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.