Principles of Faith. He introduces the Thirteen Principles in the first chapter and then develops each principle in the succeeding chapters. In his overview of principle number two which is unity, he makes these comments:
Saadya (HaGaon) is willing to attribute to God the attributes of Life, Power, and Wisdom.1
Bahya ibn Pakuda distinguishes between what he terms 'essential' and 'active' attributes. The first are three in number: Existing, One, and Eternal.2
(Judah) HaLevi regards divine attributes as being divisible into three classes: actional, relative, and negative. 3
Is it not interesting how the number three keeps popping up in relation to the unity of God? In his footnote to Saadya's thought, Dr. Bleich makes these remarks:
God in whom no change takes place is living, wise and powerful by virtue of His essence. In other words, these three attributes are identical with His essence(emphasis mine). Saadya stresses this point in his treatment of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, which, in his opinion interpreted the three attributes of Existence, Wisdom and Life in the sense of the three separate persons of Father, Son (Logos) and Holy Spirit … the three attributes of Life, Wisdom and Power are identical with the essence of God.4
Dr. Bleich's footnote reveals an error in Saadya's understanding of the Christian/biblical doctrine of the Trinity. The Christian/biblical doctrine of the Trinity does not teach that the Father, Son (Logos) and Holy Spirit are three separate persons. The misunderstanding is revealed in the presence of the word "separate." There are two observations that are more accurate.
First, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity teaches about the essence of God in personal terms. God is a "person," and it is accurate to describe Him in personal terms. God is not simply an attribute or a force. Second, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are identical with the essence of God, not three "separate persons." The three are more accurately described as the same in essence but distinguishable.
Saadya's understanding needs to be refined by borrowing the terminology employed by Dr. Bleich. These three persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) are identical with His essence. If three attributes can be distinguishable yet identical with God's essence, why is it so radical if three persons are distinguishable yet identical with God's essence? In both cases we are talking about three-in-one-one God who is a complex, indivisible unity. Finally, one of our rabbinic traditions is that fact that God has made and arranged everything in a Trinitarian way.
Let me quote Midrash Tanchuma on Exodus 19.
Exodus 19 starts with the words, "In the third month." This is explained by the words of Proverbs 22:20, "Have I not written to thee excellent (Hebrew, threefold) things in counsels and knowledge." On this, Rabbi Joshua bar Nehemiah said that this is the Torah who's letters are threefold, alf, bet, g(i)mel, and everything is a trinity. The Torah is trinitarian, for it is composed of the Torah, the Prophets, and Writings. The Mishna (talmudical learning) is a trinity composed of talmud (learning), halakhot (daily Jewish laws), and haggadot (historical items). The mediator consisted of a trinity of Miriam, Moses, and Aaron. Prayers are a trinity of morning, afternoon, and evening prayers. Israel is a trinity consisting of Priests, Levites, and Israelites. The name Moses, in Hebrew, consists of three letters. He is of the tribe of Levi, which is in the Hebrew, three letters, from the seed of the Patriarchs who are a trinity of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; in the third month, which is Sivan, after Nisan and Iyar, on Mount Sin, whose letters are three, as it is written, "And they rested in the wilderness of Sin."
Midrash Tanchuma clearly sees a Divine pattern of "threes." The pattern is that of a complex, trinitarian, indivisible unity. If this pattern and understanding is part and parcel of the Jewish community, is it inconsistent, non-biblical, and un-Jewish to hold that God Himself is a complex, trinitarian, indivisible unity? There is clear evidence of complex, indivisible unity in the thinking of the Jewish community regarding the nature of God. It is, ironically, denied and argued against by the very people who write about it, but it is still there. God is a complex, indivisible being, and this is reflected in the biblical data as well.
1 Bleich, Dr. J. David, With Perfect Faith-The Foundations of Jewish Belief (New York, Ktav Publishing House, Inc., 1983), p. 108
2 Ibid
3 Ibid, p. 109
4 Ibid, p. 117
The most often used word for "God" is the term Elohim. It is used of the true God (Gen. 1:1) and of false "gods" (Ex. 20:3). When used of the true God, it is translated in the singular. When used of false "gods," it is translated in the plural. The fact that a plural noun is used of the one true God opens the door to the concept of complex, indivisible unity in the Godhead. This fact is not a proof of complex, indivisible unity because there is a usage of plural nouns in Hebrew known as the "plural of majesty," but it is consistent with and opens the door to the idea.
Normally, when Elohim is used in reference to the one true God, the verb modifying the noun is singular. This is contrary to normal, Hebrew, grammatical rules which state that the verb should agree with the noun in gender and number. Normally, we would expect a plural verb to be used with the plural noun Elohim. When using Elohim of false "gods," this is what we find. Most of the time when we encounter the plural noun Elohim, it is modified by a singular verb which shows that there is only one true God. However, there are exceptions.
These exceptions keep the door open for a discussion of complex, indivisible unity in the Godhead. Some examples are found in Genesis 20:13, 35:7; 2 Samuel 7:23; and Psalm 58:11. Let us use the 2nd Samuel verse for further clarification:
And who is like Your people Israel, a unique nation on earth, whom God went and redeemed as His people, winning renown for Himself and doing great and marvelous deeds for them [and] for Your land-[driving out] nations and their gods before Your people, whom You redeemed for Yourself from Egypt.1
The noun/verb sequence that we are focusing on is "God went." The literal Hebrew reads "they went, Gods did." We are talking of the one true God here, and He is referred to in plural terms-plural noun and plural verb agreement. The door is open to considering the concept of complex, indivisible unity in the Godhead.
1 Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures: A new translation of the Holy Scriptures according to the traditional Hebrew text (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1997, c1985), 2 Samuel 7:23
The plural noun Elohim is also seen to include two different personalities in the same passage. There is one example found in Hosea 1:7:
But I will accept the House of Judah. And I will give them victory through the LORD their God; I will not give them victory with bow and sword and battle, by horses and riders.1
In verses 4-6 God is speaking. He is still speaking in verse 7. In this passage, the speaker is Elohim who says He will extend compassion and deliverance by the instrumentality of the LORD their Elohim. Elohim #1 will deliver Israel by means of Elohim #2.
1 Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures: A new translation of the Holy Scriptures according to the traditional Hebrew text (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1997, c1985), Hosea 1:7
If we look at Zechariah 2:12-13 (Hebrew) 2:8-9 (English), we will encounter additional support for understanding the nature of our God as that of a complex, indivisible unity.
For thus said the LORD of Hosts-He who sent me after glory-concerning the nations that have taken you as spoil: "Whoever touches you touches the pupil of his own (My) eye. For I will lift My hand against them, and they shall be spoil for those they enslaved." Then you shall know that I was sent by the LORD of Hosts.1
In verse 12 of Tanakh (verse 8 in English), YHVH #1 is the speaker. He speaks about the value of Israel using the word picture of the pupil of the eye. Israel is personal and valuable and protected by God as the eye of a man is personal, valuable, and protected by him. He is extremely personal here using the term "My eye." Then in verse 13 (9), YHVH #1 says that He is being sent to accomplish a task by YHVH #2. One YHVH is sending another YHVH to perform a specific task. "Hold on," you say. "You have mistranslated the verse. Verse 12 reads 'His own eye,' showing that this is not a reference to God." Are you sure of that?
Let us look at the Soncino Books of the Bible referring to that verse:
According to Jewish tradition, the original reading in this verse was "the apple of My eye." It was corrected by the Scribes so as to remove the daring anthropomorphism implied.2
The original reading supports the position that the LORD of Hosts #1 is speaking and that He is being sent by the LORD of Hosts #2. The word "corrected" is probably not the best word to use to describe the change introduced into the text by the Scribes. Why does the commentator say that the anthropomorphism is "daring"? Anthropomorphisms are frequent in the Bible. What is so daring about God saying "My eye" and "The LORD is in His holy palace"? For example what do we find in Psalm 11:4, but this quote:
the LORD-His throne is in heaven;
His eyes behold, His gaze searches mankind?3
Or "You whose eyes are too pure to look upon evil?" (Hab. 1:13)4
An anthropomorphism seems to be a poor reason to correct the text. The word "correction" was not due to anthropomorphism but rather because God is speaking, and He uses His personal name. The commentator admits that the Scribes wanted to tone down the impact of the verse. As a result they changed the verse to blunt its impact. This correction also raises the question of authorization. What authority did the Scribes have to change the inspired Word of God? They do not possess the authority to change the Holy Scriptures just because they don't like the implications of a verse. If God is speaking, and He is, then God has sent God to perform a specific task. The debate about complex, indivisible unity in the Godhead is still open.
1 Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures: A new translation of the Holy Scriptures according to the traditional Hebrew text (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1997, c1985), Zechariah 2:12-13
2 Cohen, Rev. Dr. A (Ed.), Soncino Books of the Bible, The Minor Prophets (New York: The Soncino Press, 1985), p. 278
3 Tanakh: The Holy Scripture, Psalm 11:4
4 Ibid, Habakkuk 1:13
Plural Noun Adonai
According to Dr. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Director of Ariel Ministries:
Whenever that word (Adonai) is used of God, it's always found in the plural. The singular form is never used of God.1
The pattern is consistent and the door remains open for the idea that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is a complex, indivisible unity.
Plural Pronouns
Plural pronouns are also used of God. For example, Genesis 1:26 says:
And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.2
The plural pronouns us, our, and our in the above quote refer to God. The use of the plural in Genesis 1:26 is noted by Jewish commentators. Various explanations have been suggested by them such as:
Angels (Rashi, Midrash), God and the earth (Rambam), all of creation (Vilna Gaon), plural of majesty (many), the souls of the righteous unborn (Genesis Rabbah), plural of deliberation (Genesis Rabbah), different aspects within God's being (Zohar), the Word of God (Targumim).3
The use of the plural is noted because it "obviously presents a great difficulty, considering the 'oneness' and 'unity' of the Almighty."4
The lack of consistency and the variety of explanations indicates uncertainty and lack of consensus regarding the answer to this "great difficulty." However, there is no great difficulty if the oneness and unity of the Almighty is a complex, indivisible unity. Other examples include Genesis 3:22, 11:7; and Isaiah 6:8.
Plural Participles
Another line of evidence is the fact that God is also described by plural participles. For example, Isaiah 54:5 says:
For He who made you will espouse you-His name is "LORD of Hosts." The Holy One of Israel will redeem you-He is called "God of all the Earth."5
The term "made you" and "espouse you" are plurals in the Hebrew text and literally read "your makers" and "your husbands." The reference is to God. Then the verse switches back to the singular "His Name." The verse switches back to the plural -the word "God" in the final line. Finally, it ends with the singular "He is called." The interplay between the singular and the plural would be appropriate if the nature of God is a complex, indivisible unity.
Dr. Michael Brown shares two thoughts on the Bible's description of God in plural terms:
So, while these references to God or LORD in the plural don't in any way prove Trinitarian beliefs, they are certainly in perfect harmony with everything we're trying to say here, namely that in some way the LORD's unity is complex.
…these verses most definitely don't exclude such beliefs.6
1 Fruchtenbaum, A.G., The Trinity Radio Manuscript #50 (Tustin, CA., Ariel Ministries, 1983), p. 5
2 Tanakh: The Holy Scripture, Genesis 1:26
3 Harvey, Richard, Issues (Perlman, Susan, ed.), "A Look at the Trinity From a Messianic Jewish Perspective"(San Francisco, CA), vol. 10.8, pp. 5-8
4 Pelcovitz, Rabbi Raphael, Sforno, A Commentary on the Torah (Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah Publications, 1987),vol. 1, p. 17
5 Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures, Isaiah 54:5
6 Brown, Dr. Michael, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), p. 10
The concept of the Son of God is brought out in Proverbs 30. The author is a humble man who has embarked on a long, zealous, but fruitless search for the knowledge of the Holy One (plural adjective), Proverb 30:1-3. He then poses six questions.
The first four are rhetorical because the answer is obvious:
Who has ascended heaven and come down?
Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hand?
Who has wrapped the waters in his garment?
Who has established all the extremities of the earth?1
The obvious answer to these questions is God, God, God, and God. The creator and sustainer of this world is God. Now we have the fifth question.
What is his name...2
In Jewish and biblical thinking the "name" of someone or something can be a term describing the character of that object or person. The author is asking here either, "What is God's personal name?" or "What is God's character like?" The answer to the fifth question would be either YHVH or other terms describing the character of God. There is a choice presented but the answer is straightforward.
However, the sixth question is not so straightforward.
For his son's name, if you know it?3
It appears that God has a son, although his name or characteristics have not yet been revealed. Remember, God's revelation is progressive. It is disclosed step-by-step, over time, as the Bible unfolds. The full revelation about the Son of God will come through the prophets and culminate in the Brit Chadashah. Complex, indivisible unity in the Godhead remains a live option.
1 Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures, Proverb 30:4
2 Ibid
3 Ibid
The Hebrew Scriptures also teach the concept of a God-Man. Not man making himself God, but God appearing on earth as a man. One example is Zechariah 13:7a which states in the first part of the verse:
Awake, O sword, against My Shepherd, And against the man, My Associate,(NASB)1
The key word in the sentence is the word translated "My Associate." That word is translated "who is close to me" by the NIV.
Dr. Fruchtenbaum evaluates the word as meaning "my equal" and comments:
This man is God's equal and God's equal must be God Himself. On one hand, His humanity is stressed: ...the man; and then His deity is stressed: that is my equal.2
The Bible Knowledge Commentary concurs in their comments using the NIV rendering:
The LORD added that this Shepherd is the Man who is close to Me. The Hebrew word translated "who is close to me" is found elsewhere only in Leviticus (6:2, 18:20, etc) where it refers to a "near relative"... In Zechariah 13:7, the LORD is claiming identity of nature or unity in essence with His Shepherd, thus strongly affirming the Messiah's deity.3
In contrast to the NASB and NIV is the Jewish Publication Society's Tanakh version of 1997:
O sword! Rouse yourself against My shepherd,
The man i-in charge of My flock-i 4
As you can see the rendering of the key Hebrew word is very different from the NASB or the NIV. Why is their rendering so different? A reason is given in a footnote. IN the electronic version I own, that phrase is bracketed by two superscripted "i's." The explanation given in the footnote is "meaning of Hebrew uncertain." This is quite an amazing position to take. No one else seem to have a problem wiht the word, including the Jewish Publication Society (JPS). In the JPS produced "The Holy Scriptures" (1917, 1945, 1955), the word is rendered "the man that is near to me." Likewise:
Soncino Books of the Bible (text rendering): the man that is near unto me
Soncino Books of the Bible (commentary rendering): the man that is my fellow
Septuagint: citizen, freeman, fellow citizen
American Standard Version: my fellow
Revised Standard Version: the man who stands next to me
New Living Translation: my partner
The Contemporary English Version: friend
King James: my fellow
New American Standard: my associate
New International Version: The man who is close to me
The New King James Version: my companion
Brown Driver and Brigs Lexicon: associate, fellow, relation
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament: associate, fellow, relation
New American Standard Hebrew-American and Greek Dictionaries: associate, fellow, relation
Enhanced Strong's Lexicon: relation, neighbor, associate, fellow
These other works have no trouble understanding this word. The 1997 Tanakh does not seem to be able to face the impact and meaning of the text. They almost seem to want to obscure it. However, the God-Man concept is there and supports the idea of complex, indivisible unity in the Godhead. The God-Man concept is also found in Micah 5:2, Zechariah 12:10, Psalm 80:17, and Psalm 110:1. Micah 5:2 states that the Messiah has existed from eternity past, indicating that He is God, as well as being born in Bethlehem which indicates that He is also a man. In Zechariah 12:10, Israel will look to God, whom they pierced. In Psalm 80:17 and Psalm 110:1, the Messiah will be seated at the place of honor and equality, God's right hand.
Here is one final thought that is helpful from Rabbi Albo. In J. David Bleich's book, With Perfect Faith, he quotes Rabbi Albo explaining his understanding of how the prophets receive their revelation. Albo uses Bereshit Rabbah:
A Cuthean asked Rabbi Meir, is it possible that God, of whom It's written, 'Don't I fill heaven and earth?' should have spoken to Moses from between the staves of the ark? Said Rabbi Meir, bring me large mirrors. When he brought them, R. Meir said to him, look at your reflection. He looked, and he saw they were large. Then he said, bring me small mirrors. He looked and he saw they were small. Then R. Meir said, If you, a man of flesh and blood can change yourself into many shapes at your pleasure, surely God who created the world can do so.
As in the mirrors a thing appears different in form, large or small, straight or crooked, bright or obscure, according to the nature of the mirrors through which the thing is seen, i.e. according as the mirrors are large or small, straight or crooked, clear or obscure, though the thing itself does not change, so God appears to the prophets under many and various forms according to the brightness and purity of the media, though God Himself does not multiply or change. The change and multiplicity come from the media, as in the illustration of the mirrors.5
The connection here is that fact that Albo has nicely stated that God has revealed Himself to man through a variety of media, a cloud, a fire, etc. The media He chose to use in the case of the Messiah is a human body. God did not multiply Himself or change. He simply used a particular medium of expression. The God-Man concept is not contrary to Scripture and it maintains the evidence for complex, indivisible unity.
1 New American Standard Bible: 1995 update. 1995 (Zec. 13:7). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation
2 Fruchtenbaum, p. 11
3 Walvoord, Electronic edition.
i- Meaning of Heb. uncertain
-i Meaning of Heb. uncertain
4 Jewish Publication Society. (1997, c1985). Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures: A new translation of the Holy Scriptures according to the traditional Hebrew text. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society.
5 Bleich, pp. 334-335
Dr. Fruchtenbaum, from his manuscript on "The Trinity," says:
The Holy Spirit's sometimes seen as God and sometimes He is seen as one person within the Godhead. His many appearances in the Old Testament are also evidence...1
Of a number of examples, let us choose Isaiah 11:2 that reads:
The spirit of the LORD shall alight upon him: a spirit of wisdom and insight, a spirit of counsel and valor, a spirit of devotion and reverence for the LORD.2
In Isaiah 11:2, the Spirit is called YHVH and then described in personal terms. A force or power does not possess insight, wisdom, reverence, etc. The Holy Spirit is an indivisible, but distinguishable person in the Godhead. A comment in the Midrash Rabbah refers to Isaiah 11:2 and appears to make this connection as well.
Midrash Rabbah, Genesis II, 4.
... AND THE SPIRIT OF GOD HOVERED: this alludes to the spirit of Messiah, as you read, And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him (Isa. XI, 2).3
In this midrash the Spirit of God and the spirit of the Messiah are identical. The implication would be that the Messiah is a Divine Person, equal to God yet distinguishable from God. This is proved by the fact that the Spirit is equal yet distinguishable.
1 Fruchtenbaum, p. 11
2 Tanahkh: The Holy Scriptures, Isaiah 11:2
3 Huckel, T. (1998). The Rabbinic Messiah (Is. 11:3). Philadelphia: Hananeel House
Related to the Son of God and God-Man concepts is the concept of the visible manifestation of God's glory. In the Bible, we encounter such expressions as:
Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and 70 elders of Israel ascended; and they saw the God of Israel: under His feet there was the likeness of a pavement of sapphire, like the very sky for purity.1
Now the Presence of the LORD appeared in the sight of the Israelites as a consuming fire on the top of the mountain.2
In the year that King Uzziah died, I beheld my LORD seated on a high and lofty throne; and the skirts of His robe filled the Temple. Seraphs stood in attendance on Him. Each of them had six wings: with two he covered his face, with two he covered his legs, and with two he would fly. And one would call to the other, "Holy, holy, holy! The LORD of Hosts! His presence fills all the earth!"3
In these examples God visibly reveals Himself to mankind. As mentioned earlier, Bleich's book is discussing thirteen principles that are foundational to Jewish beliefs. The third principle is incorporeality. Incorporeality means the state or quality of being bodiless or immaterial. As Rabbi Albo discusses this topic, we read these comments:
The revelation of God's glory takes place by means of a body that is visible to the senses, like a fire or a pillar of cloud... devouring fire... cloud... the angel of the LORD... flame of fire... the glory of the LORD which appeared to the prophets emanated from God's own essence...4
In other words, God can appear to mankind. He does so by utilizing a body of His own choice. The amazing thing about the comments above lies in the fact that they sound exactly like the Brit Chadashah.
In John 1:14, John says that the Word of God literally "Shekinahed" (dwelt) among us. John is claiming, in that verse, that Yeshua is a form of the Shekinah Glory of God. He claims that the Shekinah is manifested in this manner in order to "explain" God the Father to us. To use Rabbi Albo's wording:
The revelation of God's glory takes place by means of a body that is visible to the senses,... the glory of the LORD which appeared to the prophets emanated from God's own essence...5
This is exactly what the Brit Chadashah teaches in John, chapter 1 and in the account of the transfiguration (Matt. 17:1-6; Mk. 9:1-8). The evidence for complex, indivisible unity is still present. God can reveal Himself to man in any way He sees fit, be it a fire, a cloud, or a human body.
1 Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures, Exodus 24:9-10
2 Ibid, Exodus 24:17
3 Ibid, Isaiah 6:1-3
4 Bleich, p.198
5 Ibid
While the Tanakh provides evidence of the complex, indivisible unity of God, it never teaches polytheism - a number of gods. However, the fact that this unity is complex and indivisible is apparent, even in statements that stress that there is only one God, such as the Shema. Here is Deuteronomy 6:4 as rendered by the Tanakh version:
Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD alone.1
The Jewish Publication Society Tanakh translation includes a footnote to Deuteronomy 6:4 that is important to notice. The footnote reads:
Cf. Rashbam and Ibn Ezra. See Zech. 14:9 others The LORD our God the LORD is one.2
"The LORD our GOD the LORD is one" is the classic translation of the verse. That rendering stresses God's unity, and takes the literal meaning of the word "one" which has a numerical meaning. The numerical meaning designated the quantity. As Encyclopedia Judaica (EJ) says:
The Shema is in Jewish thought the supreme affirmation of the unity of God and is frequently called 'the acceptance of the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven.' The original meaning of the first verse may have been that, unlike the pagan gods who have different guises and localities, God is one. At first the main emphasis in the Shema was seen to be in opposition to polytheism; there is only one God, not many gods.3
The verse appears to argue against the complex, indivisible unity of God. However, the verse actually supports the concept in a number of ways. First, the English translation "The LORD out God" appears in the singular. However, the literal form of the word God is plural, "The LORD our Gods..." Second, the most significant word to look at is the final word translated "one" (literally) or "alone" (as above). The word is echad. The range of meaning found in echad contains a clear and unmistakable sense of complex unity.
One example is found in Genesis 2:24. There, when two persons (a man and a woman) marry, they become "one flesh" (basar echad). In addition to the excerpt above, the Encyclopedia Judaica goes on to cite additional interpretations of this verse. The most interesting is the mention of the Rabbinic work called the Zohar:
Very curious are the references in the Zohar to the three divine names in the first verse of the Shema. These represent the unity of three powers in the Godhead, that is the Sefirot of Lovingkindness, Judgment, and Beauty (Hesed, Gevurah, Tiferet), symbolized by the colors white, red, and green, or the Sefirot of Wisdom, Understanding, and Beauty (Hokhmah, Binah, Tiferet; Zohar 1:18b, 3:263a). The Zohar is strongly anti-Christian in intent and repeatedly stresses that all the Ten Sefirot are a unity with Ein Sof.4
Three powers, three colors, three Sefirot - more "trinities." Amazing! Then the Encyclopedia Judaica goes on to say that the Zohar takes pains to "repeatedly stress(es) that all the Ten Sefirot are a unity with Ein Sof. The Zohar seems to think that God can be complex, indivisible unity with ten identifiable Sefirot.
Here are three more quick examples:
On the word (Elohim) Simeon Ben Joachi says: 'Come and see the mystery of the word (Elohim) there are three degrees, and each degree is by itself alone, and yet they are all one, and joined together in one, and are not divided from each other.5
...the union is expressed in the sentence: 'Hear O Israel, TETRAGRAMMATON Elohenu TETRAGRAMMATON is one.' These three are one...6
Even so it's with the mystery of the threefold Divine manifestations designated by TETRAGRAMMATON Elohenu TETRAGRAMMATON three modes yet they form one unity.7
Is the concept of the Trinity a pagan concept? We think not. Is evidence for complex, indivisible unity in the Godhead present in Scripture? The writer of the Zohar seemed to think so. The statements in the Zohar sound like they come right out of the Brit Chadashah. If the Zohar is "strongly anti-Christian in intent," it is speaking against a misunderstanding of what the Brit Chadashah actually teaches. We run into this misunderstanding repeatedly. The misunderstanding is most often seen in the use of the word "separate." The Brit Chadashah does not teach that there are three, separate, divine entities - three gods (as Saadya's misunderstanding stated above). The New Testament teaches that there is one God. The one God is a complex, indivisible unity of three distinguishable persons.
1 Ibid, Deuteronomy 6:4
2 Ibid
3 Encyclopedia Judaica, CD ROM Edition (Jerusalem, Israel: Keter Publishing House Jerusalem Ltd., 1972)
4 Ibid
5 The Treasure of Scripture Knowledge: Five Hundred Thousand Scripture References and Parallel Passages, Introduction by R. A. Torrey (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1995), Electronic edition
6 Soncino Zohar, CD ROM Edition (Shemoth, Raya Mehemna), p. 43b
7 Ibid
Throughout the Tanakh, this figure appears now and then. In context, when he appears, strange and mysterious statements are made. For example, he is called the angel of the LORD in one spot and then in another spot in the context, he is called God himself. In addition, this angel speaks as if he was God himself and, finally, it is stated that God's presence is in him. Consistently, the context makes it apparent that this is no ordinary angel. Instead, he is a unique being who is a visible manifestation of God Himself. These phenomena are consistent with the Biblical data describing God's nature. They are understandable wonders when we realize that God is a complex, indivisible unity. Examples of this phenomenon are contained in Genesis 16:7-13, 21:17-18, 22:11-12, and 31:11-13. Let us begin the discussion with Genesis 16:7-9.
At the beginning of the encounter, verse 7 clearly states it is the angel of the LORD speaking to Hagar:
An angel of the LORD found her by a spring of water in the wilderness, the spring on the road to Shur, and said, 'Hagar, slave of Sarai, where have you come from, and where are you going?' And she said, 'I am running away from my mistress Sarai.' And the angel of the LORD said to her, 'Go back to your mistress, and submit to her harsh treatment.'1
All that the angel has spoken up to this point is quite proper for a messenger of God to state. However, in the next sentence the angel says something that goes beyond what is proper for a created being. Verse 10 says:
And the angel of the LORD said to her, 'I will greatly increase your offspring, And they shall be too many to count.'2
Giving children is God's work. Yet the angel of the LORD did not say "The LORD will greatly increase your offspring." Instead, the angel of the LORD said, "I will greatly increase your offspring." Why does he feel he can speak in the first person regarding an activity that is God's business?
The conversation ends with verses 10-12 giving a prediction regarding the characteristics of Hagar's firstborn son:
The angel of the LORD said to her further, 'Behold, you are with child and shall bear a son; You shall call him Ishmael, for the LORD has paid heed to your suffering. He shall be a wild ass of a man; His hand against everyone, and everyone's hand against him; He shall dwell alongside of all his kinsmen.'3
The record of the account ends with an astounding statement by Hagar. The angel of the LORD had spoken to her, yet she identifies the speaker using different terms:
And she called the LORD who spoke to her, 'You Are El-roi,' by which she meant, 'Have I not gone on seeing after He saw me!'4
Hagar does not indicate that the being who spoke to her was simply a messenger from God, simply a run-of-the-mill-angel. She clearly identifies the one who spoke to her as God himself.
She is also amazed that she is still alive. Apparently, she understood the principle that no man can look upon God and live (Ex. 33:20). Had this visitor been simply an angel, Hagar would not have feared death. This angel is clearly identified with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in 16:13. The angel of the LORD is God Himself appearing in visible, angelic form.
The same phenomenon occurs in Genesis 22:11-12 when Abraham is about to sacrifice his son Isaac. Please remember, in the context of Genesis 22, God is commanding Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Abraham is not offering the sacrifice of his son to an angel. This is crystal clear from Genesis 22:1-2:
Some time afterward, God put Abraham to the test. He said to him, 'Abraham,' and he answered, 'Here I am.' And He said, 'Take your son, your favored one, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the heights that I will point out to you.'5
In obedience to God, not an angel, Abraham goes out to the land of Moriah. Then we come to verses 11 and 12:
Then an angel of the LORD called to him from heaven: 'Abraham! Abraham!' And he answered, 'Here I am.' And he said, 'Don't raise your hand against the boy, or do anything to him. For now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your favored one, from Me.'6
Please note that the angel of the LORD did not say, in verse 12, "you have not withheld your son from God." Instead, the angel of the LORD said, "you have not withheld your son, your favored one, from Me." Once again, the angel of the LORD is identified as God himself. Then the strange marvel occurs again in verses 15-18:
The angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven, and said, 'By Myself I swear,' the LORD declares: 'Because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your favored one, I will bestow My blessing upon you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars of heaven and the sands on the seashore; and your descendants shall seize the gates of their foes. All the nations of the earth shall bless themselves by your descendants, because you have obeyed My command.'7
The angel of the LORD who was previously identified as God Himself is now seen to be distinct from God. He speaks on behalf of God stating, "the LORD declares." Who is this? Is this God or is this an angel? The interplay back and forth leaves us astounded and at a loss to explain. The answer to the mystery becomes clear when it is understood that the Bible describes God as a complex, indivisible unity.
The same marvel occurs in Genesis 31:11-13, 48:15-16, and Judges 13:22-23. The Angel of the LORD is the same as God and yet the angel is distinct from God. Again, this is all quite consistent if the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is a complex, indivisible unity. The angel of the LORD speaks as God, but the Holy Scriptures also teaches that God's presence is in him.
Exodus 23:20-22 states:
I am sending an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I have made ready. Pay heed to him and obey him. Don't defy him, for he will not pardon your offenses, since My Name is in him; but if you obey him and do all that I say, I will be an enemy to your enemies and a foe to your foes.8
Before going any further, an explanation of the biblical and Jewish concept of a name needs to be stated. In the Bible, names can simply be identifiers (as they tend to be in our culture). However, in the Bible a name usually has much more significance. The Jewish people understand there is to be an essential connection between the name and the person it identified. A name of a person represented the nature of that person.
With that thought in mind, God says, "My Name is in him." In other words, this angel represents God's very nature. The angel of the LORD is seen here as separate from God and yet God's name is associated with him. Later in Exodus 33:14, God says that his presence will go with Israel. Centuries after this time, Isaiah looks back on God's faithfulness and states in Isaiah 63:9:
In all their troubles He was troubled, And the angel of His Presence delivered them. In His love and pity, He Himself redeemed them, raised them, and exalted them all the days of old.9
Somehow, the very presence of God is associated with this angel. Before summarizing this section, our attention needs to be drawn to one final passage, Genesis 32:30. In context, our patriarch, Jacob, has spent all night wrestling with a "man" (vs. 25). Then, in verse 31, Jacob states:
So Jacob named the place Peniel, meaning, 'I have seen a divine being face to face, yet my life has been preserved.'10
Unfortunately, the Tanakh translation, above, has obscured the point of this verse. The weak parts of the translation are the words "divine being." The translation implies that Jacob's opponent was a run-of-the-mill-angel, someone less than God. The Hebrew word underlying the translation is the word Elohim - God. A better translation would be "I have seen God face to face." This rendering is supported by the context. In the next phrase, Jacob states that in spite of seeing this being face to face, his life has been spared. Jacob, like Hagar, knew that no man can see God and live. If he had been wrestling with a created being such as an angel or a man-someone less than God, he would not have feared for his life. Jacob had seen angels and men before without expressing this concern. He realized that he had been struggling with someone grander than that. He realized that he had been struggling with God Himself. That is why he marvels at the fact that he is still alive.
The translation, "I have seen God face to face," is also the rendering used by the classic Jewish commentary, The Soncino Books of the Bible. The Artscroll Tenach commentary renders the phrase, "For I have seen the Divine face to face." Finally, the name Jacob chooses is Peniel which literally means "Face of God" or "Facing God" or "My Face Toward God" or even "Turn to God." No one argues that the name refers to God and not to a man or an angel. Jacob wrestled with God Himself, and the name Jacob chose for the place clearly reflects his conviction. At this point we need to ask some questions. Can man wrestle with God? Can man see God face to face? Yes, if God's nature is that of a complex, indivisible unity.
Let me bring to mind a quote I referred to earlier. Back in the section dealing with the Shekinah, I quoted Rabbi Albo. Let me quote him again. This time please note what Rabbi Albo says about the Angel of the LORD:
The revelation of God's glory takes place by means of a body that is visible to the senses, like a fire or a pillar of cloud…devouring fire…cloud…the angel of the LORD …flame of fire…the glory of the LORD which appeared to the prophets emanated from God's own essence…11
In other words, Rabbi Albo also understands the Angel of the Lord to be the visible manifestation of God's presence.
After reviewing the evidence, we see that the Tanakh progressively reveals that our God is a complex, indivisible unity of three persons. There is only one God. He is a magnificent, righteous, loving person who is far above us in splendor and glory. That revelation, begun and developed step-by-step in the Tanakh, reaches its climax in the Brit Chadashah with the Good News about Yeshua our Messiah. The concept of the Trinity is not a pagan concept as claimed by the anti-missionary. It is a Jewish concept solidly rooted in the text of sacred Scripture, Jewish culture, and the writings of the rabbis.
1 Tanakh, Genesis 16:7
2 Ibid, Genesis 16:10
3 Ibid, Genesis 16:10-12
4 Ibid, Genesis 16:13
5 Ibid, Genesis 22:1-2
6 Ibid, Genesis 22:11-12
7 Ibid, Genesis 22:15-18
8 Ibid, Exodus 23:20-22
9 Ibid, Isaiah 63:9
10 Ibid, Genesis 32:31
11 Bleich, p. 198
THE ANTIMISSIONARY'S CHARGE:
A common objection voiced by the anti-missionary runs along these lines:
Our most ancient and wise sages universally agree that Jesus is not the Messiah. How could they, with all their erudition and authority, miss the Messiah when he came? It is inconceivable that they could make such a crucial mistake. In addition, the rabbis are the spiritual authorities in Judaism. They have the answers and know what is best for Israel. They all agree that Jesus is not for the Jew.
THE RESPONSE:
QUESTION AUTHORITY, Part 1
by Moishe Rosen, founder of Jews for Jesus
In the ‘70s many of us were inspired, instructed and even informed by bumper stickers. Some people used their bumpers to speak out, others to talk back. One Christian group had a bumper sticker that proclaimed, “We found it,” to which a group of Jewish people countered with their own bumper sticker declaring, “We never lost it.” But one particular bumper sticker stood out all around the country and I never saw anyone counter it. That bumper sticker had a simple but profound challenge: “Question Authority.”
Zola Levitt passed on a story from a pastor he once met. This big, burly, tough-looking man had been a highway patrolman before entering the ministry. As such, he once saw an automobile with that “Question Authority” bumper sticker prominently displayed. In fact, everything about the car and the driver seemed to repeat that motto.
So this highway patrolman pulled the driver over and slowly approached the vehicle. With all the police paraphernalia hanging from his belt and the Jack boots that patrol officers wear, he bent down to the driver’s side of the car, looked into the window and said with a smile, “What are your questions?” That highway patrolman had no doubt about the authority he symbolized, and he didn’t want anyone else to doubt it, either.
The “Question Authority” slogan seemed to mean different things to different people. Some questioned whether anyone had a right to such a thing as authority; others saw it as a warning to test authority figures to make sure they are true and trustworthy.
Life is full of uncertainties. Many people respond to them by spending time, money and energy on people or products that make authoritative claims. People hunger for certainty and frequently feed that hunger by trusting others who have a reassuring smile and a confident tone of voice. Countless self-serving people are ready to tell you how to invest your money in a “sure thing.” Self-anointed prophets will tell you how to find joy and heaven.
The seducers of this world can build your confidence on what you desire them to do for you. But it is what they want from you that can be so destructive. They make you feel good about yourself and about them by flattery, expertly and charmingly presented. Some lies are beautiful – at least for a while. Adults who look to others for certainty frequently end up with intoxicating certitudes - because they often drink without discernment if a fount seems to offer the answers they want.
How does one drink with discernment from a “fount of knowledge”? From time to time I have had the privilege of knowing authorities in different fields, professors and scholars, and I never lost the opportunity to ask one or two of the many questions I had. I wanted to establish a systematic way of understanding truth, so I set up what might be called a “hierarchy of authorities.”
For example, I was originally instructed in Jewish history from the writings of Solomon Grayzel. Later I noticed that many (including rabbis) differed with Grayzel on one point or another. I realized that if one looked at the history of Jews and Christians through Grayzel’s eyes alone, one might conclude that the whole purpose and design of the Church was to persecute the Jews.
Then I became acquainted with The History of the Jews written by Philip Johnson. Johnson, a Roman Catholic, didn’t gloss over the Catholic persecution of the Jews. He also mentioned how the early church had received some persecution from Jews (a fact strangely passed over by Grayzel). I found what I believed to be more integrity – if somewhat less detail – in Johnson’s book. So where there was disparity between Johnson and Grayzel, my hierarchy of authorities put the writings of Johnson higher. I still valued Grayzel’s book. I simply questioned parts of it in light of another authority that seemed less biased.
Here’s another example of the hierarchy of authorities: when it comes to criminal law, I can learn a lot from a policeman. I can learn more from a criminal lawyer. But the highest in my hierarchy of authorities would be a judge who hears criminal cases.
When it comes to religion, many “authorities” conflict with one another – and some authorities conflict facts that people would rather not face.
The religion of Islam was spread by the sword as conquering hordes issued an ultimatum: accept Islam or be exiled. At times the choice was gentler: accept Islam or lose your civil rights—even then, the choice was given only to Christians and Jews. Others were given a choice to convert or die. History teaches us that Muslims have placed the Islamization of the world as the highest aim and freely sacrifice lives to reach that aim.
So when the President of the United States stated authoritatively that Islam is a peaceful religion, many wondered if he had read the same authorities who taught the rest of us history. Of course, he rightly wanted to prevent a backlash of violence against Muslims at a moment when people were poised to react to the events of 9/11. But ever since that time, the purveyors of the ever-so-politically-correct-civil-religion have been trying to tell us that the Muslim religion does not lay a foundation for terrorist acts. They speak authoritatively and say things people want to hear, but they ignore history – and they ignore the writings of the religion itself.
It is amazing how much people will ignore in order to avoid conflict – but ultimately reality catches up to us and conflict becomes unavoidable. This is especially true when it comes to religious authority. What does that mean to us as Jews who believe in Jesus? It means we must consider the conflict that exists between the rabbis and the gospel.
Many of us have been asked to see rabbis who apparently want to hear why we believe in Y’shua. All too often when we went to see such rabbis, wanting to explain our faith, we were reminded of our ignorance, and our experience with Y’shua was either trivialized or blamed for the sufferings of our people.
Most rabbis emphasize study as the way to know God. We’ve been told that unless we studied as much as the rabbis, we couldn’t possibly make an informed, intelligent decision for Y’shua. As with the Gnostics, they would have us “ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth….”[1] Unfortunately, most rabbis have accepted the role of an apologist for Judaism, rather than a spiritual authority who can aid in or inspire a true encounter with God.
The nature of Jewish logic allows rabbis to differ with one another on various issues of jurisprudence or theology. Yet they all seem to agree on one issue: Jesus cannot possibly be the Messiah.
Have you ever wondered how rabbis can be so united on this one point when so many disagree on almost everything else? It makes sense if you see that modern Judaism is, in part, a reaction to the gospel.
In fact, rejecting Jesus as Messiah is practically an article of faith to Jewish people who place themselves under rabbinic authority. This forces us to ask: “Are rabbis God’s appointed authorities to guard, interpret and promote the Jewish understanding of who the Almighty is and what He wants?”
The Hebrew Scriptures list the God-sanctioned authorities for Jewish life: prophets, priests and kings – and of course the actual Scriptures. The word “rabbi” is not to be found in the Hebrew Scriptures – it is nowhere in the whole Tanach. The Old Testament describes no such office.
The system God established, through Moses, was the management of religious affairs by the priesthood. And just about everything was a religious affair. The priesthood were not only clergymen, but priest craft also included issues pertaining to health, education and welfare that were needed to instruct daily life. Priests functioned not only as judges, but also as notaries, scribes, physicians and teachers of literacy. If ancient Israelites had a problem – whether it was a health issue or marriage problem – they went to priests, not rabbis.
There were good priests and not-so-good priests, as we see in the Scriptures, particularly in the books of Samuel. It is not surprising that many people lost confidence in the priesthood.
The office of rabbi developed, along with the concept of the synagogue as the community center, and can be traced back to the Babylonian-Syrian-Persian captivity.
The work from which “rabbi” is derived is found 15 times in the Tanach, but it is not a Hebrew word. The word is Rab, and it is an Aramaic or Babylonian word with means “master,” as to a servant. Therefore, the word is used only in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah.
Ultimately, the destruction of the Second Temple resulted in the death and dispersal of the priests. However, in addition to the priestly scribes, there were secular scribes, many of whom belonged to the party of the Pharisees. After the destruction of the Temple, these non-priestly scribes gathered at a place called Jamnia or Yavneh. It was there, in 90 A.D., that the rabbis promoted themselves to the present place of authority. [2]
The modern concept of a rabbi has been through many changes. In New Testament times a rabbi was not so much a teacher as he was a judge. They were not the same kind of judges who ruled Israel after Joshua. Those judges governed instead of kings of tribal chiefs. They often delivered justice at the end of a sword. By the first century things had changed. Rabbis were not needed to lead battles or govern. The people were governed by those who did not know God’s law, and they needed rabbis to declare what was lawful according to God and what was unlawful. We see this in the way people brought matters to Jesus; not that He might elucidate or explain things, but that He might pronounce judgment.
Jesus never accepted this role. He did not quote other sages and rabbis as was the custom. He quoted God’s Word and explained things in His own words from His unique perspective. He took a role that not only differed from that of the rabbis, but made it pale in comparison. And He claimed such high authority for Himself that anyone who followed Him had to question the authority of those who did not.
You can understand why Judaism, since the destruction of the Temple, must stand against the gospel. Jesus does not fit into the structure of authority. He challenges it. The way He challenged authority then affected His followers... and it continues to affect us to this day.
1 2 Timothy 3:7
2 A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ by Emil Schurer, Hendrickson Publishers, Volume I page 365: “Of profound importance to the further development of the scribism was the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the hitherto relative independence of the Jewish commonwealth. The ancient Sanhedrin, at the head of which had stood the Sadducean high priests, now forever retires from the stage. The Pharisaic teachers of the law, who during the last century before the destruction of the temple had already actually exercised very great influence, became the sole leaders of the people. Hence the direct result of the political fall was an increase of rabbinical power and an exaltation of rabbinical studies. Henceforth our authorities became more copious, the first codification of Jewish law having been undertaken by men directly connected with the generation which survived the fall of the city.
“Jamnia or Jabne, which had since the Maccabean periods been chiefly inhabited by Jews, became after the destruction of the holy city a chief seat of these studies. The most distinguished of those scholars, who survived the fall of Jerusalem, seem to have settled here..."
THE ANTIMISSIONARY'S CHARGE:
A common objection voiced by the anti-missionary runs along these lines: Our most ancient and wise sages universally agree that Jesus is not the Messiah. How could they, with all their erudition and authority, miss the Messiah when he came? It is inconceivable that they could make such a crucial mistake. In addition, the rabbis are the spiritual authorities in Judaism. They have the answers and know what is best for Israel. They all agree that Jesus is not for the Jew.
THE RESPONSE:
QUESTION AUTHORITY, Part 2
by Moishe Rosen, founder of Jews for Jesus
In the last issue of Havurah we talked about questioning authority, particularly where the Jewish religion is concerned. We observed a shift in authority following the destruction of the Temple. That shift occurred at the council of Yavneh, where the rabbis appointed themselves as the leaders of Judaism in place of the priestly system established by God.
Few Jewish people realize how radical that shift was. Since the Bible makes no mention of rabbinical authority, it was essential for the rabbis to find justification for taking that mantle upon themselves.
Defilement was a constant concern in Jewish jurisprudence. Certain things would be defiled if handled by anyone other than the priests. Certain acts, such as cutting or tattooing the body, were defilement. The book of Leviticus is filled with regulations concerning what is clean and unclean, permitted and not permitted.
Before the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. the priests, or cohenim, taught the ways of worship and living; it was their responsibility to keep people from defilement and desecration. But when the Temple was destroyed, the priests were dispersed or killed, creating a power vacuum. The rabbis, in an attempt to keep the people united, presented themselves as religious authorities to fill that vacuum. Without the priests to interpret Torah, they became the sole interpreters of the Scriptures.
It was not as though the rabbis wrested control away from anyone. The priesthood had been in disarray even before the destruction of the Temple. Nevertheless, when the rabbis became the authorities, it was difficult to appeal to the Scriptures. The Law had been written to be observed by a certain people at a certain time in a certain place and within a certain structure set forth by revelation.
The question of rabbinical authority comes into relief when we go back and explore the God-given authority of those who preceded them: namely those who filled the offices of prophet, priest and king. As mentioned in part one of this article, those were God's appointed offices. God gave a sign or symbol to show that He had bestowed His authority on these people. That sign was a public anointing, that is, the smearing of ointment on a person's head.
The word "anoint" first appears in reference to Aaron and his family. God commanded Moses: "So you shall put them on Aaron your brother and on his sons with him. You shall anoint them, consecrate them, and sanctify them, that they may minister to Me as priests" (Exodus 28:41).
But the priests were not the only ones appointed and anointed by God to positions of authority. In l Kings 19:16 we see that God commanded Elijah to anoint Jehu king, that is melech, over Israel, and in the same verse Elijah was also to anoint Elisha to be a prophet in his stead. So those who God chose to be priests, prophets and kings were given the same symbol of anointing at God's direction.
It is interesting to go back a little further to see how God first worked in the matter of the king and the kingdom. After Moses and Joshua, our people were ruled for a time by chieftain-judges - sometimes for better and sometimes for worse. As this era drew to a close, Israel demanded a king, "like the other nations." And God established a monarchy.
Now the LORD had told Samuel in his ear the day before Samuel came, saying, "Tomorrow about this time I will send you a man from the land of Benjamin, and you shall anoint him commander over My people Israel, that he may save My people from the hand of the Philistines; for I have looked upon My people, because their cry has come to me." So when Samuel saw Saul, the LORD said to him, "There he is, the man of whom I spoke to you. This one shall reign over My people" (1 Samuel 9:15-17).
It is interesting that Saul was to be anointed a commander, or nagid, which is different from the usual word for king: "Then Samuel took a flask of oil and poured it upon his head, and kissed him, and said: 'Is it not because the LORD has anointed you commander over his inheritance?'" (1 Samuel 10:1).
The people petitioned God for a king (melech) (1 Samuel 8:6). They did not petition him for a commander (1 Samuel 10:1). In the case of Saul, the prophet anointed him a commander and the people made Saul king before the Lord (1 Samuel 11:15).
The king was to be a steward over God's inheritance. All God-given authority is a matter of stewardship, since God is creator of all and Lord over all. But the people had asked for a king to be like the other nations, and that is what they got.
While King Saul did receive the Lord's anointing and began his reign in the power of the Holy Spirit, it quickly became apparent that Saul was not the king that God envisioned for His people. Arguably, God gave the people what they wanted in order to prepare them to receive what He wanted - David, the man after God's heart. And even David was just a forerunner of the perfect King who was yet to come.
The authority that people choose for themselves is vastly different from the authority God would place over us. Few people desire authority in their lives, but most will give someone authority over them in exchange for protection.
And when the rabbis took the mantle of authority upon themselves, it was for the sake of protecting the Jewish people. The protection was not so much in regard to a military threat, but rather the threat that we would lose our peoplehood without the Temple, that we would succumb to the temptations of assimilation and be lost in a sea of goyim. So the rabbis became the interpreters of the Jewish religion and thus the protectors of our people's survival.
Religion requires revelation and regulation; the first needs to be authoritatively interpreted and the second needs to be authoritatively enforced. However, without the sacrificial system, much of the Law seemed empty. Much of the Torah was no longer relevant once the Temple was destroyed and the people dispersed. And with the diminishing of the priests came the disappearance of prophets. Thus the rabbis could not base their authority on revelation.
But that problem was solved through an idea which pervades Orthodox Judaism to this day. It is difficult to determine if the idea originated at Yavneh, but a particular idea or device gave authority to the rabbis apart from actual anointing and to some extent, apart from the Scriptures. That device is the oral law. Supposedly, Moses not only brought the written law, and dictated the Torah, but according to tradition he received an oral law. This law was passed down orally to select disciples until the Talmud was written. The Talmud is said to contain that oral law - and the Talmud gives prominence to the rabbis.
The rabbis' final appeal was to tradition and so it is to this day. "Judaism teaches" became the foundation to uphold the Jewish religion, and the building material for that foundation was the consensus of the rabbis. The one thing that the rabbis seemed to agree on was that Jesus could not be the Messiah, and any Jew who said that He was must be made an outcast.
Whereas the original people, items and place for worship were all selected by God and anointed of God, the rabbinate became a self-appointing, self-perpetuating and self-authenticating group. That is not to say that God did not use rabbis, that their intentions were bad or all their efforts in vain. But unlike the priests and Levites, the rabbis were not worship leaders. In a sense, they were spiritual watchdogs to bark warnings against idolatry and law-breaking. Later, the rabbis turned from warning of what was unlawful within Judaism to decrying what was harmful to the Jews from the outside. They became captains in the fight against anti-Semitism and assimilation. However, worship continued to be largely a matter of the heart and more often than not, the rabbis instructed the heads rather than the hearts.
Jewish people today continue looking to the rabbis as authorities, not so much for the rabbis to tell them to know God, or even necessarily how to live their daily lives, but for a feeling of security. The point of security is that there is such a thing as cohesive Judaism that enables the Jewish people to survive as a distinct people - whether or not they choose to practice the religion. The main power and authority of the rabbis resides in the willingness of the Jewish community to allow them to define what is or isn't Jewish. People find security in boundaries, and a definition is a boundary. While the rabbis are able to provide fewer and fewer definitions or boundaries in today's pluralistic society, there is at least one non-negotiable: Jesus cannot be the Messiah. Today's rabbis use that boundary, which is viewed as necessary to the survival of the Jewish people.
But those of us who do believe that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah see the struggle for survival in a different light. That light is the brilliance of God's sovereignty and the glorious continuity of His redemptive plan.
The repository of God's authority for the governance and spiritual welfare of Israel was in the prophets, priest and kings, which three comprised a check and balance of powers. The prophets could accuse the kings of not fulfilling the law, the priests could deny the king the right to come to the altar, and a king could likewise punish prophets or priests for civil disobedience. But God's ultimate promise was that He would send an anointed one who would not need to have an outside balance - because the inner person would be completely balanced. This anointed one is mentioned throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. Many of the messianic prophecies show the anointed one as God's means of survival for the Jewish people, whether spiritually, as in Isaiah 53, or in time of war, as in the book of Zechariah. But nowhere do we see the matter of the Messiah's authority more clearly delineated than in Psalm 2, where the nations gather together and express rage at the Lord, and at His anointed. In other words, Psalm 2 depicts humanity's struggle against God's authority. Psalm 2 also teaches us that the anointed one, or the Mashiach, would be the son of God.
The first verse asks: "Why do the nations rage and the people plot a vain thing?" So we see a distinction between "the nations" (that is, most of the world) and "the people" who are Israel. The nations boil in heat and anger, and the people, Israel, while cooler, still have an empty idea of the meaning of authority. Verse 2 shows us that the kings of the earth dig in and take a stand and the rulers (generally referring to Israel) take council together against Yahweh and His Mashiach, and what do they say? They say, "Let us break Their bonds in pieces, and cast away Their cords from us." In other words, all the ties that bind God and His people and God and His creation should be severed. This is the world's plan to reject God's authority.
Verse four gives God's reaction: "He who sits in the heavens shall laugh. . . ." What cosmic amusement. The people do not have the slightest idea of how much they are bound to God, who has set the very boundaries of life. To sever the link with Him would be suicide, for none can exist apart from Him.
In verse 6 we see that God has appointed His own ruler. God's true king (melech) is set upon the hill of Zion. And to further identify His Mashiach God announces, "You are My Son, today have I begotten You." Do not worry about the word "begotten." The many "begats" in the King James Bible seem to indicate paternity. This is true, but God did not pass out any cigars to celebrate His begotten Son, because God had always been the Father. Theologians disagree as to the moment of this "begetting," but it was probably either at the Incarnation, or birth of the God-man Messiah, or it was at His resurrection. The begetting is generally seen as the official and legal setting forth of Jesus as the Son of God.
So the psalmist says that the inheritance of the son is to be all the nations, for "all the earth shall belong to the son" (verse 8). This anointed one is given more than any mere prophet, priest or king of Israel could claim. He is not merely the anointed one of Israel, but the appointed leader of the whole world. As proof of this, verse 9 announces that the Messiah has the right to pulverize the nations if He chooses. God has given Him ultimate authority.
In the light of the foregoing, the psalmist says, "Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling," and the last verse tells us to embrace His Son, the King Messiah. And the word to Israel is, "Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him" (verse 12).
It is neither natural nor ordinary for people to desire authority to guide or direct their lives. Each of us wants to be the captain of our own destiny and the master of our own soul. Each of us wants the right to determine what is right and wrong according to our tastes and what is acceptable to us. Each of us desires sovereignty over our own lives, but alas the wise man knows that he cannot be in charge and so he looks for the true authority to direct him. What is the true authority? In the Jewish community, the rabbis' guide in what may be called the "ultimate right and wrong," but they guide by consensus and their consensus changes with the times. Except when it comes to Jesus.
The rejection of Jesus was not based on a failure to fulfill prophecies. The rejection of Jesus is a reaction against His rejection of the misused authority of the priesthood and the self-righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees. He presented Himself as being the authority, as one might expect the Messiah would do. But the stewards of the Jewish religion of the day never considered His messiahship. There has never been an official Jewish response to Jesus; it has always been a reaction, the presumption that He couldn't possibly be the Messiah. Hence, all evidence was considered in that light and still is to this day.
What does that mean for us as Jewish believers in Y'shua? How does it affect our relationship with mainstream Judaism?
One of the components of true authority is power. When people appoint themselves or other people to positions of authority, they can only confer as much power as resides in them or their position. When God anoints someone, He fully empowers that person. Y'shua (Jesus) is His ultimate anointed one and as such He commands all of the Father's power and authority. And God anoints Jesus' disciples - you and me - with His Holy Spirit. The King of the Universe has appointed us to be His children, princes and princesses - not to be trifled with.
Who then is the authority of our day? The authority of our day continues to be in the Holy Scriptures, as interpreted by Spirit-led, Spirit-filled disciples (students or learners, rather than teachers). The one true authority, Messiah, imparts His Spirit, the Holy Spirit, for the empowerment and understanding of those who are about His Father's business.
THE ANTI-MISSIONARY'S CHARGE:
I do not understand why you would want to quote from Luke (Acts) who
He was just a person with an opinion.
HADAVAR'S RESPONSE
Let me paraphrase what I believe your objection is.
I understand you to be stating that the Book of Acts is either invalid and/or unreliable because
Let me respond first to objection number one that Luke was a Gentile.
Rather than being a Gentile, it is very likely that Luke was Jewish. Let me paste in a quick paragraph from the New Bible Dictionary.
LUKE. Among the companions of Paul who send their greetings in his letter to Colossae there appears 'Luke (Gk. Loukas) the beloved physician' (Col. 4:14); the way in which he is described suggests that he had given medical care to Paul, no doubt during the latter's imprisonment. In Phm. 24, probably written at the same time, he is described as a fellow-worker of Paul, which suggests that his help in the work of the gospel was not confined to his medical skill. There is a third reference to him in what appears to have been one of Paul's last messages: 'Luke alone is with me' (2 Tim. 4:11), and this confirms the close link between the two men. He is generally thought to have been a Gentile, but E. E. Ellis (pp. 51-53) has argued that Col. 4:11 refers to a particular group within the wider circle of Jewish Christians, and that consequently Luke may have been a Jewish Christian of the Dispersion.(Emphasis mine)
The reference in Colossians 4:11 could very well refer to Messianic Jews who became believers in Yeshua from among the Pharisees. This group felt that Gentiles could not be saved unless they were circumcised first-which is the whole debate in the book of Galatians. As a result they were called the "circumcision party." The circumcision party makes its first appearance in Acts 11:1-2:
Now the apostles and the brethren who were throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God. And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those who were circumcised took issue with him1
The reference to the "circumcised" cannot be Jewish Christians in general because they all were Jewish. Every single one of the men in this gathering were circumcised Jews, yet a distinction is made specifically identifying one group. Most likely the group that has been specifically identified are Jewish Christians from among the Pharisees. Jewish Christians from that mind set would be zealous for the Mosaic Law and Jewish traditions. This being the case is supported by Acts 15:5:
But some of the sect of the Pharisees who had believed stood up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to direct them to observe the Law of Moses."2
The Jewish Christians who are speaking here are specifically identified as formerly belonging to the Pharisees. Eventually, those Jewish Christians with this mindset became know as the circumcision party, as we see in Galatians 2:12:
For prior to the coming of certain men from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to withdraw and hold himself aloof, fearing the party of the circumcision.3
When Paul makes his statement in Colosians 4:10-11 he is probably referring to this group:
Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner, sends you his greetings; and also Barnabas's cousin Mark (about whom you received instructions; if he comes to you, welcome him); and also Jesus who is called Justus; these are the only fellow workers for the kingdom of God who are from the circumcision, and they have proved to be an encouragement to me.4
It is often assumed that Paul is referring to Messianic Jews only here. It is assumed he is stating that only three Jewish Christians were co workers with him. Since Luke is not part of this group it is assumed that he must be a Gentile. This seems unlikely because, at this time, the vast majority of believers in the Messiahship of Jesus were Jewish.
The more likely scenario is that there would be few co-workers from the Messianic Jews of Pharisaic background. The circumcision party opposed Paul's position on the Law of Moses and circumcision. To exclude Luke from this group would only indicate that he did not belong to the Pharisees. It is just as likely that Luke was a Diaspora Jew who came to faith under Paul's ministry. In addition, the Jewish community was "entrusted with the oracles of God," (Rom. 3:2). Since every other book of the New Testament was written by Jews it appears most likely that the Book of Acts would be entrusted to a Jew to write as well. I do not think we should assume that Luke was a Gentile and reject his work on that basis.
In reference to your comment that Luke was "never a disciple of Jesus. He was just a person with an opinion." I would have to disagree with you. I think Easton's Bible Dictionary has said it well (emphasis mine).
LUKE, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO - was written by Luke. He does not claim to have been an eye-witness of our Lord's ministry, but to have gone to the best sources of information within his reach, and to have written an orderly narrative of the facts (Luke 1:1-4).
You are quite correct, Luke was not a direct disciple of Yeshua. He was a disciple of Rabbi Shaul. However, he did careful research, which is his claim. The historical accuracy of his book is well substantiated today. The New Bible Dictionary summarizes the historical accuracy of his work:
The historical trustworthiness of Luke's account has been amply confirmed by archaeological discovery. While he has apologetic and theological interests, these do not detract from his detailed accuracy, although they control his selection and presentation of the facts. He sets his narrative in the framework of contemporary history; his pages are full of references to city magistrates, provincial governors, client kings and the like, and these references time after time prove to be just right for the place and time in question. With a minimum of words he conveys the true local colour of the widely differing cities mentioned in his story. And his description of Paul's voyage to Rome (27) remains to this day one of our most important documents on ancient seamanship.5
It seems to me that he is more than a guy spouting off his own opinion. Luke was a careful and accurate investigator whose work has stood the test of time and objective analysis. We can trust his account of the life of Jesus and of the early years of the Messianic Jews.
1 New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update. LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation
2 New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update. LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation
3 New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update. LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation
4 New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update. LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation
5 Wood, D. R. W., Wood, D. R. W., & Marshall, I. H. (1996, c1982, c1962). New Bible Dictionary. Includes index. (electronic ed. of 3rd ed.) (Page 11). Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.
THE ANTI-MISSIONARY'S CHARGE:
The concept of the Incarnation is offensive to man and degrading to God
HADAVAR'S RESPONSE:
GOD WITH US
Do you ever think about what it cost God to be with us?
We used to get what I'd call "serial crank calls" from a man who was beside himself at the thought of God coming to earth in the flesh. He would leave long messages asking us in various colorful ways if we really believed that God would put Himself in a position of having dirty diapers.
Many Jewish people are offended by the idea of an incarnate God because they mistakenly think it means that a person could become God. But our serial crank caller understood it better. And he was even more offended!
Is it zeal for God's holiness that causes some people to disbelieve the lengths God went to in order to rescue us? Maybe. Or maybe not.
Perhaps you've read a book called The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis. It is a fictional book that is full of facts. The "letters" are hypothetical communications from one demon to another. One thing that comes through over and over is the hellish disgust over God's love for humanity. At times, the demons seem almost embarrassed for God, that He would lower Himself to care for such squalid and pathetic creatures as us.
What Hell cannot understand—nor, for that matter can humanity, except by God's grace—is that God did not lower Himself by condescending to come to us in the flesh. He lifted us. Is it any wonder that angels desire to look into these things? (1 Peter 1:12)
God suffered the dirt and stench, not only of physical waste, but of proximity to spiritually rotting humanity. Have you ever wondered how He could stand the smell of sin breathing down His holy neck?
He came to have blistered and dirty feet, to be tempted and to put aside His own longing. He came to be rejected by people who were not worthy to set eyes on Him, let alone pass judgment.
This is the mystery that we will not fully understand until we see Him face to face—that our God endured for us. How can we comprehend the perfect One having to endure all the suffering He never deserved? Yet Jesus, God incarnate, endured everything that was beneath Him in order to lift us up to heaven.
To those who do not know Him, the Incarnation may seem like a ludicrous indignity. But through it all, God lost nothing. He used what some think is an indignity to bring dignity to our fallen race.
This love which demons mock and most humans cannot bring themselves to trust has the power to purify. When light touches darkness, the darkness becomes light. When God touches us, He does not become dirty but we become clean. When we trust His promises, He adopts us as His own.
Why are some so agitated by the love God has lavished upon us? Maybe because the only choice we are left with is to be embarrassed—or humbled—by His glorious unmitigated acts of grace on our behalf. Embarrassment is a denial of just how wonderful God is. Humility is the only right response to a God who has humbled Himself.
God grant us the humility to appreciate, truly and deeply, all that His Advent means.
Joyful, joyful we adore Him!
-Ruth Rosen, editor
THE ANTI-MISSIONARY'S CHARGE:
A common objection voiced by the anti-missionary runs along these lines:
I do not want to be associated with Christians who have persecuted Jews under the accusation that we are "Christ killers." Christians hate Jews and blame us, even today, for the death of Jesus.
HADAVAR'S RESPONSE:
In this study, I want to turn to a perennial issue that we face in Jewish outreach. The issue I want to explore is the accusation, "The Jews killed Christ." Speaking theologically, we call this the charge of "Deicide - The Murder of God." This charge blames the death of Yeshua (Jesus) solely, universally, and permanently on the Jewish people. In other words:
Do I need to say that many Jewish people reject the Gospel, even without hearing it, as a reaction to the charge that they alone are responsible and continue to be held responsible for the death of Yeshua? Unfortunately, the charge has been cultivated for centuries. This charge is still taught as biblical truth today. One statistic I came across indicates that 75% of conservative Protestants believe that the Jews are permanently guilty for killing Yeshua1. The result has been two fold:
Two theologians, Augustine and John Chrysostom, have had an indelible impact on theology. Augustine (354-340 AD) stated that the Jews were marked by God when they murdered Christ and so they cannot be destroyed. Their dispersion and misery serves as a witness against them regarding their evil act. John Chrysostom (344-407 AD) made these statements:
"[The Jews] are the perfidious murderers of Christ … The Jews are the odious assassins of Christ... It is incumbent upon all Christians to hate the Jews."
Even Martin Luther wrote the fervently anti-Semitic essay, "On the Jews and Their Lies." He blamed Jewish suffering on "their sin of crucifying Jesus."2 Some modern Bible teachers and pastors continue to champion this teaching. Is this charge biblical? Is your Jewish doctor, neighbor, relative, co-worker, etc., guilty of murdering your Savior?
I want to examine a number of lines of evidence, from the Bible, that expose this charge for what it is - a destructive error that has hindered Jewish outreach for 2,000 years. "Is every Jewish person personally and permanently responsible for the death of Yeshua?" The answer to the question is a simple and emphatic "Absolutely not!" If this is the answer to the question, then who is responsible for the death of the Son of God? Is there no consequence for the Jewish rejection of Yeshua?
What the Bible has to say about this issue has to be the foundation of our thinking. If it is not, then we will be ordering our lives on subjective human emotions or ideas that could be absolutely wrong and deceive us, with disastrous consequences, as history has revealed. As I develop this topic, I will discuss:
Let me begin discussing the seven parties involved by moving from a broad overview down to specifics.
THE FIRST PARTY: GOD
From the broadest perspective, the first party responsible is God Himself. This may come as a shock to some people. However, the Bible teaches that God is all-knowing and all-powerful. Nothing, absolutely nothing, catches Him by surprise. Nothing, absolutely nothing, has ever been, is now, or ever will be out of His control for a moment, from the largest galaxy in the heavens to the smallest sub-atomic particle.
Great is our Lord and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite-Psalm 147:5. (See also Isa. 40:28, 46:10 and Rom. 11:33-34)
Consistent with this Biblical teaching, we learn from Acts 2:23 that Yeshua was "delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God" and put to death. Furthermore, Acts 4:27 tells us that the death of the Messiah was "whatever Your (God's) hand and Your (God's) purpose predestined to occur." His death was planned by God from the beginning. For this reason, the sufferings of the Messiah could be predicted through the writings of the prophets. Yeshua affirmed the prediction factor when He stated, "...all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled-Luke 24:44." This included His suffering and death. (Also see Isa. 52:13-53:12 and Jn. 3:16) Thus, God bears responsibility for the death of Yeshua.
THE SECOND PARTY: SATAN
Party number two responsible for the death of Yeshua is Satan. The origin of sin and rebellion is found in the mind of God's most beautiful and intelligent creature. Satan is described in Ezekiel 28 with these magnificent words:
You had the seal of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. …You were the anointed cherub who covers,… You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created until unrighteousness was found in you.
The unrighteousness found in Satan is revealed in Isaiah 14:13-14:
But you said in your heart, "I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God, and I will sit on the mount of assembly in the recesses of the north. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High."
Satan desired a position greater than he already possessed. He wanted to rule the angels in place of Michael, the archangel. Satan wanted to rule Israel as the Messiah/King. He wanted the glory that belongs only to God, and finally, he wanted to usurp God Himself. Satan spread his nefarious selfishness to mankind in Genesis 3. There, God promised that he would be judged by the coming Messiah in Genesis 3:15:
He shall bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel.
From that point on, Satan knew that the only way to avoid God's judgment was to destroy the coming Messiah. This relentless and futile goal is revealed graphically in Revelation 12:4b:
And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she gave birth he might devour her child.
In context, the dragon is Satan, the woman is Israel, and the child is Yeshua. When Yeshua died, Satan thought he had succeeded in devouring the Messiah. However, all Satan did was fulfill the prophecy of Genesis 3:15 and insure his own condemnation.
THE THIRD PARTY: THE WORLD
Party number three responsible for the death of Yeshua is the World. I will let Scripture speak for itself since it is pretty clear.
John 7:7-The world cannot hate you; but it hates Me because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil.
John 15:18-If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you.
The evil world system, controlled by the prince of this world, stands in opposition to God, His Messiah, and those who are "in Messiah." As a result, the world persecuted Yeshua (Jn. 15:20). The highest form of that loathing, abuse, and cruelty was the murder of the Holy Son of God. However, Yeshua overcame and judged the world through His death on the cross (Jn. 12:31-33). Yeshua will execute judgment when He returns.
THE FOURTH PARTY: THE ROMANS
Party number four responsible for the death of Yeshua are the Romans. In Acts 2:23, Peter is rehearsing the death, burial, and resurrection of the Messiah. As he does, he holds the Roman government culpable. The Roman government and its representatives are grouped under the label "godless men." Acts 2:23 states:
This Man (Yeshua), delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.
In Acts 4:27, Peter makes the association very specific by naming the key officials involved. In addition, it becomes clear that the Romans represent the entire Gentile world at large. Acts 4:27 says:
For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel,...
Here we see the mystery of God's omniscience and man's free will. Acts 2:23 states that the death of Yeshua was the "predetermined plan" of God. God knew all about it. Because of his "foreknowledge" he was not taken by surprise. Moreover, at the same time, human beings are held accountable for their deliberate decisions, decisions that implemented the Divine plan. Both doctrines are taught in Scripture, and both doctrines must be equally affirmed. I think it is becoming apparent that the death of the Messiah is a very complex event in which the Jewish community cannot be made into the sole, convenient scapegoat.
THE FIFTH PARTY: THE JEWISH PEOPLE
Party number five responsible for the death of Yeshua is the Jewish people. It is true that the Jewish community must accept a share of the responsibility for Yeshua's death. In the Book of Acts, Chapter 2, Peter is addressing the "men of Israel" (v. 22). The audience is described as a "crowd" (v. 6) of "devout men from every nation under heaven" (v. 5). He tells this crowd of devout men that "you nailed (Yeshua) to the cross" (v. 23). The responsibility is not limited to the religious leadership alone. The burden of responsibility is also seen in Acts 4:27. There, while praying, the assembly of Jewish Christians state that "the peoples of Israel" were "gathered against your holy servant Jesus." Israel must accept a proper amount of fault in this heinous crime.
THE SIXTH PARTY: YESHUA
Party number six responsible for the death of Yeshua is, surprisingly to many people, Yeshua himself. In John 10:1-18, Yeshua identifies Himself as the "Good Shepherd" who "lays down His life for the sheep" (vv. 11 and 15). Moreover, this is totally under His control, power, and desire.
I lay down my life (crucifixion) that I might take it up again (resurrection).
I lay it down on my own initiative. I have authority to lay it down.
Yeshua takes upon Himself appropriate responsibility for the experience of the cross.
THE SEVENTH PARTY: YOU
Party number seven responsible for the death of Yeshua is you. You might not have ever thought of it in these terms. However, the Bible says that Yeshua died for your personal sins and my personal sins. Each one of us is personally responsible for what happened to our Savior. You and I have fallen short God's glory. You and I have transgressed. You and I were helplessly enslaved to sin. He died for us, in spite of the fact that you and I would put Him on that cross, because He loves us.
Romans 3:23 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
… for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God
Romans 4:25 (NASB)
He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.
Romans 5:6 (NASB)
For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.
Romans 5:8 (NASB)
But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
The reason I have spent the time going into this subject lies in the often repeated, anti-Semitic remark, "the Jews killed Christ." Anti-Semites have crippled Jewish outreach for centuries by hurling that partially true insult at Jewish people. It is inaccurate to hold the entire community responsible for an event that is far more profound and complex. Satan has effectively built a stout barrier in the Jewish mind using this accusation.
If you are witnessing to a Jewish friend, be sure you have done your homework when this issue comes up. Explain to them the true breadth of the issue and acknowledge your responsibility as well. Then explain the depth of the love of God, through Yeshua, for them. As we have seen, it is inaccurate and destructive to hold the entire Jewish community solely responsible for an event that is far more profound and complex.
THE CONSEQUENCES
However, there is another question that will come up and needs to be answered.
"If the Jews are not solely responsible for the death of Yeshua, then what is the consequence they experience for the part they played in the rejection of His Messiahship?"
The consequence that fell upon the Jewish community for the rejection of the Messiahship of Yeshua was the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD by the Romans. This judgment was precipitated by the religious leadership of Israel. They rejected the Messiahship of Yeshua claiming that He was demon-possessed (Matt. 12:24). They blasphemed the Holy Spirit and brought upon the nation a judgment that was unpardonable (Matt. 12:31).
The judgment is stated to be unpardonable because it would not be rescinded or alleviated. This brings me to the definition of the "unpardonable sin" that is derived from the context of Matthew 12. The proper definition, concisely stated by Dr. Fruchtenbaum of Ariel Ministries, and derived from the context of the chapter is this:
The unpardonable sin is the denial of Yeshua's Messiahship while He was physically present on this earth on the grounds that He was demon-possessed.
What exactly is the judgment that will not be rescinded or alleviated? For the answer, we need to go to the triumphal entry of Luke 19:37-44. As Yeshua begins His Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem, the multitudes greet Him joyfully with the traditional Messianic greeting of Psalm 118:26 saying, "BLESSED IS THE KING WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD." The multitudes are hailing Him as the Messiah. If there ever was an appropriate time to rescind the judgment associated with rejecting Him, it is now. However, instead of canceling the punishment, Yeshua pronounces words of judgment (Lk. 19:41-44). The city of Jerusalem is doomed in spite of the cries of acclamation; the judgment was unpardonable, it could not be alleviated. Yeshua makes the same statement in Matthew 23:37-39 stating that the city and the Temple (your house) are destined for destruction.
In summary, let me make two assertions:
Please do not tell a Jewish person that the sufferings we have experienced over the last 2,000 years (especially the Holocaust) are a result of the rejection of Yeshua. The sufferings we have experienced for the last 2000 years have another source.
THE SOURCE OF JEWISH SUFFERING
The last question now needs answering. "If the source of Jewish suffering is not the rejection of the Messiahship of Jesus, then what is the reason for 2,000 years of persecution and dispersion?"
The answer to that question is straightforward. The Jewish community is experiencing the curses of the Mosaic Covenant. Let me explain. The first covenant God entered into with the Jewish people is the unconditional and eternal Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 12:1-3, 7, 13:14 17, 15, 17). Some 430 years later (Gal. 3:17), God added the Mosaic Covenant, a temporary and conditional covenant, to Israel's responsibilities. Chapter 26 of Leviticus and Chapter 28 of Deuteronomy are the sections that contain the blessings and cursing of the covenant. Experiencing the blessings of the covenant will be the result of walking in faith with God. However, if Israel does not walk in faith, then discipline is promised.
It is a discipline that gets more and more severe as her unfaithfulness continues. The promised discipline begins with poverty and grows gradually more rigorous with the addition of disease, drought, defeat, cannibalism, and oppression. Finally, the harshest chastisement will be experienced-worldwide dispersion (Deut. 28:64-68 and Lev. 26:33-39). In that worldwide dispersion, Israel would become the most despised nation on earth. Israel would be talked about and ridiculed by her captors. The following verses from Deuteronomy 28: 64-66 accurately predicts Jewish suffering during the last 20 centuries:
Moreover, the LORD will scatter you among all peoples, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth; and there you shall serve other gods, wood and stone, which you or your fathers have not known. And among those nations you shall find no rest, and there shall be no resting place for the sole of your foot; but there the LORD will give you a trembling heart, failing of eyes, and despair of soul. So your life shall hang in doubt before you; and you shall be in dread night and day, and shall have no assurance of your life. (Also see Lev. 26:31-39)
Unfortunately, the Jewish people continue to live in unfaithfulness and disobedience today with ninety percent being atheist or agnostic. Nine percent of the Jewish community sincerely follows the religion of Rabbinic Judaism, which is a man-made religion that rejected the Messiahship of Yeshua. Less than one percent of the Jewish community, worldwide, trusts in Yeshua.
In summary: The worldwide Jewish community is living under the stipulations of the Mosaic Covenant and in unbelief. The result is the current experience of worldwide dispersion and discipline that has been the Jewish experience for the last 2,000 years.
HOW TO USE THIS INFORMATION
I have shared all this with you to help you witness to your Jewish friends. The point of answering this current question is to help you communicate to your Jewish friends that Yeshua is NOT the source of suffering. Rather, communicate to your Jewish friends that Yeshua is the source of salvation. He is the way out of this cycle of disbelief, disobedience, and suffering in which we find ourselves ensnared. He offers to Israel spiritual salvation from sin, and He also offers physical salvation from the curses of the Mosaic Covenant. Most importantly, His offer of salvation is effective today for the individual.
Joel 2:32 says: "...everyone who calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved." If this issue comes up between you and your Jewish friend, disavow any support for the charge of "Deicide." Acknowledge that some Christians have, and do, teach that error but that your church does not and neither do you. Go on to explain that the death of the Messiah is a profound and complex issue that cannot be reduced to a simplistic accusation. If they are open, take them on a short Bible study (the article above) and show them what the New Testament actually states. Let the Word of God, the truth, and your love do its work in his or her heart.
1Rydelnik, Michael, "The Chosen People," April 1987, p.6
2Ibid
THE ANTI-MISSIONARY'S CHARGE:
A common objection voiced by the anti-missionary runs along these lines:
The gospel writers do address the prophecy about dividing the garments and casting lots, but if the "pierced my hands and feet" was truly in the Septuagint, why would the gospel writers fail to include the prophecy that is vastly more evident and more specific?
HADAVAR'S RESPONSE:
No one can answer the question regarding why or why not the Gospel writers included or excluded material from the New Testament. That is a totally inappropriate question to ask. That question can only be asked to the Gospel author. We cannot know why God moved them to select the material they selected. We know that the Gospel writers were deliberately selective, but we are not told why they made their selections. We get a little taste of their decision making in the books of John and Luke.
John 20:30
Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.
John 21:25
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books which were written.
Luke 1:1
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word have handed them down to us, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you might know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.
In his classic work The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Dr. Alfred Edersheim lists 456 passages from the Hebrew Scriptures that the rabbis referred to as Messianic or said referred to Messianic times (Appendix 9). All the "classic" Messianic references are listed there and a whole lot more. We could just as easily ask why the Gospel writers did not use all of those references as well. No one can answer that question either, even though we know that there is a massive amount of material available to be used.
On the human plane, we know that scrolls were only so long. Luke's two works, for example, fills the longest scrolls available in the day. So, they had to edit because they had limited room or because they did not want their account to become to unwieldy. Any good author makes those kinds of decisions.
We know all this, but why chose this reference over that one - only the author and God know the answer to that question. The point is not to focus in on what we cannot know. The anti-missionary is trying to direct our attention away from what we do know. If we stick with Scripture, we will receive a more than satisfactory answer to all our questions. The rabbis know that and so they use other tactics to throw us off course and cause doubt. They use shame, intimidation, scorn, arguments from silence, straw-man arguments, etc., anything to divert attention away from the text itself.
That is what is happening here. This is a diversionary question. Stick with the text and do not allow yourself to be diverted to confusing rabbit trails such as this question that no one except the author himself can answer.
A second aspect of the answer lies in the fact that there were no chapter and verse divisions in use in those days. In the first century you referred to a section of Scripture by quoting a passage from it. You had no precise chapter and verse notations to use. As recorded in Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus is directing the reader to Psalm 22 when he quotes Psalm 22:1 upon the cross. The first-century reader would know that he is being directed to the entire psalm. He would understand that he should read and study the Psalm in its entirety to try and ascertain the impact and importance. He would understand that he is not to read only verse one and stop there. If the first century reader did that, as would be expected, then he would have read verse 16, and a lot more verses as well. Psalm 22 contains a lot of Messianic data. So, it is very possible that Jesus, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, were all directing the first century reader (and us, some 21 centuries later) to read the entire psalm. This would be the normal expectation in the first century.
Today we tend to chop the Scripture up into out of context bits and pieces. Sometimes this is due, unfortunately, to the traditional chapter and verse breakdowns. Since we do not have a Scripture verse where Jesus states, "Oh by the way, please read the entire Psalm when I quote the first verse," we cannot be dogmatic in this assertion. However, the likelihood is that this is His intent.
Thirdly, what do the rabbis say about Psalm 22? Let me paste in Dr. Edersheim's comments.
On Ps. 22:7 (8 in the Hebrew) a remarkable comment appears in Yalkut on Is. 60, applying this passage to the Messiah (the second, or son of Ephraim), and using almost the same words in which the Evangelists describe the mocking behaviour of the Jews at the Cross-Ps. 22:15 (16 in the Hebrew). There is a similarly remarkable application to the Messiah of this verse in Yalkut.1
Dr. Edersheim shows us that the Rabbis themselves saw this as a Messianic psalm which is quite in keeping with its use in the New Testament. Jesus was directing us to a psalm that was interpreted as Messianic by the Jewish community.
Finally, the question seems to doubt that Psalm 22 is in the Septuagint. Let me assure you it is most certainly there and translated by Jewish rabbis 200 years before Jesus ever came on the scene.
1 Edersheim, A. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (electronic ed.)
THE ANTI-MISSIONARY'S CHARGE:
A common objection voiced by the anti-missionary runs along these lines:
Jesus cannot be the Messiah because his genealogy is stated to be through Matthew. Matthew's line is cursed by the Jeconiah curse in Matthew 1:11-12.
HADAVAR'S RESPONSE:
Yes, many commentators have overlooked the Jeconiah curse. Yeshua cannot be the Messiah/King if he is descended from Jeconiah.
Matthew is actually trying to prove that Yeshua is not, I repeat not, the son of Joseph. He is God's son, not Joseph's. No cursed blood of Joseph runs through Yeshua's veins. Therefore, if He was a descendent of Joseph He could not be king.
Most commentators state that Matthew was trying to prove Yeshua's right to the throne when, I believe, the exact opposite is true. Most commentators who recognize the Jeconiah curse say that Yeshua was Joseph's adopted son and therefore avoided the Jeconiah curse through adoption. They say Yeshua has a legal right to the throne through adoption. That does not hold water either because legal adoption was not a Jewish practice in the first century.
Encyclopedia Judaica has a revealing article on the concept of adoption in the Jewish community:
Encyclopaedia Judaica: CD Rom Edition-Adoption
The evidence for adoption in the Bible is so equivocal (vague) that some have denied it was practiced in the biblical period.
The evidence for adoption in the pre-Exilic period is … meager. The possibility that adoption was practiced in this period cannot be excluded, especially since contemporary legal documents are lacking. Nevertheless, it seems that if adoption played any role at all in Israelite family institutions, it was an insignificant one.
For the post-Exilic period in (Israel) there is no reliable evidence for adoption at all.
Later Jewish Law
Adoption is not known as a legal institution in Jewish law. According to halakhah, the personal status of parent and child is based on the natural family relationship only and there is no recognized way of creating this status artificially by a legal act or fiction. However, Jewish law does provide for consequences essentially similar to those caused by adoption to be created by legal means.
These consequences are the right and obligation of a person to assume responsibility for (a) a child's physical and mental welfare and (b) his financial position, including matters of inheritance and maintenance.
The impact of this information is the fact that Joseph could have easily assumed responsibility for Yeshua. Joseph was legally able to provide for Yeshua and oversee His physical, mental, and financial welfare. However, that would not have qualified Yeshua for the throne of David through Joseph. Matthew is proving the Yeshua was not Joseph's son. Adoption should not be used to validate Yeshua's kingship. However, Yeshua, like everyone has two genealogies. The fact of two genealogies, one for Mary and one for Joseph, is seen through a number of factors.
There are two sources for the genealogies. Luke traces the line through Nathan (Lk. 3:21) and Matthew through Solomon (Matt. 1:6). One source is for Mary and one source is for Joseph.
The lines are very different, listing different names. There are some names that are the same, Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. However, Luke's Shealtiel and Zerubbabel are different persons from Matthew's Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. This is evident because the progenitors and descendents of Shealtiel and Zerubbabel are different. The progenitors are Jeconiah in Matthew and Neri in Luke. The descendents are Abihud in Matthew and Rhesa in Luke. Common names in the same sequence, especially if it is the shortest possible sequence (two) does not mean that these are the same people.
Luke 3:23 is correcting a common error. Some people, in error, thought that Yeshua was Joseph's son. Therefore, Luke corrects the error by carefully stating in the Greek text that Yeshua "as was supposed, the son of Joseph." Another legitimate rendering would be "as it was being thought, the son of Joseph." Either rendering into English is grammatically justified. Luke is stating that Yeshua was the son of Eli in Luke 3:23.
Who is Eli? He is Mary's father. Why does Luke call Mary's father the progenitor? Because Luke is following strict Jewish tradition not to mention women in a genealogy. Not one woman is mentioned by Luke, in contrast to Matthew.
Here is Luke's problem. Luke cannot state that Joseph is Yeshua's father; he has to correct that error (and does). In addition, Luke cannot mention Mary because she is a woman. His solution follows Jewish tradition. He names Mary's father. We have an example of this in Ezra 2:61 and Nehemiah 7:63. Therefore, Luke qualifies Joseph's name to make sure the reader of the Greek text understands that Joseph is not Yeshua's father. Luke is tracing Mary's lineage, which goes back to David through Nathan.
Let us take on Matthew now. Matthew also qualifies Joseph's name. Matthew tells us that Joseph was the husband of Mary. He does not say the Joseph was the father of Yeshua. Then he says, "by whom Jesus was born." The phrase "by whom" is feminine in the Greek and therefore must refer to a woman and not a man. Matthew is referring to Mary. Yeshua was born of Mary not Joseph. "By whom" means Mary, not Joseph.
That is very clear in Greek, but not in English. So Joseph's name is highly qualified as well. Matthew is tracing Joseph's genealogy. He is doing this to show that Joseph was not Yeshua's father.
This is exactly the opposite that most Gentile Christian commentators teach. Unfortunately, most Gentile Christian commentators are not able to view Matthew's genealogy through Jewish eyes.
Okay, what about tracing the lineage back to Solomon rather than Nathan?
If the Messiah's genealogy has to go back through Solomon then both the Jewish and Christian communities have to deal with a cursed line. The anti-missionary too has to solve the problem of the Jeconiah curse when he insists that Jewish tradition states the Messiah must be a descendent of David through Solomon. However, a turn-about does not solve the problem for us. Reflecting the problem back to the source does not answer the question. So how does the line that seems to be promised through Solomon go through Nathan instead?
I believe the solution to the problem is really quite simple. To find it you need to look at all the statements that are related to the Davidic Covenant. Key statements that are usually not mentioned are 1 Chronicles 22:6-13 and 1 Chronicles 28:7.
1 Chronicles 22:6-13 gives us David's understanding of the Davidic Covenant. David is reviewing the promise God made to him and charging Solomon to build the temple in verses 6-12.
In verse 13 David says this to Solomon:
Then you will prosper, if you are careful to observe the statutes and the ordinances which the LORD commanded Moses concerning Israel. Be strong and courageous, do not fear nor be dismayed.
His statement to Solomon is conditional, "Then you will prosper, if …" We need to ask ourselves, "Did Solomon obey the Mosaic Law carefully?" The answer comes in 1 Kings 11:9:
Now the LORD was angry with Solomon because his heart was turned away from the LORD, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice.
Solomon failed to diligently follow the Lord and was disciplined. In 1 Chronicles 28 David is again explaining his understanding of the Davidic Covenant. His crucial statement is found in verse 7. David is quoting God.
God says,
I will establish his kingdom forever if he resolutely performs My commandments and My ordinances, as is done now.
Note, again the conditional element concerning Solomon, "I will establish … if …" It appears to me that David understands the David Covenant to be conditional in regard to Solomon. Did Solomon resolutely perform the Mosaic Law?
No. - 1 Kings 11:9.
Finally, in 1 Kings 9:3 we have God's promise and warning to Solomon. Here are verses 4-7 with my emphases added.
God is talking to Solomon:
As for you, if you will walk before Me as your father David walked, in integrity of heart and uprightness, doing according to all that I have commanded you and will keep My statutes and My ordinances, then I will establish the throne of your kingdom over Israel forever, just as I promised to your father David, saying, "You shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel." But if you or your sons indeed turn away from following Me, and do not keep My commandments and My statutes which I have set before you, and go and serve other gods and worship them, then I will cut off Israel from the land which I have given them, and the house which I have consecrated for My name, I will cast out of My sight. So Israel will become a proverb and a byword among all peoples.
Notice God's assessment of the Davidic Covenant. Please allow me to paraphrase:
Solomon if you walk before me properly, then I will establish YOUR kingdom forever as I promised David, but if you or your sons don't, then I will pour out judgment.
Let me put it another way,
Solomon, if you walk before me properly, then the Davidic promise, the Davidic Covenant, will be fulfilled through your line, if not then the Davidic Covenant will not be fulfilled through you.
We already know that Solomon failed to follow the Mosaic Covenant properly (1 Kings 11:9), but did any other son fail as well? A number of them failed to follow the Mosaic Covenant. Following Solomon there were 20 kings of Judah. 13 of them were bad kings, and only seven were godly. Jeconiah, the 19th king, was one of the worst. He was so bad that God pronounced the Jeconiah curse on him.
From 1 Kings 9, I would say, once again, that the Davidic Covenant is unconditional in regard to David. However, it is conditional concerning Solomon and his descendents. God will fulfill His promise to David of an eternal house, throne, and kingdom but it will only come through Solomon's line if Solomon's line is worthy. Solomon's line was not worthy and was cut off conclusively with the Jeconiah curse.
If I am correct in this assessment, to which descendent was the line transferred? Nothing is stated in Tanakh. The solution comes in the Brit Chadashah. We see in Luke's genealogy that the line was transferred to Nathan (Lk. 3:21). No conditional element rests on Nathan and his descendents. The result is that God fulfills His unconditional, eternal promise to David, through Nathan and eventually to Yeshua. Yeshua is not adopted by Joseph. There is no need to postulate that possibility. Yeshua has the legal right to the Davidic throne through Mary's genealogy. No cursed descendent stands as an obstacle to His Kingship through Nathan.
THE ANTI-MISSIONARY'S CHARGE:
Jesus could not have been pure (thus sinless) because He touched leprous and unclean dead bodies. In touching the leper He became impure under the Mosaic Law, therefore He did not perfectly keep the Mosaic Law and cannot be the Messiah.
HADAVAR'S RESPONSE:
The fact that Yeshua touched a leper - an unclean body - does not disqualify Him from Messiahship. This is especially true in light of the rabbinic doctrine concerning the "Leper Messiah," taken from Isaiah 53. Contact with "leprosy" was a requirement for being the Messiah, an authenticating qualification, rather than a disqualification. According to Raphael Patai (The Messiah Texts, page 17) the name of the Messiah connected to Isaiah 53:4 is "The Leprous of the House of Study."
The Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 98b, in reference to Isaiah 53:4 states:
What is his [the Messiah's] name?-"The School of R. Shila said: His name is Shiloh, for it is written, until Shiloh come. The School of R. Yannai said: His name is Yinnon, for it is written, His name shall endure forever: e'er the sun was, his name is Yinnon. The School of R. Haninah maintained: His name is Haninah, as it is written, Where I will not give you Haninah. Others say: His name is Menahem the son of Hezekiah, for it is written, Because Menahem ['the comforter'], that would relieve my soul, is far. The Rabbis said: His name is 'the leper scholar,' as it is written, Surely he hath born our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted."1
In addition, see Rafael Patai's The Messiah Texts (page 31), and the story of the Baal Shem Tov and the Leper Messiah.
[One Friday afternoon a young Talmudic scholar was riding with the Ba'al Shem in a cart across the open field, when] all of a sudden he espied a village in the distance, and he was filled with joy, for he thought that they would surely spend the Sabbath there, and not out in the open. And in that very moment they entered the village, and, behold, the horse went on of its own through the village and did not stop at any house. The youth became saddened by this, for [it seemed that] they would, after all, not spend the Sabbath in the village. But when the horse reached the end of the village, it stopped in front of a ruin. The youth thought that they would spend the Sabbath in that ruin and became filled with joy, for it was better than being in the field. And the Ba'al Shem entered the ruin, and the youth went after him. And, behold, in the ruined house lived an old man, a leper; from head to foot there was no hale spot in his body, he was so full of wounds and boils. And his wife and children walked about in torn and tattered garments. And when the Ba'al Shem opened the door, the old man became filled with joy, and ran up to the Ba'al Shem, and said to him, "Peace be unto you, my Master and Teacher!" And he who saw not their joy has never seen joy in his life. And they went into a separate room, and talked there about half an hour. And then they took permission from each other, and parted from each other in fierce love, like the love of David and Jonathan. And then the Ba'al Shem took his seat in the cart, and the horse trotted along on its own…
[On the way back home the youth asked the Ba'al Shem: "What was the meaning of] the joy which the encounter with the old leper caused to both of you?..." And the Ba'al Shem said to him: "…As for what happened between me and the old man in the village, as it is known, there is a Messiah in every generation in This World, in reality, clothed in a body. And if the generation is worthy, he is ready to reveal himself; and if, God forbid, they are not worthy, he departs. And behold, that old man was ready to be our True Messiah, and it was his desire to enjoy my company on the Sabbath. But I foresaw that he would depart at the Third Meal [which is taken at the outgoing of the Sabbath], and I did not want to endure any pain on the Sabbath [and therefore I took my leave from him before the arrival of the Sabbath]."
(Kadaner, Sefer Sippurim Noraim, pp. 9a-b, 10b)
In this story the Messianic candidate is a leper. Again, contact with leprosy is a qualification for Messiahship not a disqualification. Patai refers to the Leper Messiah again on page 24:
Still later, Hasidic lore found the Messiah in unknown and hidden saints; among them is the Leper Messiah, to whom reference is made in the Talmud (see chapter 2) and whom the Ba'al Shem Tov is reported to have encountered 1500 years later.
In addition, in the Bible, there is no record of a genuine leper being healed by man. A number of lepers are healed: Moses (Ex. 4:6-7), Miriam (Nu. 12:10-15), and Naaman (2 Ki. 5:1-19), but they are all healed by the direct hand of God. Yeshua touched a leper, but it was the act of healing (Matt. 8:1-3, Mk. 1:40-42, Lk. 5:12-13) not of defilement.
Apparently He healed lepers without touch as well (Matt. 11:4-5; Lk. 17:12-19).
The implication of these healing acts, since there is no record of a leper being healed by man (2 Ki. 5:7), and since there is no Biblical record of treatment or remedy, is that Yeshua is God in a human body. There is no disqualification from the office of Messiahship here.
In his book The Rabbinic Messiah, Rev. Tom Huckel brings to light another rabbinic teaching that associates the cleansing of leprosy with the Messiah:
Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 97a to Leviticus 13:13.
It has been taught, R. Nehemiah said: In the generation of Messiah's coming impudence will increase, esteem be perverted, the vine yield its fruit, yet shall wine be dear, and the Kingdom will be converted to heresy with none to rebuke them. This supports R. Isaac, who said: The son of David will not come until the whole world is converted to the belief of the heretics. Raba said: What verse [proves this]? It is all turned white: he is clean.
The footnote in the Talmud explains the rabbinic idea and reads:
Lev. XIII, 13. This refers to leprosy: a white swelling is a symptom of uncleanness; nevertheless, if the whole skin is so affected, is it declared clean. So here too; when all are heretics, it is a sign that the world is about to be purified by the advent of Messiah.
Once again purification from leprosy, both spiritual and physical, is associated with the coming of the Messiah.
And again in relation to Psalm 95:7:
Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 98a to Psalm 95:7.
R. Joshua b. Levi met Elijah standing by the entrance of R. Simeon b. Yohai's tomb. He asked him: 'Have I a portion in the world to come?' He replied, 'If this Master desires it.' R. Joshua b. Levi said, 'I saw two, but heard the voice of a third. He then asked him. 'When will the Messiah come?'-Go and ask him himself,' was his reply. 'Where is he sitting?'-'At the entrance.' And by what sign may I recognize him?'-'He is sitting among the poor lepers: all of them untie [them] all at once, and rebandage them together. whereas he unties and rebandages each separately, [before treating the next], thinking, should I be wanted, [it being time for my appearance as the Messiah] I must not be delayed [through having to bandage a number of sores].' … 'This is what he said to thee, To-day, if ye will hear his voice.'2
Here the Messiah sits among the lepers waiting for his advent to Israel.
Conclusion, association with leprosy and the healing of leprosy is a qualification for Messiahship, not a disqualification.
1Huckel, T. (1998). The Rabbinic Messiah (Is 53:4). Philadelphia: Hananeel House.
2Huckel, T. (1998). The Rabbinic Messiah (Ps 95:7). Philadelphia: Hananeel House.
THE ANTI-MISSIONARY'S CHARGE:
Acts 7:16 contains two blatant errors proving that the New Testament is not from God.
HADAVAR'S RESPONSE:
The objection in question centers around an apparent discrepancy between what Stephen states in Acts 7:16 and what the books of Genesis and Joshua state. The statement Stephen makes in Acts 7:16 is as follows:
Acts 7:16 (NASB95)
“From there they were removed to Shechem and laid in the tomb which Abraham had purchased for a sum of money from the sons of Hamor in Shechem."
In Acts 7:16 Stephen states that after Jacob and Joseph died they were carried to Shechem and laid in the tomb that Abraham bought from the sons of Hamor in Shechem. That statement contains two apparent problems: first, the burial cave, according to Genesis, was in Hebron, not in Shechem (Gen. 23:16-20). While Joseph was buried in Shechem, Jacob was buried in Hebron. Second, Abraham bought the cave from the Hittites (Gen. 23:10), and it was Jacob who bought the field from Hamor (Gen. 33:18-20).
The objection could be stated this way. If the New Testament can't get the facts of the Bible correct how can it be trusted? If this is the case how can you claim a fallible book is reliable?
NEW TESTAMENT INTEGRITY
The apparent "discrepancy" is resolved in two possible ways. One solution is to remember that what is recorded here is what Stephen actually said to the Sanhedrin. Luke, or Acts, or the New Testament does not affirm the truth of what Stephen said. It only affirms the fact that Stephen really did say it. In this speech, under pressure, Stephen may have made some factual mistakes. However, in this suggested resolution, Luke did record accurately and honestly what Stephen said.
This solution is in accord with the principle of New Testament inerrancy because Luke recorded even the mistakes of Stephen without correcting them. If he had "corrected" Stephen's statement he would be playing around with what actually happened. A "correction" by Luke would completely violate New Testament inerrancy and integrity by manipulating what Stephen truly said.
This proposed resolution is in accord with other errors recorded in Scripture. Scripture often records error without affirming it. Scripture simply records honestly and accurately the fact that the error is stated. For example, Psalms 14:1 and 53:1 record the gross error of the ungodly:
Psalm 14:1, 53:1 (NASB95)
The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”
The Bible does not affirm that the statement, "There is no God." is true. The Bible simply affirms that the wicked really believe that particular error. Note a few more examples;
Ezekiel 8:12 (NASB95)
Then He said to me, "Son of man, do you see what the elders of the house of Israel are committing in the dark, each man in the room of his carved images? For they say, ‘The Lord does not see us; the Lord has forsaken the land.'"
Genesis 3:4-5 (NASB95)
The serpent said to the woman, “You surely will not die! “For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
Genesis 4:9 (NASB95)
Then the Lord said to Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?” And he said, “I do not know. Am I my brother’s keeper?”
Genesis 18:15 (NASB95)
Sarah denied it however, saying, “I did not laugh”; for she was afraid. And He said, “No, but you did laugh.”
Genesis 26:7-10 (NASB95)
When the men of the place asked about his wife, he said, "She is my sister," for he was afraid to say, "my wife," thinking, "the men of the place might kill me on account of Rebekah, for she is beautiful." It came about, when he had been there a long time, that Abimelech king of the Philistines looked out through a window, and saw, and behold, Isaac was caressing his wife Rebekah. Then Abimelech called Isaac and said, "Behold, certainly she is your wife! How then did you say, 'She is my sister'?" And Isaac said to him, "Because I said, 'I might die on account of her.'" Abimelech said, "What is this you have done to us? One of the people might easily have lain with your wife, and you would have brought guilt upon us."
All these examples contain statements of absolute error and untruth. However, they are accurately recorded in the Bible because they were actually stated, not because they are true. The inerrancy of the Bible is upheld in these examples and in Stephen's statement because the Tenach and Brit Chadasha accurately record what really went on, even to the embarrassment of our revered patriarchs and matriarchs.
This, therefore, is one solution to Acts 7:16. Stephen, in a pressure-cooker situation made some factual errors. However, the New Testament, in line with Biblical inerrancy and integrity, recorded his mistakes accurately because he truly made them. Therefore, the New Testament is trustworthy, just like Tenach is, because even embarrassing errors on the part of godly people are publicly, transparently, and honestly recorded.
SUMMATION
A second way of solving the problem is to point out that sometimes events are summarized in Scripture. Here, the two transactions and the two burials are being summarized.
This resolution fits the context quite naturally and consistently. The context is a pressure-cooker defense before the Sanhedrin on charges of blasphemy (Acts 6-7). Because Stephen is caught in a demanding situation, he did not have a lot of time. So, the transaction of Abraham with the Hittites, and the transaction of Jacob with Hamor of Shechem are telescoped together--summarized. Also, the two burials are summarized, for the same reason: the burial of Jacob in Hebron; and, the burial of Joseph in Shechem. This is similar to earlier in this speech where the two calls of Abraham were summarized (Acts 7:4). Stephen simply telescoped them together for efficiency's sake.
A worthwhile comment comes from Hard Sayings of the Bible, page 522:
What we have to remember is that in speeches like these the speaker does not intend to give a history lesson. Before he started, he would know good and well that his audience knew the history as well as he did, if not better. What he is trying to do is to make a point from that history. Therefore, he can streamline it to fit his purposes.
John Gill in in his Exposition of the Entire Bible adds some cogent thoughts along the same lines:
...what best seems to remove the difficulty is, that the words refer to both places and purchases; to the field of Machpelah bought by Abraham, and to the parcel of field is Sichem bought by Jacob, of the sons of Emmor; for the words with the repetition of the phrase, "in the sepulchre", may be read thus; "and were laid in the sepulchre, that Abraham bought for a sum of money", and in the sepulchre (bought by Jacob) "of the sons of Emmor", the father of Sichem; or the words may be rendered thus, "they were carried over into Sichem, and laid in the sepulchre which Abraham bought for a sum of money, besides" that "of the sons of Emmor", the father "of Sichem"; namely, which Jacob bought, and in which Joseph was laid, Gen 33:19. And this agrees with Stephen's account and design, in the preceding verse; he observes, that Jacob died in Egypt, and all the twelve patriarchs; and here he tells us how they were disposed of, and where they were buried, both Jacob and his sons; they were removed from Egypt, and brought into the land of Canaan; Jacob, he was laid in the cave of Machpelah, in the sepulchre Abraham bought of the children of Heth; and Joseph and his brethren, they were laid in the sepulchre at Sichem, which Jacob bought of the sons of Emmor: ...
In this resolution the integrity and reliability of the New Testament are not compromised because the point Stephen is making is true. To criticize the rhetorical device he uses to make his point (summation) is simply invalid fault-finding and quibbling.
RABBINIC RESOLUTION OF "DISCREPANCIES"
Actually, what we have done here is no different than what the rabbis go through when they resolve apparent discrepancies in the Biblical text. For example, let me share one small example that comes directly out of this historical event. In Joshua 24:32 we read this statement:
Joshua 24:32 (Tenach):
The bones of Joseph, which the Israelites had brought up from Egypt, were buried at Shechem, in the piece of ground which Jacob had bought for a hundred kesitahs from the children of Hamor, Shechem’s father, and which had become a heritage of the Josephites.
In the Artscroll Tenach Series Commentary, a discrepancy is noted and resolved (Yehoshua, pages 469-470):
The verse in Exodus (13:19) specifically states that it was Moses - not the children of Israel — who brought Joseph's bones from Egypt. Radak explains that although Moses issued the command to transport Joseph's body, it was the Israelites who actually fulfilled the act.
The Talmud (Sotah 13b) derives a general principle from the disparity between the two verses. If one person begins a mitzvah and another completes it, the second person is credited with its performance. Although Moses originally brought Joseph's bones from Egypt, he was unable to enter Eretz Yisrael. Thus, our verse credits the Israelites, who competed Moses' task by transporting Joseph's bones into Eretz Yisrael, with the entire mitzvah.
The same discrepancy and resolution is noted in the Soncino Books of the Bible: Joshua and Judges (page 151). Since apparent "discrepancies" such as these noted in Joshua 24:32 and Acts 7:16 exist and can be resolved with reasonable explanations we have no grounds to criticize or doubt Tenach or Brit Chadasha. The Brit Chadasha as well as Tenach can be trusted as the Word of God.
THE ANTI-MISSIONARY'S CHARGE:
A Jew who believes in Jesus is no longer a Jew.
HADAVAR'S RESPONSE:
"Who is a Jew?" is the recurrent question in the Jewish community. We are sure we are Jewish but we do not know why. The confusion comes from non-Biblical additions the rabbis have introduced into the definition. Why is a clear understanding important? A precise definition of "Who is a Jew?" is important because the number one (usually unspoken) reason we will hesitate to accept the Gospel is the thought, "I do not want to stop being Jewish. If I believe in Jesus, I will become a Gentile."
The number one obstacle to salvation is emotional, not biblical, or theological. If a Jewish person can get past this barrier, the rest will more easily fall into place. What is the biblical definition of "Who is a Jew?" When you study the Bible, you discover that God entered into an unconditional, eternal, covenant relationship with Abraham (Gen. 12, 13, 15, 17). The Abrahamic Covenant was passed on to Isaac rather than Ishmael (Gen. 17:19-21, 26:2-5, 24), Jacob rather than Esau (Gen. 28:13-15), and then to all 12 tribes (Gen. 49). From this information, the definition is easy to derive. According to the Bible, a Jewish person is a descendant of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Descent is primarily counted through the father as seen in the Bible's genealogical lists. However, it also can be counted through the mother as seen in Ezra 10:2-3, in the life of Yeshua (Matt. 1:18, Lk. 1:35), and in the life of Timothy (Ac. 16:1-3).
A Jewish person is a member of a very large, extended family. Please note carefully that theological belief cannot alter this relationship. No matter what you believe, you cannot lose your Jewishness. In the Bible, Israel often wandered after idol worship and false "gods." Did God ever say, in the Bible, "You are no longer Jewish?" No. Rather, He said, "I will discipline you" (Deut. 29:26-28). If you are born a Jew, you will die a Jew, no matter what you believe. Jewishness cannot be lost. The rabbis know this truth. However they tend to withhold this information from Jewish people who are considering the Messiahship of Yeshua. Here is the way the rabbis state the issue in the Talmud:
Israel hath sinned. R. Abba b. Zabda said: Even though [the people] have sinned, they are still [called] 'Israel'. R. Abba said: Thus people say, A myrtle, though it stands among reeds, is still a myrtle, and it is so called.
Encyclopedia Judaica explains the idea in the article "Apostasy."
In Jewish religious law, it is technically impossible for a Jew (born to a Jewish mother or properly converted to Judaism) to change his religion. Even though a Jew undergoes the rites of admission to another religious faith and formally renounces the Jewish religion he remains -as far as the halakhah is concerned-a Jew, albeit a sinner (Sanh. 44a)
In other words, Jews never lose their Jewish identity even if they do not embrace Rabbinic Judaism. The rabbis know, and the Talmud teaches, that a Jew is a Jew forever. Believing in Yeshua is the most Jewish you can do. Yeshua is a Jewish man. He is the Jewish Messiah. He will reign over a Jewish Messianic Kingdom. The Bible (OT and NT) is a Jewish book. What is the rabbinic definition of "Who is a Jew?"
The rabbis have introduced confusion into the minds of Jewish people and Christians. They have done this by inserting a non-Biblical idea into the definition. The rabbinic definition, and its variations, would go something like this.
"A Jew is anyone born of a Jewish mother and who practices Rabbinic Judaism."
The confusing addition is the phrase "practices Rabbinic Judaism." This addition allows the rabbis to state that a Jewish person who trusts in Jesus is no longer Jewish. The Jewish person is no longer practicing Rabbinic Judaism and can be excommunicated from the community of Israel. The threat of excommunication places us under tremendous pressure to conform to the wishes of the rabbis. You do not want to change your religion. You want to remain Jewish. Unfortunately, many in the Church have bought into this definition and tell Jewish people that they will no longer be Jewish if they trust in Jesus. This misunderstanding makes it even more difficult for you to place your trust in Jesus. In reality, you are not changing religions. You are completing or fulfilling the faith revealed to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the Holy Hebrew Scriptures.
If your Jewish friend is struggling with this issue what can you do? The most important things you can do are:
And, by the way, point out that ninety percent of the Jewish people in this world do not follow Rabbinic Judaism. If the rabbis were consistent, they would have to declare that ninety percent of the Jewish people are no longer Jewish. Ninety percent of the Jewish people, today, worldwide, are atheistic or agnostic. They do not believe in God. Therefore, any practice of Rabbinic Judaism without belief in God is hypocrisy from the beginning and does not qualify the person as a Jew under the rabbinic definition. A Jew always has been and always will be a descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
During the spring of my senior year of high school, my photography teacher invited our art class to a gallery. There were 50 pieces: all different sizes, shapes, colors and textures. Each had a subject and space around that subject.
One 8"x10" shot grabbed my attention from where it hung a foot above eye level. The starkness of the snowy expanse covering 95% of the frame would normally bore most viewers, but the piece's redemptive strength was tucked away in the lower right-hand corner. Three miniscule men stood ice fishing. I glanced to the left, noticing the bright blue ribbon dangling alongside the photo. Apprently someone else like it, too.
Every art piece necessitates negative space. Gene Moore's window dressing boom in the 1950s at Tiffany's began with Moore de-cluttering the sparkling mass of jewelry, giving every piece its own display. Each piece could shine: the focal point of its own, spacious window. Revolutionary!
Negative space is an art term. It doesn't mean the space is negative in the sense of being depressing or contributing "less than zero" (the mathematical definition). Negative space simply serves the purpose of allowing the true subject to stand out in strong contrast.
Negative space is the tool of definition. While the subject is the focal point of any art form, what is missing will often help the subject speak louder. For example, when beginning a new idea within an essay, hitting the return key a second time denotes a change better than using a transitional word or phrase. This allows the readers to ponder what they have just read.
But a piece of art, a person or a movement cannot be completely defined by what it is not. A blank palate or an unhewn stone is unfinished if no subject appears. Negative space must emphasize something already present.
Modern Jewish teaching, particularly in its cultural and sociological aspects, often defines itself by what it rejects: Jesus (Y'shua). Currently, in the mind of most Jews, the only qualification to call oneself a Jew — whether one follows Adonai, Buddha, or nothing — is to reject the possibility of Jesus for Jews. But if everyone who is descended from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (a biblical definition) is a Jew — including atheists, for example — how is a Jewish believer in Jesus not a Jew? Why should belief in Jesus be the disqualifier?
The Jewish people were established by God. God chose Abraham, the father of a seemingly small and insignificant people, to glorify himself. The Jewish people would ultimately bring the Messiah, salvation, to the world. As a Jew who does believe in Jesus, let me paint you a picture of how Jesus fits into the frame.
We were given the Torah — God's good and perfect law. Because of our lack of holiness, being human, we were unable to keep that law. We needed a Messiah, a means of connection with God. The sacrificial system was temporarily instated with a high priest as mediator, a placeholder for the one who would eternally unify the Jewish people, and everyone else, with God.
Even the high priest made atonement for himself before sacrificing a second animal for the people. The shedding of blood, a substitutionary measure for wrongdoing, was necessary to seal the gap between us and God. That scarlet life force ran into the hollows around the altar, a picture of filling our empty, incomplete hearts. We were covered temporarily, whiter than the snow in my favorite photograph.
But God's requirement for reconciliation did not change when the temple was removed from the picture in 70 A.D. Jesus' death and resurrection 40 years prior took the place of the sacrificial system. To compensate, an over-crowding of Jewish subject matter sprang up — suffocating the pre-existing laws by embellishment and addition. These new rules became a tangle of form and line without definition, often without biblical context. In Conversion to Judasim: A History and Analysis, Bernard Bamberger reflects on this predicament, "We have an abundance of Jews without Judaism."1
But which Judaism? The moder, rule-bound version, or the biblical, Messiah-based version?
The Messiah, Y'shua, our eternal high priest, came to fulfill the law (Matthew 5:17), not to add more regulations. Y'shua came as an eternal solution for our sin, whereas animal sacrifice was temporary. Only he can fill the void in our hearts that defines us as incomplete. The Jewish Scriptures (Tanakh) point to Y'shua; the New Testament then becomes that imperative corner-detail on the canvas of Tanakh.
Many Jews today do not follow the Jewish Scriptures or the Jewish religion. Judaism is not synonymous with being Jewish. Modern Judaism lacks Jesus; Jewish people don't have to.
It's funny how my favorite photograph and my belief in Y'shua as Messiah have two commonalities: strong subject matter, and of course, negative sapce. In art, technically there is always something present in negative space, but it is secondary — often out-of-focus — to complement the actual subject. If we put Judaism on a canvas, the cultural, rabbinic, and sacrificial backdrop would fill the canvas, but in the corner, in stark relief, would be the biblical fulfillment of our faith: the Messiah Y'shua, who really ought to be the focal point.
1Bernard Bamberger, "Conversion to Judaism: Theologically Speaking." In Conversion to Judaism: A History and Analysis, edited by David Max Eichorn (New York: Ktav, 1965), p. 185.
This article was first published in Issues, volume 17.6, a Jews for Jesus publication and is posted here by permission. To learn more about Jews for Jesus, visit www.JewsforJesus.org
THE ANTI-MISSIONARY'S CHARGE:
In his book Twenty-six Reasons Why Jews Don't Believe in Jesus, Asher Norman says that Jesus cannot be the Messiah because the Mosaic Law is eternal. Jews, he states, "are required to keep the laws (to the best of their ability) forever (emphasis his)." His objection is that the New Testament states that the Law of Moses has been fulfilled by Jesus and has been rendered "obsolete." This concept he declares to be "specious" (lacking real merit). Jews cannot replace obedience to the Mosaic Law with faith in Jesus.
HADAVAR'S RESPONSE:
Is the New Testament position lacking real merit? What about the "eternal nature of the Mosaic Law?" Let's begin our examination by defining what the word Torah means and then, to be precise and clear, use that meaning when we are discussing issues.
Define the word Torah:
The word Torah contains a broad range of meaning in the Bible, as seen from the entry in the respected Brown, Driver and Briggs lexicon.
n.f. direction, instruction, law - 1. instruction: a. human: of a mother; of a father; of sages; of a poet; kind instruction (of a wise wife). b. divine; through his servants. c. a body of prophetic (or sometimes perh. priestly) teaching; in the heart; myriads of precepts. d. instruction in Messianic age. e. a body of priestly direction or instruction relating to sacred things. 2. law (prop. direction): viz. a. of special laws, sg. of Feast of Massoth, sabbath; of direction given by priests in partic. case; of statutes of priest's code; pl. laws; (of decisions in civil cases given by Moses); the laws of the new temple; those laws in which men should walk. b. of codes of law, (1)as written in the code of the covenant; (2) the law of the Deuteronomic code. (3) the law of the Priest's code. 3. custom, manner: the manner of man, not of God, i.e. deal with me as man with man.
The point of presenting the lexicon entry is this; we have to determine the Biblical meaning of the word Torah from the context. Does it mean direction, instruction, or law? In addition to these Biblical meanings we have to determine if Asher Norman is using a cultural meaning as well. In Rabbinic Judaism a reference to "The Torah" is a reference to the written Biblical material and the oral, traditional material (the Mishna and the Gemara [Talmud]). In addition, in the Jewish community we often refer to "The Torah" and we mean the entire Bible (an alternative reference to the entire Bible is Tanak). So, you can see, a writer or speaker can use the term "Torah" and be referring to 5 different possibilities. To avoid confusion I will use the term "Law of Moses" rather than Torah. Unfortunately, Asher Norman appears to use the term "Torah" without distinguishing what meaning of Torah he is referring to which can be quite confusing.
With all the above stated I would say that we have good reason to reject the statement that the Law of Moses is eternal in nature. It had a beginning in 1446 B.C.E. at Mt. Sinai, and it had an end in 30 C.E. with the ministry of Yeshua. What's the Biblical evidence?
Evidence from Language
Let us start with by examining two key Hebrew words: olam and ad. Olam and ad are words that you have to be very, very careful with and not assume simplistic definitions. Their meaning has to be determined from the context in which they are used (like most Hebrew words, for example-Torah). Let me begin by presenting some material from a well respected lexicon, The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, and from Dr. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, the Director of Ariel Ministries. I realize this is a bit technical but it is necessary.
Olam:
Jenni holds that its basic meaning "most distant times" can refer to either the remote past or to the future or to both as due to the fact that it does not occur independently (as a subject or as an object) but only in connection with prepositions indicating direction ("since," "until," "up to") or as an adverbial accusative of direction or finally as the modifying genitive in the construct relationship. In the latter instance olam can express by itself the whole range of meanings denoted by all the prepositions "since, until, to the most distant time"; i.e. it assumes the meaning "(unlimited, incalculable) continuance, eternity." (THAT II, p. 230)
The LXX generally translates olam by aion which has essentially the same range of meaning. That neither the Hebrew nor the Greek word in itself contains the idea of endlessness is shown both by the fact that they sometimes refer to events or conditions that occurred at a definite point in the past, and also by the fact that sometimes it is thought desirable to repeat the word, not merely saying "forever," but "forever and ever."
Both words came to be used to refer to a long age or period-an idea that is sometimes expressed in English by "world." Post biblical Jewish writings refer to the present world of toil as ha-olam hazzeh and to the world to come as ha-olam habba.
Ad:
ad (q.v.) has substantially the same range of meaning as olam (usually long continuance into the future, but cf. Job 20:4).
Dr. Fruchtenbaum covers the territory in his manuscript on the Sabbath as well (Ariel Ministries Manuscript 176). His material on the Sabbath is 100% applicable to our examination of the Law of Moses. In his manuscript he examines the perpetuity of the Sabbath. In Twenty-six Reasons the issue is the perpetuity of the Mosaic Law. The point I am stressing is point "c. The Concept of Eternity." Just substitute "Mosaic Law" for Sabbath in most cases.
c. The Concept of Eternity.
The third key phrase is for ever. The simple, basic truth is that Classical Hebrew, the Hebrew of the Old Testament Scriptures, has no term that carries the concept of "eternity." There are phrases that carry this concept, such as "without end," but there is not a single word that carries the concept of eternity as there is in English.
To focus on the meaning of the term for ever, six things should be kept in mind. First, the Hebrew word is olam. The word itself simply means "long duration," "antiquity," "futurity," "until the end of a period of time." That period of time is determined by the context. Sometimes it is the length of a man's life, sometimes it is an age, and sometimes it is a dispensation.
The second thing to keep in mind is that there are two Hebrew forms of olam. The first form is le-olam, which means "unto an age." And the second form is ad-olam, which means "until an age." However, neither of these forms carry the English meaning of "forever." Although it has been translated that way in English, the Hebrew does not carry the concept of eternity as the English word "forever" does.
The third thing to keep in mind is that the word olam, le-olam, or ad-olam, sometimes means only up "to the end of a man's life." For example, it is used of someone's lifetime (Ex. 14:13), of a slave's life (Ex. 21:6; Lev. 25:46; Deut. 15:17), of Samuel's life (I Sam. 1:22; 2:35), of the lifetimes of David and Jonathan (I Sam. 20:23), and of David's lifetime (I Sam. 27:12; 28:2; I Chr. 28:4). While the English reads for ever, obviously from the context it does not mean "forever" in the sense of eternity, but only up to the end of the person's life.
The fourth thing to keep in mind about the meaning of olam is that it sometimes means only "an age" or "dispensation." For example, Deuteronomy 23:3 uses the term for ever but limits the term to only ten generations. Here it obviously carries the concept of an age. In II Chronicles 7:16, it is used only for the period of the First Temple. So, again, the word for ever in Hebrew does not mean "eternal" as it does in English; it means up to the end of a period of time, either a man's life, or an age, or a dispensation.
The point of presenting this technical material is the fact that the Biblical Hebrew words used to describe the Law of Moses allows for the Law of Moses to be temporary rather than eternal. We are not contradicting the vocabulary or grammar when we say that the Law of Moses is temporary. When dealing with the Law of Moses a more correct translation would be that it is an "age long" covenant rather than an "eternal" covenant (and similar statements).
Evidence From Jeremiah 31:31-34
Our position that the Mosaic Law is a covenant that will last for an age or dispensation (the Dispensation of Law) is confirmed by the fact that Jeremiah states that the New Covenant replaces the Law of Moses. There are a number of key ideas to notice that support the temporary nature of the Law of Moses. Let's take them sentence by sentence.
Jer. 31:31
"Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,"
In verse 31 the term "New" means "brand new" as the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament explains.
(adaš). New, new thing, fresh. This adjective, usually attributive, describes, as in English, a variety of physical objects (e.g., house, wife, cords, sword, garment, cruse, meal offering, king, gate, etc.). It is also used for non-material things as name (Isa. 62:2), song (Ps. 149:1), covenant (Jer. 31:31), God's mercies (Lam 3:23), heart, and spirit (Ezk. 36:26). While suffering, Job longed for the time when his glory was "fresh" in him (Job 29:20).
Some like to claim that the word means to renew or repair and is therefore describing a renewed Mosaic Law in Jeremiah 31:31. Their mistake is to miss the fact that the form of the word in Jeremiah is an adjective. It is true that the noun form of the word means renew or repair but the noun is not in the text, the adjective is.
Evidence From Rabbinic Literature
This would be a good place to share some Rabbinic Quotes that recognize that the New Covenant is brand new and not something renewed or repaired.
The Jewish Messiahs, Harris Lenowitz, page 270ff (Harris Lenowitz, to the best of my knowledge is not a Jewish Christian)
The notion that the days of the messiah, the messiah's apocalyptic reign, will be served by a new law is a Jewish one. Paul is quite Jewish in seeking to extend his new, more accessible, religion to Gentiles in the interest of time as did some of his contemporaries among the rabbis. In his essay, "The Crisis of Tradition in Jewish Messianism," G. Scholem reviews the most important rabbinic statements that look forward to a utopian messianic age governed by a new, relaxed law:Lev. Rabbah 9:7
All sacrifices will be abolished except for the offer of thanksgivingYalkut and Midrash Mishle on Prov. 9:2
All festivals will be abolished except for Purim which will never be abolished (and the Day of Atonement will be like Purim)Midrash Tehillim in regard to Ps. 146:7
The Lord allows the forbidden … and will one day allow the eating of all animals now forbidden to be eaten … In the time to come he will allow every thing that he has forbidden.Lev. Rabbah 13:3
A new Torah shall go forth from me.Yalkut in regard to Isa 26:2
the messiah himself will teach it (the new Torah)The Messiah Texts, Raphael Patai, pages 247-257 (Again, to the best of my knowledge Raphael Patai is not a Jewish Christian)
Eccl. Rabbah 11:1
R Hizqiya in the name of R. Simon bar Zibdi said: "The whole Tora which you learn in This World is vanity as against the Tora of the World to Come. For in This World a man learns Tora and forgets, but in the Future to Come (he will not forget) as it is written, I will put My Tora in their inward parts and in their heart will I write it (Jer. 31:33). (One of seventeen similar entries)
Return to Jeremiah 31:31-34
To say that the New Covenant is indeed something brand new is totally consistent with the Biblical text and the comments of the rabbis. Let's go on to the next verse.
Jer 31:32
"Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD.
The new Covenant is distinct from the Mosaic Covenant. Verse 32 is a reference to the Law of Moses given at Mt. Sinai 430 years after the Abrahamic Covenant (Gal. 3:17). Please notice that God states that the Law of Moses was broken by the Jewish people. The problem did not lie with God-He was a husband to us. The responsibility for breaking the Mosaic Covenant is ours-we became an adulterous wife (Jer. 5:7; 8; 7:9; 9:2. Ezk. 22:9-11; 23:9-12; Ho. 4:2, 3; etc.). Let's move on to verse 33.
Jer. 31:33
"But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people."
God will put into place a brand new arrangement after Jeremiah's time (circa 600-580 B.C.E). It cannot be the Law of Moses. That law was broken before Jeremiah's time. What is the law he is referring to here if it is not the broken Law of Moses? A formal name is not given here, just a description regarding the nature of this brand new arrangement — it will be internal.
This is in contrast with the broken Law of Moses which was external in nature. Under the Mosaic Covenant it was incumbent upon man to place God's word in his heart. A righteous man, like the psalmist, would do his best to accomplish that task through study, meditation, memorization, etc. (Psa. 119:11 says, "Your word I have treasured in my heart, that I may not sin against You.") But it was up to the man and that means that his efforts, while admirable, would always fall short because of mankind's limitations. However, in Jeremiah 31:33, placing the New Covenant in the heart of man would not face human limitations because God states that He will personally do it. This statement emphasizes why the New Covenant is so new and different from what came before. Under the New Covenant God Himself takes on the responsibility and task of placing His law within the core of a person's being. Due to the perfect all-powerful nature of God, we can be sure that his workmanship is complete and perfect. It will not fall short due to human limitations as the Mosaic Law did. The Mosaic Law is holy and righteous and good, but God never endued it with the power to enter a man's heart.
From our New Testament perspective we know what this law is. We can give it two names. It is the Law of the Messiah (Gal. 6:2) or The Law of the Spirit of Life (Rom. 8:2). The internal nature of the New Covenant is enabled because the New Covenant believer is indwelt by the Holy Spirit (Jn. 14:17; Ro. 8:9-11; 1 Co. 3:16, 17; 6:19; 2 Co. 6:16; 1 Jo. 2:27). When the New Covenant Believer is indwelt by the Ruach HaQodesh then God's law is truly in his heart. Finally, let's look at the last verse.
Jer. 31:34
"They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."
Two key features of the New Covenant is knowledge of God and forgiveness of sins which is the basis for the Spirit's indwelling. Again, this is very different from the Mosaic Covenant. Under the Mosaic Covenant the tribe of Levi was assigned the job of teaching the his neighbor and brother (2 Ch. 17:8,9; 30:22; 35:3; Ne. 8:7.) When the New Covenant is finally fulfilled, when all Israel enters into the New Covenant (Rom. 11:25-27), this teaching ministry will not be necessary.
Asher Norman is confusing the reader when he states on page 16 that "the Torah will be in effect in the Messianic age." That statement is vague and imprecise. That statement makes it appear that the Mosaic Law or the Mosaic Law plus the Talmud, that we know today, since it is "eternal," will be in effect during the Messianic Kingdom. If that is what he means, he is incorrect. The Mosaic Law will not be in effect during the Messianic age.
Evidence From Zechariah 14:16-19
If the Mosaic Law is not in effect during the Messianic Kingdom, then what law will be in effect? The answer is that the New Covenant or Millennial Law will be in effect at that time, just as Jeremiah stated. Just one example (of many) of the difference between Mosaic Law and New Covenant or Millennial Law is found at the end of the book of Zechariah. Under the Mosaic Law the Feast of Tabernacles was mandatory for the Jewish people only. However, under Millennial Law/New Covenant the observance of Tabernacles will be mandatory for the entire world. Any nation that does not obey will be punished.
Zechariah 14:16-19
Then it will come about that any who are left of all the nations that went against Jerusalem will go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to celebrate the Feast of Booths. And it will be that whichever of the families of the earth does not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, there will be no rain on them. If the family of Egypt does not go up or enter, then no rain will fall on them; it will be the plague with which the LORD smites the nations who do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Booths. This will be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all the nations who do not go up to celebrate the Feast of Booths.
This is one example of the fact that the Mosaic Law is not operating in the Kingdom. A new system is-Kingdom Law.
Evidence From The Soncino Books of the Bible
This factor is especially apparent in the concluding chapters of the book of Ezekiel. The rabbis tore their hair out trying to reconcile the statements in Ezekiel with the Mosaic Law. The classic Jewish commentary, the Soncino Books of the Bible, explains this phenomenon with these comments:
Page xi: The text of the concluding chapters, dealing with the Temple of the future, presents almost insurmountable difficulties. The types and number of sacrifices prescribed there differ from those mentioned in the Pentateuch; and there are many innovations which, according to the accepted law, are normally beyond the authority of a prophet to institute (Shab. 104a). With reference to these difficulties the Rabbis said that only Elijah, the prophet who is to herald the final redemption, will be able to explain the satisfactorily (men. 45a).
Page xiii: The Talmud reveals the fact that the Book of Ezekiel was at one time in danger of being suppressed and excluded from the Scriptural canon. In Shab. 13b the following passage occurs: 'Rab Judah said in the name of Rab: In truth, that man is to be remembered for blessing; his name is Chananiah son of Hezekiah. Had it not been for him, the Book of Ezekiel would have been withdrawn, because its words seem to contradict the teachings of the Torah. What did he do? Three hundred barrels of oil were provided for him (for lighting and food) and he sat in an upper chamber where he reconciled all discrepancies.'
Page xiv: (In regard to Chananiah, above) Yet, despite this Rabbi's efforts at harmonization, many divergences were detected between the Book and the Mosaic code which baffled all attempts at reconciliation...
Page 265: These closing chapters present almost insuperable difficulties. They contain discrepancies, contradictions with Pentateuchal laws, and terms which do not occur elsewhere.
All the "discrepancies" which "baffle" the rabbis unsuccessful attempts at harmonization would evaporate if they would concede that there is a new law, a new covenant, in operation during the Messianic Kingdom. Instead they stubbornly stick to the doctrine that the Mosaic Law is eternal. In truth, the Mosaic Law or Mosaic Covenant was never designed to be eternal in the first place. It was designed to be temporary in nature.
The Position of the New Testament
The New Testament is totally consistent with the data from the Hebrew Bible. This consistency is summed up in Galatians 3:19:
Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made.
Paul is talking about the Mosaic Law in verse 19. He notes that it had a beginning. It was "added." Added to what? Added to the Abrahamic Covenant that preceded it by 430 years. When did the Mosaic Law begin? It began in 1446 B.C.E. at Mt. Sinai. It was added to the Abrahamic Covenant for a purpose; to deal with the sin issue (because of transgressions). It was added "until." The little word "until" tells us that the Law of Moses had an end. The end of the Mosaic Law is tied into the coming of the seed. The seed is a reference to the Messiah. Yeshua came to as a Jew, living under the Law of Moses, in order to fulfill it (Gal. 4:4, Matt. 5:17). When Yeshua completed His mission the purpose for the Mosaic Law was fulfilled and it was rendered inoperative. It was replaced by the New Covenant and all the imperatives found in the New Testament that apply to Believers today. There are over 600 commands in the New Testament that we are supposed to obey today.
So what is the status of the Mosaic Law today? The Mosaic Law is still holy and righteous and good (Rom. 7:12) and relevant (2 Tim. 3:16-17) but it is not required. It is not the mandatory rule of life for the Believer living under the New Covenant. The Mosaic Law should be referred to for principles that will instruct us and give us wisdom. However, if a Believer today does not obey a precept of the Mosaic Law he will not find himself under the curse of the Law (Deut. 28, Lev. 26). In a similar manner, if a Believer obeys a precept in the Mosaic Law God is not obligated to bless him either (Deut. 28, Lev. 26). Remember the Mosaic Law requires God to bless or curse according to obedience or disobedience. We are not under that arrangement today. The Word of God abides forever (Psa. 119:89-91) but the Mosaic Law portion of God's eternal revelation is not operating as the rule of life for the Believer any more. It was never intended to be eternal. Our rule of life today is the New Covenant (the New Testament).
Incidentally, if the Mosaic Law is operating today, then Yeshua cannot be our High Priest. Under the Mosaic Law the priest functioned under the order of Aaron. Under that order the priest had to be from the tribe of Levi and the King had to be from the tribe of Judah. Both offices could not be held by one man. If Yeshua is our Messiah/King and our High Priest He cannot function under the stipulations of the Mosaic Covenant. He has to function under a different system. That is the point of the book of Hebrews. Yeshua functions under the order of Melchizidek (Psa. 110). Under that order the High Priest can also be the King. A quick perusal of some of the key points of the book of Hebrews will verify that.
Hebrews 5:10
(Jesus) being designated by God as a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.Hebrews 6:20
where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.Hebrews 7:12
For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also.Hebrews 7:18
For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness (for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.
This position found in the Book of Hebrews is simply the consistent message of Tanak. The Messiah was stated to be both Israel's king and Israel's priest. The kingship is promised in Psalm 2 and the priesthood is promised in Psalm 110. This arrangement that is counter to the Mosaic Law is also confirmed in Zechariah 6:11-13 where the Messianic "Branch" will be a priest on his throne.
Progressive Revelation
Asher Norman stated that we cannot add to or subtract from the Law of Moses and we agree totally with that concept. However, the New Covenant is not a man-made addition to the Law of Moses. The New Covenant, as we have seen above, in Jeremiah 31:31-34, is totally independent and distinct from the Law of Moses. The New Covenant was predicted by the prophet Jeremiah some 800 years after the Mosaic Law was instituted.
Then the New Covenant came into operation, at the proper time (30 ce), as prophesied. This is completely consistent with the fact that God's revelation is progressive in nature. It was not given all at one time. It was given to man over many centuries of time. The first five books are credited to Moses. However, after Moses died, circa 1406 bce, God's revelation continued to be presented through Joshua, Samuel, the prophets etc. More information was added as time passed. The New Testament is simply the continuation of that process. It is with the completion of the New Testament that the clear cut end of the written revelation is reached (Rev. 22:18-19).
Ironically, Yeshua's evaluation of the situation is that the rabbis are the ones who have added to the Mosaic Law. Yeshua did not view the Oral Law (the Mishnah) as a valid part of the Mosaic Law. In fact He discerned that in many cases the Mishnah actually invalidated the Mosaic Law.
Mark 7:8
"Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men."Mark 7:13
"...thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that."
Yeshua was not against tradition as such. However, when tradition was raised to the level of divine revelation and made mandatory He rejected it and its authority. Unfortunately, it is the rabbis who are actually guilty of what they wrongly accuse the Jewish Christians of doing. To cite but two examples, Rabbi Avigdor Miller in his book Rejoice O Youth makes this comment on page 193:
"... the truth is unknown to those who merely know the Scriptures. The only way to know the truth of the Scriptures is through the tradition."
Then on page 195 we find this statement:
"…the most vital part of the Torah is the Oral Tradition."
These comments make it self-evident that it is the rabbis who have added to the Law of Moses and the Bible in general.
Conclusion
Based on the perspective and evidence presented above, which Asher Norman does not refer to in his book, I feel I can state that the rabbinic concept of an eternal Law of Moses is incorrect. It is apparent that many ancient rabbis held to the position found in the New Testament that eventually God would bring a New Covenant into operation. The Law of Moses, the Mosaic Covenant, was designed from the beginning to be temporary in nature. It reached its goal and a brand new covenant replaced it.