The Truth About Jesus, The ONLY Messiah!

Back to the main page geovisit();

http://www.geocities.com/nakdimonspage/rabbisingerquestionsrts.html

Tovia Singer Answers Questions

March 14, 2009 at 10:01 pm · Filed under Christ, Christianity, Jesus, Messiah, Messiahtruth, Messianic, Messianic Jews, Nakdimon ·Tagged Anti-Missionary, Anti-Missionary Rebuttal, Jesus, Messiah, Messiahtruth, Messianic Jew, Nakdimon, Tovia Singer

Taken from Nakdimon’s page. Nakdimon, who is a Dutch Messianic Jew is the original author of this article.

Here is the actual link:

Tovia Singer Answers Questions

According to rabbi Singer Paul is not to be taken seriously when he says that he is a Pharisee, because he gives away his cards for two reasons; 1 he was involved in killing a Christian and 2 he worked for the Sadducees when he went after the Christians. To answer the first allegation we need only to point out that Paul was never involved with the killing of a Christian. It is said in the story of Stephen that the people that killed Stephen threw their coats at Paul’s feet and he agreed with what they did. Does this mean that he is “involved” in the killing of Christians? Also he went from house to house persecuting followers of Yeshua only to throw them in jail! But does that condone the charge of murder? Of course not. The second is also very easy. He didn’t “work for the Sadducees” when he went to Damascus. He went to the high priest and asked for written permission to go to synagogues outside the Land with the authority of the Temple to imprison the followers of the Messiah. What is so bad about that? Do you really think that Paul would be able to go to synagogues outside Israel in his own authority? Who was he? The only way he could do that was on the authority of the high priest since Jews all over the world recognized the authority of the high priest and the Temple. And if Paul wanted to “present himself as someone significant”, as far as politics went, the Sadducees had more power than the Pharisees. So if Paul really wanted to be someone of importance, he would have presented himself as a Sadducee. Which he couldn’t be anyway, since he was jailed by the Sadducees for his teachings, that were, obviously, not according to theirs. And the Pharisees stood up for him, because of his teaching, which was according to theirs. (See Acts 23:1-10) So why would Pharisees jump to the defence of a “friend of the Sadducees”? So Paul didn’t “give away his cards” and there is no doubt that Paul wasn’t a Sadducee, but a Pharisee, just as he said! But, of course, it is convenient for rabbi Singer to deny this.

Jeremiah 31:31 raped? (22:15)

Rabbi Tovia Singer then accuses the writer of Hebrews of changing the text in chapter 8:9 to do away with Israel, claiming that this is the agenda of the writer of Hebrews. Rabbi Singer says that the writer of Hebrews “had to literally rape” the text of Jeremiah 31:31 to get rid of Israel. What an accusation! A lot of untrue accusations too, if I may. First of all, the writer of Hebrews didn’t have to “get rid of Israel”, because he himself, as a Jew, was part of that very same Israel. Second, and I hate to remind you again, the writer didn’t change a thing in the text, since he was quoting from the Greek text of the LXX (Septuagint), which was the dominant Greek text in Jewish circles in that time. You simply don’t accuse someone of changing the text when he quotes from a translation, in this case, the dominant Jewish translation of the day. And third, look at the preceding verse that doesn’t make any sense if he wanted to “get rid of Israel”: “For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:”

Since the New Testament gets accused of changing texts to fit it’s agenda all the time, why didn’t the author of Hebrews come up with the idea of just chopping the verse in half and leaving out all the offending references? The authors could have easily done that, but he didn’t because there was no “offensive part”.

And of course I am aware of the stories that the LXX has been manipulated by the church. This is something rabbi Singer claims in a few lectures. But it would be hard to believe that the authors of the New Testament would have quoted from a LXX that didn’t say what they claimed it said. It doesn’t make sense to claim that the LXX says something that it doesn’t, especially when people could verify it. Most Jews spoke Greek so therefore it would be really silly to think that you would deceive those people you wanted to reach by manipulating a text they were familiar with. And the story that it was only the Torah that was translated by the 72 rabbis and not the Prophets and the Writings, so, therefore, only the translation of the Torah is to be considered valid. Again, we need to ask; why would people not only read from the Torah translation of the LXX in the synagogues, but also from the Prophets and Writings if those translations were considered inaccurate and misleading? Obviously people recognized the entire Tenach translation in those days as an accurate and authoritative Greek translation. This actually shows us the exact opposite of what the anti-missionaries claim.

Sins of the fathers… (29:15)

Then rabbi Singer goes on to Exodus 20 where verse 4 speaks of God visiting the iniquities of the fathers up to 3 and 4 generations of those that hate Him. Rabbi Singer uses this to prove that there is no such thing as vicarious atonement. Although I agree with the fact that this text doesn’t speak of vicarious atonement, I still wanted to address something that the rabbi said. He speaks of “three OR four generations of those that continue to sin” and continues his analysis based on this reading. Notice the rabbi emphasizes the words in bold? They are nowhere to be found in the text and since rabbi Singer argues about the smallest detail when it comes to Christian translations, allow me to return the favour. The text speaks of “al-sh’lishe’im w’al-ribe’im”, which means “third AND fourth”. Also the words “that continue to sin” are completely absent from the text. What we do see is the word “leson’ai” which means “to those that hate me”. So therefore, rabbi Singer’s whole analysis to disprove vicarious atonement is not only based on a wrong text but also on a wrong translation of the text, which makes this entire analysis completely baseless. What the text is simply saying is that God is slow in His anger and abundant in His mercy. (Hence the contrast “3 and 4 generations of haters” and “1000 generations of lovers”)

Luke written after the fact (58:40)

Then rabbi Singer has a ball with the prophecy in the New Testament that the Messiah made and was written by Luke. He first claims that Yeshua’s prophecy isn’t accurate, because he said that not one stone would be left on top of another, and points his audience to the fact that the Western Wall is still standing. But if we want to nitpick as far as the New Testament is concerned, then we can’t be liberal when it comes to the Tenach, because that would be judging by double standards. If we want to press rabbi Singer’s point that the prophecy is incorrect because of the Western Wall still stands (although the Temple itself is completely gone to the point that you can’t see where it used to be, which happens to be the whole point of Yeshua’s prophecy in the first place) then how many false prophets do we have in the Tenach, if we are to examine every minor detail of a prophecy? Even God Himself can’t prophesise when we apply rabbi Singer’s criteria! So let’s get nitpicky: In 1 Kings 19 God tells Elijah that he [i.e. Elijah] will go to Aram to anoint Haza’el as king of Aram then to Yehu to anoint him as king of Israel and then anoint Elisha as a prophet in his stead. But Elijah first gets to Elisha (1 Kings 19), then is taken away (2 Kings 2) and Yehu is anointed by neither Elijah nor Elisha, but by another prophet (2 Kings 9). Yet the initial prophecy is that this would all be done by Elijah. We can go on and point out that Jeremiah is also a false prophet by the standards of rabbi Singer. Obviously this is all about understanding the prophetic language. But rabbi Singer wants to cherry-pick when it comes to the New Testament, but when it comes to the Tenach, he uses other standards. If you have to use one standard for one source to disprove it, yet go out of your way to use another standard for another source you try to endorse, what does that say about the strength of your argument?

Then he goes on to ridicule the New Testament that the accounts of the destruction of the Temple were written after the fact. Well, if we use that strict criterion as a measuring rod for the New Testament, then we can throw out a good portion of the Tenach as well. A lot in the Tenach is written after the fact. How, then, is it possible that rabbi Singer makes these claims of invalidity in regard to the New Testament, but on the same note he ignores these same invalidities in the Tenach? And if Luke was written after the fact and wanted Yeshua to look good then he wouldn’t have made the claim that Yeshua said that not one stone would be upon another. He would have written the prophecy and adjusted it to fit the destruction to the tiniest detail, so that at some point in time, someone called, let’s say, rabbi Tovia Singer, wouldn’t be able to make the claim that Yeshua is a false prophet because the Western Wall still stands! But I know for a fact that if, of all the stones, only two would be on each other and all the others would have been scattered, rabbi Singer would still make the ridiculous claim that the prophecy wasn’t fulfilled. Obviously the message was that the destruction of the Temple would be enormous, a horrendous event and a devastating experience for the Jewish people. As someone once said:

“It seems a little petty to admit that Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple in the lifetime of his hearers, and for the temple to be destroyed forty years later, and then to claim Jesus was a false prophet because a few stones remained on top of each other. I can imagine a Jewish survivor standing amidst the rubble of the temple, having lost his whole family to the sword or the flame, witnessing one of the most horrific events that has ever happened to the Jewish people, and bellowing, “False prophet! Jesus was a false prophet! Part of one wall remains standing.” How petty is that? The point of the prophecy, not its technical accuracy to the letter, determines the validity of the prophet.”

And nothing more needs to be said.

Nakdimon

Who is the Messiah?

March 14, 2009 at 9:57 pm · Filed under Christ, Christianity, Jesus, Messiah, Messiahtruth, Messianic, Messianic Jews, Nakdimon ·Tagged Anti-Missionary, Anti-Missionary Rebuttal, Jesus, Messiah, Messiahtruth, Messianic Jew, Nakdimon, Tovia Singer

Taken from Nakdimon’s page. Nakdimon, who is a Dutch Messianic Jew is the original author of this article.

Here is the actual link:

http://www.geocities.com/nakdimonspage/whoisthemessiahrts.html

Who is the Messiah?


Jews of the Devil? (11:30)

This lecture actually should have been called “slandering of Messianic Jews” or something like that, because that’s exactly what rabbi Tovia Singer is doing for the vast majority of this lecture. I am not even going to address the points about the slander of rabbi Singer against Messianic Jews. I do want to address the claim of rabbi Singer that “only Satan can” reject the truth when knowing the truth. (We actually don’t believe that Jews “know” that Yeshua is the Messiah, but we say that because they don’t believe he is the Messiah they want to get rid of all possible allusions to him, be it by removing Isaiah 53 from the haphtarah [which I’m not sure of] or making another interpretation than the Messianic interpretation prominent. As I have shown before, the rabbi keeps essential information from his audience time and time again and only tells the part that support his claims) What’s funny is that this is what has been the testimony of the Tenach about Israel, yet rabbi Singer points his audience to the New Testament to make it seem that the New Testament says that Jews reject the truth when it’s right there in front of them. Notice that the New Testament is written by Jews, but still is called anti-Semitic by the anti-missionaries. Well, then if you speak bad about Yeshua then, as a Jew, you can still be called anti-Semitic as well. This, then, also goes for the Tenach. So let’s look at some amazing “anti-Semitic” statements of the prophets in the Tenach that show us Jews rejecting the truth. And I say Jews instead of Israel because that’s the terminology that rabbi Singer uses himself. Remember, we are only being consistent and want to avoid the use of double standards. We will see that even when knowing that God has just acted or a true prophet spoke, they rejecting him anyway. I will replace the word “Israel” with “the Jews” for shock-value, to increase the “anti-Semitic” tone of the prophet and see what happens if rabbi Singer holds the Tenach to the same standards as he does with the New Testament:

Ezekiel 3:4-7:
This is what the prophet says that God told him about the Jews: 4 And He said unto me: ‘Son of man, go, get thee unto the Jews, and speak with My words unto them. 5 For thou art not sent to a people of an unintelligible speech and of a slow tongue, but to the Jews; 6 not to many peoples of an unintelligible speech and of a slow tongue, whose words thou canst not understand. Surely, if I sent thee to them, they would hearken unto thee. 7 But the Jews will not consent to hearken unto thee; for they consent not to hearken unto Me; for all the Jews are of a hard forehead and of a stiff heart.

Excuse me? This known prophet Ezekiel is sent to the Jews and God says that they will reject his words nonetheless. Even when they know he is Gods true prophet! But God doesn’t stop there, He even goes beyond that. He says that had He sent Ezekiel to the Gentiles, they would have listened to him and received the words of God, even though they didn’t speak the language. But the Jews? Now way! Talking about anti-Semitic statements! Knowing that Ezekiel is a true prophet and understanding every word he says, God says that they will reject whatever he says anyway. Can you imagine what the anti-missionaries would have said if this testimony would have been found in the New Testament?


Now the next anti-Semitic statement; 1Kings 18-19.
Eliyahu (Elijah) on Mount Carmel with everyone present taking on the prophets of Baäl and defeating them hands down, showing without any doubt that he is the true prophet of the one true God. Yet in spite of that incredibly miraculous event that took place and people witnessing the glory of the God of Israel, they still went with Baäl and rejected God and His prophet! Now the New Testament is often criticized for being anti-Semitic because of it’s testimony that although the people saw all the miraculous deeds of Yeshua, they still rejected him? Herewith implying that they didn’t take place, because had they taken place as the New Testament witnesses, they wouldn’t have rejected him as they did. But what are we then to make of this account in 1 Kings 18-19? By anti-missionary standards it couldn’t have occurred.

Well, how about the testimony of the Torah about the Exodus? The testimony of Israel, after seeing the miraculous works God did through Moshe (Moses) and the glorious victory over Egypt, which they saw with their own eyes, an entire dynasty wiped away without one man lifting up a sword, totally demolishing that country and still the people spoke about going back to Egypt to live there as slaves because they thought they would be better off, continuously mumbling against God and Moses to the point that they even wanted to stone Aharon and Moshe (read Numbers 14), constantly rebelling after almost constantly being witnesses of God’s miracles. Building the golden calf, where “all the people” brought their gold to make the statue. (even though anti-missionaries will claim that only 3000 people participated in this event, but the reality is that the entire nation participated and only 3000 failed to repent and didn’t choose for God and were therefore slain) “Only the Devil can do that”? No, that’s not what the Tenach tells us! The Tenach, not Christians, tells us that the Jews are capable of knowing and still rejecting. So where is rabbi Singer’s outrage now?

Have you noticed, by the way, how highly rabbi Singer speaks about the prophets in his lectures? This is all after the fact. In the time of the prophets they weren’t esteemed so highly by the religious leaders of our people as they are now. It all started in Egypt, Moses came to the people and they rebelled against him in the wilderness, in the time of the prophets some were ignored, some were rejected, some were persecuted, some were killed. Then the people went into exile and they eventually came back to the land, where they, completely in harmony with the behaviour of the previous generations, rejected and killed the Messiah. Of course, we are all to blame for him being slain because we have all sinned, Jew and Gentile alike. So this is no lashing out to the beloved Jewish people. But notice the pattern all the way back to Moses: when prophets didn’t live up to their expectations and asked too much from them (i.e. let go of their wicked ways and start to obey their words) they rebelled and rejected the message of the prophets. When the Messiah came and did exactly the same, not living up to their expectations and obey his words, they rebelled again and rejected him altogether as well. So what I am trying to say is that it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the Messiah wasn’t recognised by his people when he came to them.



“You don’t understand!…” 16:00

Then rabbi Singer says that we can’t tell Jews what their books say. According to the rabbi this would be like the Chinese telling an American that he doesn’t know his own constitution. But this is comparing sticks to stones, because for starters, the gentiles didn’t come to the Jews by themselves to tell them that they have figured it all out. They learned it from the Messiah Himself and His followers, who were all Jews. This would be similar to Chinese people who got their information from the likes of Abraham Lincoln and the founding fathers and then came to the American and tell him what certain constitutional laws really meant to say. They don’t need to know how to read the language, since they got their information in Chinese and still got the right interpretation from the founding fathers. As shown before Ezekiel 3:4-7 bears witness to this fact. So Gentile don’t make their case based on their own knowledge, but based on what Messiah has said.



Difference between Messianic Judaism and Pentecostals Evangelicals 29:30

Rabbi Tovia Singer claims that the only difference between Messianic Judaism and Pentecostals Evangelicals is rabbinic Jewish customs. This is partially true. Although there are religious expressions that are in conformity with rabbinic Judaism, because it has a lot of beauty in it, this is not the only thing that separates us from Gentile Pentecostals congregations. That the rabbi comes to this conclusion maybe because the traditions are all outward expressions of the faith. But these traditions are in no way binding! So the expression may be in agreement with traditional Jewish way, but the experience is anything but conform traditional Judaism. If you go into a Messianic Congregation that observes Torah you immediately notice the difference between that and a traditional Jewish meeting. As rabbi Singer correctly points out in his lecture on “Sin and atonement” at 01:06:20-01:08:55. The main thing we and Gentile congregations disagree on is the centrality of the Torah, which, according to mainstream Pentecostals, was abolished by Yeshua. However, there are more and more Gentiles that see the importance of the Torah and observance of the Shabbat and feasts and kosher laws (i.e. biblical kosher, NOT halachic kosher!), (and in some cases) teachings of cleanliness due to the message Messianic Jews are spreading. Other than that, there are hardly differences. That we make kiddush and wear kippah does not “define” our Judaism! Also, we use the Hebrew names, not necessarily for Jewish people, but to remind the gentile believers that Yeshua and his disciples were all Jews, which is something the gentile believers tend to forget and instead see them first and foremost as Christians. The Messiah is part of Israel and the faith of the gentile believers is the inheritance of Israel, which they share in. Not as the heirs, but as co-heirs to the promise God made to Abraham, that through him, all the nations would be blessed. So it’s not a ploy “to lure Jews into Christianity”, but rather to set the record straight with our gentile brothers in Lord Yeshua. Furthermore, I want to use the analogy rabbi Singer uses in another setting: If you would step into a time machine and go back to those days, I would bet that if you would ask someone where Jesus, the son of Joseph was, people would ask you what you were talking about. They didn’t know any Jesus, or Mary, or James, or John, or Matthew, or Peter. But if you would ask for Yeshua ben Yosef, people would know whom you were asking about. People were familiar with the names Yeshua, Miryam, Ya’aqov, Yochanan, Mattityahu, Kefa. So it has nothing to do with “trying to sound Jewish” because IT WAS JEWISH!

As for all the other
slander of Messianic Judaism, I urge you to go and see for yourself and meet Messianic Jews to see that
if rabbi Tovia Singer’s allegations are correct or not. By now you should
know better than just to take rabbi Singer at his word. But rabbinic
tradition is hardly considered “keeping the commandments”. Furthermore,
we have nothing against rabbinic tradition. On the contrary: we find a lot
of wisdom and beauty in the traditions. What we do reject is the teaching
that these traditions are Torah, given from God. That is simply untrue. Even
the New Testament makes the distinction between the Torah and the
“tradition of the Elders”. So either it’s from God and it’s not
tradition or either it’s tradition and it is not from God. Therefore, we
see the beauty of the traditions and apply these traditions and don’t see
them as a bad thing, we absolutely do NOT see them as Torah
and therefore, religiously binding, since that claim can’t be
substantiated from the Tenach. God is not interested in the Jewish ness of a
religion but in the truthfulness of people to his word. So if I must set
aside my Jewish pride to gain what I know to be true, the resurrected
Messiah, then I will follow the example of the apostle Sha’ul in
Philippians 3:7-8 and do just that.



Yet more lies! Why? (40:10)

Then rabbi Tovia Singer expands on Gen. 49:10 and tells his audience about a Christian that interpreted it in a certain way. But then rabbi Tovia Singer goes on to do something remarkable. He presents that interpretation as “the” Christian position. If this is “the” Christian position, then I wonder why this is the first time I have ever heard of it. This interpretation is one I have never heard of! So instead of this being “the” Christian interpretation, this is just one individual that understood the text as such.



Check your theology! (41:33)

Then rabbi Tovia Singer points us to Hoshea 3 to show that Jews aren’t supposed to have a king. But, again, as I pointed out in the “Rabbi Singer Answers Questions” section, these things don’t just happen “because the prophet says so”. There had to be something that caused this. And because Israel, as a majority, rejected Yeshua’s sacrifice for their sins, his role as mediator and High Priest, his role as their king, they don’t have these things. It is only when they accept him in the latter days, these things will be restored. When they “turn to Yahweh, their God, and David, their king” in the latter days. By the way, also notice that the text also speaks about Israel not having idols. So what does that tell us? How many secular Jews are into idolatry, séances and all that stuff? I thought that “Jews are not gonna have it”.


He then goes on to say
that according to Christianity it all comes down to the sacrifice on Calvary
and that it teaches that you can be a lousy person, but if you believe in
Yeshua, you’re saved. Where does the New Testament teach this? I dare
rabbi Singer to come up with the quote where the New Testament says that any
lousy person is saved by just “believing”. What the New Testament DOES
teach is that belief with repentance is
essential for salvation and that without repentance that changes the
lifestyle into God-fearing obedience, your belief is worthless. Yet another
misrepresentation of Messianic Jewish faith.


Ecclesiastes (49:50)

Rabbi Tovia Singer tries to demonstrate that sacrifices have no meaning to king Solomon. The only problem is that he is using the wrong text to demonstrate this. What is Ecclesiastes all about? It’s about things in life, how people live their lives in vain. What does it say about atonement? NOTHING in any way, shape or form! So why use something that has nothing to do with atonement to prove that it doesn’t say anything about Messiah’s atonement? What king Solomon says, and who could disagree with him on that, is that as far as the way of life is concerned, keeping Gods commandments is the best thing man can do, because all the rest has no profit whatsoever. We can again, put the shoe on the other foot and say that king Solomon says nothing about prayer, repentance and charity as well. What does that tell us about these three important aspects of life? Nothing, because we understand that he isn’t making a case about atonement, he is trying to explain that the best man can do in life is not to pursue the things of his own heart, but to keep God’s commandments. That’s the conclusion of a man that had it all, but saw no profit in them. One should ask, why rabbi Singer feels compelled to make these baseless allegations time and time again?



No accounts of blood sacrifices in the Tenach (52:30)

Rabbi Tovia Singer then gives his audience something to think about. He asks his audience that if sacrifices were so important, then why isn’t there one case of someone bringing sacrifices for sins in the entire Tenach? This should make you wonder, right? Here is the answer: because the Tenach emphasizes Gods mercy rather than the way to get atonement. The Torah has already laid out the atonement system. Think about it: the Tenach deals with just a few cases where people sinned. In those instances, when people are forgiven the authors show God’s love for His people Israel and His compassion for them. Does this mean that no one ever brought sacrifices for their sins? If the Bible kept count of every single sin in Temple times and every single goat or lamb that was offered, the authors would still be writing to this day, trying to keep track of sin sacrifices. However, the point the authors wanted to make is to show the grace of God towards His people. But to say that no one ever brought sacrifices when they sinned is to say that every one disregarded the Torah that explicitly commands sacrifices to atone for sins. And if we are to believe the anti-missionaries (rabbi Singer in particular), the Torah was too caught up with blood and the prophets, seeing this, repudiated Torah-sacrifices, therewith rectifying the error that was made in the Torah. Sure!



The New Testament teaches reliance on man (1:01:30)

Again, I would advise you to read the New Testament and talk to Christians and see if they “look horizontally” and not “up” instead of taking rabbi Singer at his word. Look at some of the following references in the New Testament itself:

Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven…But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust… Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. (Mat 5:16,44-45,48)

Take heed that ye do
not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of
your Father which is in heaven…After this manner therefore
pray ye: Our
Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. (Mat 6:1,
9)

Insomuch that the multitude wondered, when they saw the dumb to speak, the maimed to be whole, the lame to walk, and the blind to see: and they glorified the God of Israel. (Mat 15:31)

And immediately he rose
up before them, and took up that whereon he lay, and departed to his own
house, glorifying God. (Luke 5:25)

So when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding nothing how they might punish them, because of the people: for all [men] glorified God for that which was done… And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou [art] God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is: (Acts 4:21, 24)

Virtually all epistles in the New Testament start with words like: “I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus [the Messiah].”

So take my advice and look for yourself. Only then you will know if there is any truth to rabbi Singer’s allegations.



Celibacy (1:06:57)

Rabbi Singer then gives his audience the impression that the New Testament teaches that celibacy is the way to go and that being married is something one should only consider when one “burns”. He does so to demonstrate that “the biggest knackers” of the New Testament were all bachelors in contrast to prophets in the Tenach. He then lists prophets who were married with children, to prove how the teachings of the New Testament is anti-Tenach. But, as is the custom of this rabbi, what he does again is not telling his audience the whole story and conveniently leaves some of “the biggest knackers” in the Tenach out of his line-up. Why? Because they don’t support the story he wants his audience to hear. What about Jeremiah? What about Elijah? What about Elisha? It’s obvious why he doesn’t mention them! So what does Paul mean? He is saying that all people, who give themselves to God in ministry, would do good to stay single for the purpose of being able to completely give themselves to God without having to consider (read: compromise), for example, how to feed their family, etc. What is so wrong about that?


Then the rabbi acts as if Messianic Judaism has anything against physical pleasure. This is absolutely erroneous. What Messianic Judaism DOES teach, is that the lure of having too much physical pleasure is always there and can overtake a person. And one should be careful not to get too carried away in the process. And what is wrong about being worried about having sex and afterwards going to a religious meeting? Notice that the question from “dear Abby” is not just about having sex. It’s about having sex “on Sunday morning” (i.e. before the meeting) and then going to the meeting right after. Doesn’t Torah teach us that after having sex, we are physically unclean and remain unclean until the evening? Then why is this being ridiculed by the rabbi? First we are ridiculed for NOT keeping the Torah and now we are ridiculed for asking questions that are derived from the Torah. Rabbi Singer’s entire analysis is totally irrelevant.

Again you need to ask yourself the important question: Why does rabbi Singer use these arguments and does he make claims that are just untrue and why does he have to be inconsistent in his approach in order to make his story stick? I’ll let you decide for yourself.
In closing I would like to point you to an interesting lecture of a Jewish man called Mariano Grinbank, who gives an interesting insight about the messianic teachings according to traditional Jewish sources. You can find his lecture called “rabbinic Judaism” here: http://calvarysantafe.org/player.php?ServiceID=90

See how
you will find the traits of the Messiah in those sources. Rabbi Singer can say
all he wants about the Christian Messiah being foreign to Judaism, but his
sources say otherwise.

Nakdimon

geovisit();

http://www.geocities.com/nakdimonspage/trinitypt1rts.html

The Holy Trinity

March 14, 2009 at 9:53 pm · Filed under Christ, Christianity, Jesus, Messiah, Messiahtruth, Messianic, Messianic Jews, Nakdimon ·Tagged Anti-Missionary, Anti-Missionary Rebuttal, Jesus, Messiah, Messiahtruth, Messianic Jew, Tovia Singer

Taken from Nakdimon’s page. Nakdimon, who is a Dutch Messianic Jew is the original author of this article.

Here are the actual link:

http://www.geocities.com/nakdimonspage/trinitypt2rts.html

The Trinity
Part One
The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him. (Proverbs 18:17)


Now it’s time to deal with the concept of the Trinity. This concept is one of the foundations of the Messianic Jewish faith, that is based on the clear revelation in the New Testament (NT). This section will be about the Divine nature of Yeshua, our Messiah, since rabbi Singer has primarily focussed on that subject. Rabbi Singer has charged that the concept of the Trinity is nowhere to be found in the Tenach and not even in the New Testament. What’s funny about this is that rabbi Tovia Singer, with this statement, once more contradicts other statements in another lecture. He says one thing in one lecture because it suits the purpose of that lecture and then turns around to say the exact opposite in another lecture, because it serves the message in that lecture. In the lecture “How do missionaries paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures”, at the end of that lecture he plays the “pagan-card” and tries to link the NT-faith to the pagan religions of that day, because he knows that this will scare off sincere Jewish seekers of truth more than anything else. (That’s why this tactic is used so much) And what does he say at 01:15:16? That the author of John “opens up with a whole new idea… the Trinity”. But now he wants proof against that concept and uses this same author to prove that “primitive Christianity” didn’t know anything about that concept. Why? Because obviously it serves the entire purpose of this lecture. The truth is that, many times rabbi Singer has admitted that John 1:1 is a fatal teaching of the New Testament. But here he doesn’t even touch John 1:1. Why? Well, what is this lecture about? Denial of the Trinity. So one doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out why rabbi Singer doesn’t even go there.

Of course we do not find that word “trinity” anywhere in the Bible. Not in the Tenach and not in the NT. This word was created by Tertulian. But does that mean that the concept is completely foreign to the Bible? Of course not! Just as the word “oral law” is nowhere to be found in the Bible as well. If rabbi Singer is consistent, he would reject the notion that there was an oral law given to Moses at Sinai outright. But there is one important difference between the concept of the oral law and that of the Trinity: while the concept of the oral law is based on extremely vague allusions from Scripture, the Bible is much clearer about the concept of the Trinity. Although we understand the quotes from the Tenach rabbi Singer comes up with to be true, there is something else that rabbi Singer doesn’t touch in this lecture, perhaps something that he isn’t familiar with. Something I always bring up when discussing this concept with the detractors of the divinity of Yeshua. We will look at the passage from the Tenach that rabbi Singer brings up and will look at the passages that support the concept of the Trinity in part two of this rebuttal.

Trinity a later invention? (12:13)

Rabbi Singer then claims that the Trinity was invented at the council of Nicea in 325 AD and that emperor Constantine practically forced that concept down the Church’s throat. Also the claim is that there the New Testament was finalized and there it was decided which books are Scripture and which books are not.

Obviously, rabbi Singer is totally ignorant of Church history. This myth has long been refuted. In no way, shape or form did Constantine have such an impact on the doctrines of the Church, and certainly not regarding the canonization of the New Testament. The very fact that rabbi Singer asks who decided that the book of Hebrews should be part of the New Testament and the gospel of Thomas should not be part of it, simply shows how much rabbi Singer knows about this entire matter. The simple fact that the “gospel of Thomas“ was a later Egyptian writing dating from late second to early third century completely excludes that writing from being Scripture. Whatever Thomas that was, it wasn’t the apostle Thomas we know from the Gospels.

Rabbi Singer should know, since he portrays himself as an expert in Church history, that the canon of the New Testament and the concept of the Trinity were established long before that council of Nicea in 325 AD. We have an abundance of letters from the “Church fathers” and direct students of the disciples of Yeshua, who quoted New Testament scriptures frequently in their letters. So much so, that it is said that just from the quotes from their letters alone, we can reconstruct the entire New Testament, except for 11 verses that have no impact on theological matters. Since there was no quote from “the gospel of Thomas” in any of the earliest letters (because that gospel was simply too late) logic dictates that that gospel cannot be part of the Canon. And as far as the Deity of the Messiah is concerned, let’s look at a letter from, lets say, Ignatius, who was a student of the apostle John. Ignatius died around 108 AD, so his letters can’t be from around the time of Constantine. One of them is his letter to Ephesus, where he writes in chapter 7 (emphasis all mine):

There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible, This clause is wanting in the Greek, and has been supplied from the ancient Latin version. even Jesus Christ our Lord… But our Physician is the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For “the Word was made flesh.”

In chapter 9:

From his power Jesus Christ will deliver you, who has founded you upon the rock, as being chosen stones, well fitted for the divine edifice of the Father, and who are raised up on high by Christ, who was crucified for you, making use of the Holy Spirit as a rope, and being borne up by faith, while exalted by love from earth to heaven, walking in company with those that are undefiled.

In chapter 15:

Our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, first did and then taught, as Luke testifies, “whose praise is in the Gospel through all the Churches.” There is nothing which is hid from the Lord, but our very secrets are near to Him. Let us therefore do all things as those who have Him dwelling in us, that we may be His temples, and He may be in us as God. Let Christ speak in us, even as He did in Paul. Let the Holy Spirit teach us to speak the things of Christ in like manner as He did.

And I could go on, but I believe that my point has been well made. So, no, “Moishe Rosen wasn’t there”, but neither was emperor Constantine! Rabbi Singer’s claims are totally unfounded. He would do well to actually study these matters before making claims that are totally incongruent with historical facts.

Dealing with rabbi Singer’s claim that Tertulian didn’t believe that the Father and the Son were not of the same substance in the beginning of this lecture, at about thirty seconds into this lecture. Here is what Tertulian wrote in his letter Anti Praxeas, chapter two:

“But keeping this prescriptive rule inviolate, still some opportunity must be given for reviewing (the statements of heretics), with a view to the instruction and protection of divers persons; were it only that it may not seem that each perversion of the truth is condemned without examination, and simply prejudged; especially in the case of this heresy, which supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in One Only God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame Person. As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds.“

Then Tertulian goes on to explain how the Father, the Son and the Spirit are distinct, yet unseparable and of the same substance and that they are not “three gods”, which he considers a heretical teaching. Again, one might seriously wonder how rabbi Singer came up with that idea. Had rabbi Singer actually done his homework and looked into the matter, he would have known that Tertulian did believe that they were of the same substance. Again one might wonder why rabbi Singer makes these things up out of thin air or does he just blatantly choose to tell falsehoods because it so happens to suit the purpose of his lectures?

Rabbi Singer’s case from the Tenach (16:10)

Numbers 23:19

Earlier, at 8:20 into the lecture, rabbi Singer quoted from the Tenach to demonstrate that God is alone and there is no other. Again, we have no problem at all with the quotes and fully understand the meaning of the verses rabbi Singer quoted. However, as you will see in part two of this rebuttal, different characters in the Tenach, who also fully agree with the quotes, would not agree with how rabbi Tovia Singer interprets verses such as Numbers 23:19. According to rabbi Singer this verse tells us that God anticipated the possibility that people would teach that He would come down in the form of a man. And this verse tells us that God can’t appear in human form. But that is actually not what the verse says at all. The verse says that, unlike man, God is faithful because He doesn’t lie or changes His mind when He gives His word. He, unlike man, is trustworthy and does as He promises. That’s what it says:

God is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that He should repent:

when He hath said, will He not do it? or when He hath spoken, will He not make it good?

The entire point of this verse is obvious. It is not how rabbi Singer wants it. The verse is about Gods trustworthiness compared to man and nothing more.

Genesis 1:26

Rabbi Singer says that this is a verse that lacks foundation and is not even considered as proof by Christians for a Tri-unity of God. Well, I beg to differ. This verse is still seen as an allusion to the plurality of God. This is what it says.

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

This is said to be God speaking to His host, His council and other verses are cited. But the parallel verses don’t even say the same thing as Genesis 1:26. First of all, God made man in HIS image and likeness, not in the image and likeness of Him and His angels, so the “our” in Genesis 1 can’t be about the hosts. Second, while Isaiah 6, the parallel passage rabbi Singer cited, shows clearly that God is speaking to His hosts and He is actually the active force, this is not the case in Genesis 1. There the “us” is the active force:

Genesis 1
Na’asah adam…
Let US MAKE man…

Isaiah 6
Et-mi eshlach…
Whom SHALL I SEND…


The difference is major! Genesis 1 cannot be about the hosts, since God made everything alone, as rabbi Singer himself quoted in Isaiah 44:24. If Genesis is referring to the hosts, then Isaiah 44:24 is not true and God had help with His creation. So although there is a reference made in Isaiah 6 to explain how God sometimes addresses His council, this couldn’t possibly be the case in the creation account.

New Testament quotes

Then rabbi Singer goes on to selectively quote the New Testament, claiming that Yeshua denied his status as Deity. There is one thing I don’t agree with when it comes to today’s majority claim that Yeshua was fully God and fully man when he came to die for our sins. Philippians 2:7 makes that impossible. Yeshua made himself of no reputation to become a man to die for our sins. God cannot die, therefore, had Yeshua been fully God there was no way he could have laid down his life for us and there is no way he could have been of “no reputation”. He laid aside his divine nature to become flesh. So, no, Yeshua wasn’t fully God and fully man, but he instead made himself a mere man.

Rabbi Singer goes on to quote the following passages:

Mark 10:17-22

The good teacher: rabbi Singer claimed that Yeshua didn’t want to be called good, because “no one is good but God alone”. Yet Yeshua calls himself the good Shepherd in John 10. Of course, in Mark 10, Yeshua only cautioned the man not to call everyone “good”. The man didn’t even know him and called him “good”. Yeshua points him to the only one that can be called “good”, that is God. Rabbi Singer claimed that the rebuke of Yeshua means that Yeshua denied himself that title. But then what does the absence of rebuke in John 20:28-29 tell us? Rabbi Singer merely misses the entire point of the episode.

Mark 13

The Son doesn’t know the day of Judgement: As a human being, the Son only knew what was revealed to him by the Father. What is really interesting is the distinguishing of the Son from all creation: of that day and that hour knows no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. The Son exists apart from everything that is created. What mere creature could say this? Then rabbi Singer asks why the Holy Spirit wasn’t mentioned. Why should he have been? To say that the Spirit of God doesn’t know what is “in God” is simply preposterous. As Paul explains:

The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. (1 Cor 2:10-11)

The answer to rabbi Singer’s question is self evident.

Jesus praying to God/calling to God for legions of angels:

As I heard Dr. James R. White say once (paraphrase): If God would chose to enter into His creation in the form of a man, would we expect Him to be an atheist? Or would we expect Him to be the greatest example of worship and reverence to God?

This is an excellent question that has only accurate one answer. Of course we would expect him to be the epitome of human obedience to, human subservience to and human dependence on God. Yeshua came to set such an example for us. How can he go around and telling us what to do, yet himself not doing it? So, yes, he asks for angels, showing his example of dependence on God. As he said in John 11:42: he doesn’t need to do so. He only does these things to demonstrate that he isn’t just making claims. His claims are backed up by the signs God does through him.

My father is greater than I:

There is no Christian that will deny the truth of this text. Does this mean that the Son is less Deity? Of course not. The Father IS greater than the Son, just like any father is greater than his son. But it a father more humanity than his son? NO! Therefore, this text says nothing about the divinity of Yeshua.

John 17:3:

The only true God: Again, no one denies the truth of this text. I would point you to Dr. Whites question again. Does acknowledging the Father as the only true God, detract anything from the divinity of the Son? In no way whatsoever. However, the question has to be raised: What mere creature can say of himself that you have to believe in him and honour him just as you believe in and honour the Father? What does that say about the one that makes this claim? That he is either a lunatic or he is worthy of our praise and worship as our God. Anything less makes his claims idolatrous.

John 10:30:

I and my Father are one: rabbi Singer tries to show that the reaction of the Jews hearing this claim of Yeshua doesn’t mean that they really thought that He was God. He uses Yeshua’s reaction to build his case. But before he does so, he tries to blame John for calling a spade a spade. Because John says that “the Jews” tried to stone the Messiah, rabbi Singer tries to play the “anti-Semitism card”. But is it really? First of all, weren’t these people Jews? I bet that if John would have called them “the children of Israel”, he would been criticised for that too. Furthermore, John was probably talking about “Judeans”, i.e. people of the district of Judea, instead of “Jews” in general. The word for Jew and Judean is the same. Lastly, the Tenach does far more Jew bashing than the New Testament. John, being a Jew himself, could not have been an anti-Semite. That would be like a pious Muslim, criticising his fellow Muslims because of their behaviour, being called an Islamophobe. What sense does that make?

But rabbi Singer goes on to say that Yeshua, by his referring to Psalm 82, Yeshua denies divine status. Let’s look at the text:


I and the Father are one.” Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” “We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp. (30-34)

If you read carefully, Yeshua indeed claimed to be God. The Judeans didn’t misunderstand him at all. They knew the implications of the claim he made. But at the charge of blasphemy, Yeshua puts the ball in their court, by pointing them to the Psalms. They were mad because he claimed to be Elohim, but Yeshua pointed them to their own Psalms, that calls them elohim as well. So he is basically saying “What are you mad at me for? The books that you read and revere call you elohim as well! If that applies to you, then how much more would that apply to me? So why is what I’m saying blasphemy?” He dids not take back what he said, but he re-inforced it instead, which is apparent by the second response of the Judeans.
He had a ready answer for everything and who could resist that answer he gave them?

Isaiah 9:5-6 (49:50)

Rabbi Singer’s ultimate argument against the divinity of Yeshua is found in Isaiah 9. For the majority of the time, rabbi Singer addresses the issue and difficulties of the Messianic interpretation of this section. According to rabbi Singer, this passage is about Hezekiah (Heb. Chizkiyahu), about his time of distress and the deliverance from the siege of Jerusalem by Sancheriv, the king of Assyria. We are going to examine this claim and look at the part that is considered Messianic and look at how Chizkiyahu fits this description.

Calling this an “exotic reconstruction”, rabbi Singer objects to the fact that the Christian translators use the future tense because it’s “a little annoying” to have it in the past tense. However, rabbi Singer makes one principle mistake. Just because something is written in past tense, doesn’t mean that it is actually talking about a past event. There are passages in the Bible that are in the past tense and are actual prophecies. One excellent example is Isaiah 53. Although the passage is written almost entirely in the past tense, surely no orthodox Jew will deny that Isaiah 53 is a prophecy rather than a description of a past event? In essence, this passage is so obviously messianic, that it has to be stripped of it’s messianic status in order to get the focus off of Yeshua and divert it to anyone else, in this case that would be Chizkuyahu. So if this is actually speaking of an event that happened in the past then it cannot in any way shape or form be messianic. So all the words that are in the past tense must and shall be understood to be about a past event. But if this entire passage is about an event that happened in the past, then why on earth are there sentences in the future tense? Yes, you are reading it correctly: rabbi Singer left all the future references completely untouched and focussed entirely on the past tenses:

8:21 And they shall pass this way that are sore bestead and hungry; and it shall come to pass that, when they shall be hungry, they shall fret themselves, and curse by their king and by their God, and, whether they turn their faces upward, 22 or look unto the earth, behold distress and darkness, the gloom of anguish, and outspread thick darkness. 23 For is there no gloom to her that was stedfast? Now the former has lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but the latter has dealt a more grievous blow by the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, in the district of the nations. 9:1 The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light; they that dwelt in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined. 2 You have multiplied the nation, you have increased their joy; they joy before you according to the joy in harvest, as men rejoice when they divide the spoil. 3 For the yoke of his burden, and the staff of his shoulder, the rod of his oppressor, you have broken as in the day of Midian. 4 For every boot stamped with fierceness, and every cloak rolled in blood, shall even be for burning, for fuel of fire. 5 For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace; 6 That the government may be increased, and of peace there be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it through justice and through righteousness from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts shall perform this.

Future events can be described in past tense, but past events cannot be described in future tense, unless it is a recap of a dialogue. Furthermore, rabbi Singer calls to witness Isaiah 10 and 37 to support his case, that these chapters are an elaboration of the events described in Isaiah 9, a past events that speaks of Chizkiyahu. Yet the text of Isaiah 10 is entirely written in the future tense:

20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the remnant of Israel, and they that are escaped of the house of Jacob, shall no more again stay upon him that smote them; but shall stay upon the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, in truth. 21 A remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto El Gibbor. 22 For though thy people, O Israel, be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them shall return; an extermination is determined, overflowing with righteousness. 23 For an extermination wholly determined shall the Lord, the GOD of hosts, make in the midst of all the earth. 24 Therefore thus says the Lord, the GOD of hosts: O My people that dwell in Zion, be not afraid of Asshur, though he smite you with the rod, and lift up his staff against thee, after the manner of Egypt. 25 For yet a very little while, and the indignation shall be accomplished, and My anger shall be to their destruction. 26 And the LORD of hosts shall stir up against him a scourge, as in the slaughter of Midian at the Rock of Oreb; and as His rod was over the sea, so shall He lift it up after the manner of Egypt. 27 And it shall come to pass in that day, that his burden shall depart from off your shoulder, and his yoke from off your neck, and the yoke shall be destroyed by reason of fatness.

This is a chapter later. What past event is this talking about? Although I believe that Isaiah 37 is an entire recap of the events unfolding in 2 Kings 19, Isaiah 9 and 10 are not! Isaiah chapters 7-12 are soaked with allusions to the messianic age. God simply uses past events to describe the future redemption of the Jewish people. In Isaiah 9, 10 and 11 God simply uses the events of Egypt, Midian and Assyria as a parallel to the events when the redemption comes through the Messiah. How the Jewish people were first carried away and oppressed, but when Messiah comes to establish the throne of David forever, Israel will be restored. God will send Messiah to redeem his people, which will result in the praises of Israel to their God in Isaiah 12.

With all this taken into consideration, let’s look at chapter 9 once again. How does Hezekiah meet the standards of this prophecy:

For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder;

and his name is called Pele Yo’ets, El Gibbor, Avi-Ad, Sar-Shalom;

Let’s look at these names:

Pele Yo’ets / Wonderful Counselor:
The word פֶּלֶאappears 13 times in the Tenach and in all 12 other instances the word is related to divine acts. Since the name of the Child is Pele Yo’ets this points to a divine attribute: The Divine Council will be his. Is this really fulfilled in Chizkuyahu?

El Gibbor / Mighty God:

What is interesting it that rabbi Singer doesn’t mention the name given in Isaiah 9 in Hebrew. All he says is “mighty God” and claims that this is what Chizkiyahu means, giving his audience the impression that the name in Isaiah 9 is actually “Chizkiyahu” rather than “El Gibbor”. But if he actually had mentioned the name in Hebrew, that would be devastating to his case: Chizkiyahu and El Gibbor, are two entirely different names. And it is the latter that appears in Isaiah 9. Rabbi Singer claimed that the name “El-Gibbor” points to Chizkiyahu since the name Chizkiyahu would mean Mighty God. This is just not true! The word “chizki” means my strength. It consists of the word “chazak”, which means “strong” and the possessive first person singular suffix “i”. And the suffix “yahu” is an allusion to God’s divine Name and NOT to the word “God”. Thus, the name Chizkiyahu literally means “Yahweh is my strength”. That is something totally different than “Mighty God”. The name “El Gibbor” points to none else than God, as is evident in the very next chapter. (10:21)

Avi-Ad / Everlasting Father:

This name is applied to Hezekiah. But in what way? The name can also be read as Father of eternity as meaning Owner of eternity. And this name points to the child. How does this point to Hezekiah?

Sar-Shalom / Prince of Peace:

This name says it all. Peace will be abundant in the times of this child’s reign. Chizkiyahu, on the other hand, was besieged by Sancheriv, the king of Assyria. Terror struck every inhabitant of Jerusalem in this period. Shalom there was not. Again, if this name is applied to Hezekiah, then in what way can it be applied to him?

So if rabbi Singer is going to claim that “Jesus was never called” El Gibbor (In his lecture “how do missionaries paint Jesus into the Jewish scriptures”, rabbi Singer makes the same claim when addressing the Immanuel prophecy), he will have to be consistent in his argumentation and admit that Chizkiyahu was never called that either and therefore Isaiah 9:5 does not speak about him. But rabbi Singer will not be consistent, because doing so will destroy his own case. Now, if you have to be inconsistent and use arguments that refute your own case, then what does that tell us about the strength of your argument? Obviously this is not about Chizkiyahu, but about the Messiah. Now if we are going to claim that these names of the Messiah are nothing but names and have nothing to do with the Messiah himself, then either he will have an awful lot of names or these names point us to what the Messiah will be, what his substance is:

Shilo (Gen 49:10)

Yinnon ((Ps 72:17)

Immanuel (Is 7:14)

Pele Yo’ets (Is 9:5)

El Gibbor (Is 9:5)

Avi Ad (Is 9:5)

Sar Shalom (Is 9:5)

YHWH-Tsiduqenu (Jer 23:5)

Tsemach (Zech 6:12)

Certainly these names in Isaiah 9 point to who the child will be and not merely what his name will be. But it doesn’t end there. The next verse goes on to say:

That the government may be increased, and of peace there be no end, upon the throne of David,

and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it through justice and through righteousness

from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of Yahweh of hosts doth perform this.

The reign of the child would be great and there would be no end to the peace from his time on until forever. Although Chizkiyahu was a great king, rabbi Singer and other anti-missionaries tend to blow the greatness of his reign out of proportion. In time and scope, his reign was no greater than any of the other kings. His reign lasted 29 years. Contrast that with other kings of Judah:

Asa reigned for 41 years

Yeho’ash reigned for 40 years

Amatsyah reigned 29 years

Azarjah reigned 52 years

Menashe reigned 55 years

Yoshiyahu reigned 31 years

I ask again, how does the phrase “to establish it, and to uphold it […] from henceforth even forever” fit the reign of Chizkiyahu? These are very strong words and logic dictates that this was in no way fulfilled by Hezekiah. Also consider his words in 2 Kings 20:16-19. There may have been periods of peace in his days, he had no problems with his children living in troubled times. And so they did. Where was the never ending peace then? David’s throne and kingdom would be established from then on until eternity on justice and righteousness, yet Chizkiyahu’s son Menashe was one of the most evil kings Judah ever had.

So it’s not that the Christian translators had to go to trouble to change the words of the prophet. They simply sought to communicate the obvious Messianic nature of the passage. Attributing the fulfilment of this prophecy to Chizkiyahu simply makes Isaiah a false prophet And if this is really about a past event, then this would at least be an inaccurate historical account.

Nakdimon


Email me!
Back to Part I
Back to the main page

geovisit();

http://www.geocities.com/nakdimonspage/orallawpt1rts.html

Oral Law

March 14, 2009 at 9:36 pm · Filed under Christ, Christianity, Jesus, Messiah, Messiahtruth, Messianic, Messianic Jews, Nakdimon ·Tagged Anti-Missionary, Anti-Missionary Rebuttal, Jesus, Messiah, Messiahtruth, Messianic Jew, Nakdimon, Tovia Singer

Taken from Nakdimon’s page. Nakdimon, who is a Dutch Messianic Jew is the original author of this article.

Here is the actual link:

http://www.geocities.com/nakdimonspage/orallawpt2rts

Oral Law pt 1

The best Scriptural “proof” for the oral law



This section needs an introduction. I have discussed the oral law many a times with anti-missionaries and in these debates I could hardly believe what parts of Scripture they used to try to prove that there was an oral law given to Moses, handed down to Joshua and then to the Elders and so on. Proofs of which the opposite could easily be found in the Tenach. We will see in this section how rabbi Singer and the anti-missionary movement misuse scripture to prove there was oral law given on Mt Sinai and we will look at the evidence against it. We will see how the proofs of the rabbinic Jewish side are extremely vague and the proofs against these claims are abundantly clear.
Rabbi Tovia Singer claims that there were 2 Torahs given on Mount Sinai. This, however, is impossible, as we will soon find out. The evidence for this simply lacks in the entire Hebrew Bible. The claim is that God gave the Written Torah and the Oral Torah, which interprets the written. So to give you an example of what they want you to believe, and as the rabbi explains himself: The commandments in the Written are only the chapter headings and the Oral Torah is supposedly the actual elaboration of what the Written says. God told Moses to write the headings down, but not to do that with the Oral Law. This was to be transmitted orally. Now seriously consider this line of reasoning. This makes as much sense as a college professor, telling his students every class for a whole semester to only write down the topic of the classes they follow, but they are only allowed to memorize all the words that have been said during the class. In addition, the professor will then emphasize that they should remember the unwritten words and that if they would be forgotten, they wouldn’t be able to graduate. Now be honest: What is the most likely thing to happen with the information that the students didn’t write down? Why do we make notes?


According to what anti-missionaries from the Messiah Truth website have told me, the oral law was given before the Written Torah. We need to ask ourselves then, why Moses, when he didn’t know what to do, always went to ask God for answers and never made a decision based on what he had learned from the oral law. He never knew what to do until he asked God and got a decisive answer from Him and never consulted any oral interpretation of any commandment! An example of this would be Num 15, which anti-missionaries use to prove that we need the oral law to understand what we can or cannot do on Shabbat. The man violates Shabbat and then is put to death eventually. “See, you need the oral law to know what ‘don’t leave your place’ means”, anti-missionaries have often told me. But a closer look at the text doesn’t support the existence of the oral law, but it actually blows a hole in that very point they actually try to make with this example. Because the death sentence for violating the Shabbat was not made based on an oral law that was supposedly already given. Moses went to God and asked for council and based on what God told him, the sentence was carried out. I thought the oral law was supposed to be the decisive factor here. I thought the oral law was supposed to give Moses clear instructions about what was violation of the Shabbat or not and what was to happen with that man. What ever happened to the notorious “39 M’lachot”? (the 39 prohibitions that define what “work” is) Obvious Moses knew nothing about any oral law or “39 m’lachos of Shabbos” and that’s why he never bothered to consult any oral law and went to God instead. And there are more such examples. One other would be the circumcision, which rabbi Singer brings up. How do you know how to circumcise your sons? You need an oral law for this, right? No, not exactly. The Arabs circumcise their sons as well. How did they know? Because they are direct descendants of Yishma’el [Ishmael], a son of Abraham, to whom the covenant of circumcision was given initially. Did they need an oral law to know what circumcision is about? The answer is obvious! If they didn’t need it, then why does rabbi Singer claim that the Jewish people need an oral law to know what circumcision is?



Why did “Christianity” reject the oral law? (11:40)


Rabbi Tovia Singer then asks his audience that question and answers it for them. According to the rabbi, Christianity couldn’t see the oral law as divinely inspired because it had no access to it and, other than first century Christianity, modern day Christianity rejects the oral law. This claim is just untrue. But since the New Testament is used to try to prove the existence of an oral law, it is also fair to use it as valid proof against the existence of an oral law. We should consider this: someone of whom it is said that he accepts and believes in the oral law as God-given, will not question it’s validity and wouldn’t speak against it. Although the first believers saw the beauty of the oral law and they kept certain parts of it, they never saw it as God-given set of laws. They simply never knew such a thing. They did speak of customs and Yeshua made a clear distinction between God’s Law and “the traditions of the Elders”. (e.g. Mat. 15:2-9) and calls it teachings of men, referring to Isaiah 29:13! Therefore, as far as the Messiah goes, the washing of the hands is just tradition and hardly “law” and it is called teaching of men and hardly of God. Furthermore, Yeshua would have had access to that “oral law” since he was hailed as a rabbi. Also, Paul, who as shown in the essay “Who is the Messiah?” was a Pharisee, would have had access to an oral law too. All the apostles would have had access to it, had they considered it divine, yet they all categorically failed to forward it as binding in any way, shape or form. Why? Because it simply didn’t exist. So rabbi Singer’s claim, that the first believers believed in the oral law, holds no weight whatsoever.



No oral law, no language (16:10)


Then rabbi Singer makes the weird claim that you can’t have a language without an oral law. This would mean that before Sinai the Hebrew language was incomplete. Who would accept that statement? It wasn’t until the 6^th century CE that vocal signs were used in Hebrew literature, to make sure that the correct pronunciation would be preserved. If there was an oral law given to the people with a vowel system to clarify speech and understanding of the language and pronunciation of words, then why did it take 1800 years for it to become publicly known? And why was the oral law written down anyway, when even Moses didn’t get permission to write it down? The argument goes that it was written down because it was endangered to be lost due to upheavals. But that danger was there from day one! If you give someone thousands of instructions and you don’t allow him to write those instructions down, what is the most likely thing to happen? There is a great likelihood of forgetting at least some of the instructions or that the people might mix things up. So after all those upheavals from Sinai until the 3rd century CE there was no reason to write down the oral law and until the 6^th century CE to introduce the God-given vowel system? Especially when you think of the fact that Hebrew was being overshadowed by Aramaic. By the time of the beginning of this era a large number of the Jews were speaking Greek instead of Hebrew.

Rabbi Singer then comes with the story of Hillel and the wanna-be convert. The moral of the story is that since you trust the rabbi to teach you the aleph-beth correctly, so you must also trust him when it comes to the legitimacy of the oral law when he tells you it is Torah from Sinai. But as I told anti-missionaries over and over again, this is comparing sticks to stones. Because, for one, the aleph-beth is linguistically a fixed rule. In other words, when someone tells you to recite the Hebrew aleph-beth you can’t deviate from the fixed pattern. You can’t say, for example, that the alphabet goes “b-z-h-y-“ because it is fixed in the order “a-b-c-d”. So the student of Hillel was correct to point to that error. Second, what this parable says is that you should believe whatever the rabbi says and not question anything he teaches you. This would be the same as saying that you should believe everything your parents teach you without hesitation. Although I love my parents dearly and I trusted them to teach me all the good things in life when they raised me, I wouldn’t just take their word for it if they would tell me that there were aliens creeping in the house at night. I’m going to want to find out if that is true or not. So I might trust you when you teach me, but if I go and do my research I will draw my conclusions based on what I found out.

So what I have found concerning the oral law is that I don’t question that there were some customs developed after Sinai that flowed from those events, but in no way is the concept of the oral law anything the traditional Jewish position claims it is, namely, that it is given from God, to Moses, to Joshua, etc. Evidence for it is simply too vague and the evidence against it is simply too apparent. We will look at the proofs that rabbi Singer raises for the oral law but first will look at what the Scriptures say about what Moses received and handed down. I can point to many parts of scripture, but I’ll just name a few.



The Bible testifies:
What was given on Mount Sinai?


I will start with the “slam-dunk” which is found in Joshua 1. Here God tells Joshua to be strong and gives him instructions how to walk in His ways. Look at what He tells Joshua:

8. This book of the Torah shall not leave your mouth; you shall meditate therein day and night, in order that you observe to do all that is written in it, for then will you succeed in all your ways and then will you prosper.

This verse totally blows every argument that ever can be made for the case of an oral law to smithereens. It can be divided in three parts, which we will examine separately to understand what is clearly being said here and there is just no other conclusion to be drawn from this text:

1: This book of the Torah shall not leave your mouth; you shall meditate therein day and night, You would think that God would say that the oral law shouldn’t depart from Joshua’s mouth. But that is not what He is saying! He says that the BOOK of the Torah should not leave Joshua’s mouth and that he should meditate it day and night. Well, this excludes Talmud study, which traditional Jews do for the overwhelming majority of the time. And the reason Why Joshua is told to meditate in it day and night?
2: in order that you observe to do all that is written in it But that was simply NOT possible without an oral law! Yet God says that by meditating in this BOOK of the Torah, you will make sure that you observe all that is written in the Torah. This was an excellent moment to promote an already given oral explanation. Yet the Bible, for the ten thousandth time, says that the WRITTEN Torah is decisive and doesn’t mention any oral law. But Joshua is told that by meditating in the Torah day and night to be able to observe it. Why? Because…
3: …then will you succeed in all your ways and then will you prosper. What ever happened to the already given oral law? God doesn’t point Joshua to any oral law. He presses him to take heed of the Written Torah and the Written Torah alone.


Surely this is all that needs to be said to convince anyone that there was no such thing as an equally important oral law given at Mount Sinai. The next verses I want to bring to your attention is the WITNESS of the Covenant. What is the witness of the Covenant at Mount Sinai, the Written Torah or the oral law?

24 And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, 25 that Moses commanded the Levites, that bore the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying: 26 ‘Take this book of the law, and put it by the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.

The witness of the Covenant made at Sinai, according to the Talmud, is the oral law. How does that fit in the above text from Deuteronomy 31? Let’s proceed.

7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the hearing of the people; and they said: ‘All that the LORD hath spoken will we do, and obey.’ 8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said: ‘Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you in agreement with all these words.’ (Exodus 24)

Again, abundantly clear! NO oral law! Moses took THE BOOK of the Covenant and said that God made the Covenant based on those words in the BOOK. Not by virtue of any oral law. It simply didn’t exist then. Let’s move on.


Another profound text we find in Exodus 34:27. This text is used in an extraordinary way by the Talmud. This is what the Torah says in Exodus 34:27:

27. The Lord said to Moses: “Inscribe these words for yourself, for according to these words I have formed a covenant with you and with Israel.”

Did you get that? God tells Moses to “write down these words” and that He has made a Covenant with Israel based on these words. So the whole basis for the Covenant at Mount Sinai is the WRITTEN Torah! But, amazingly, it is from this very verse that the Talmud manages to conclude that the oral law is the most valuable of the two! You can see an analysis of this text as used by the Talmud in the section “Questionable rabbinic interpretations of the Scriptures”. However, anybody reading these words, will conclude that God is saying, that based on the words Moses is to write down He has made a Covenant with Israel.


The next piece of evidence comes from 1 Kings 2. David is about to die and wants to give his son, Solomon, some last words which he will need to be a successful king. Now these last words are the most precious words you can give your child. This is what king David says:

2. “I go the way of all the earth; you shall be strong, therefore, and show yourself a man;
3. And keep the charge of the Lord your God to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, and His commandments, and His judgments, and His testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses, that you may prosper in all that you do, and wherever you turn; 4. That the Lord may continue His word which He spoke concerning me, saying, ‘If your children take heed to their way, to walk before Me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, there shall not fail you,’ said He, ‘a man on the throne of Israel.’

Look at that! David tells his son that he should keep Gods statutes, commandments, etc. as is WRITTEN in the Law of Moses! NO oral law, no nothing. If it’s such an important piece of information for the kings successor, then why doesn’t he tell him to keep that as well? Especially when you think about the fact that all the traditional Jew does is study Talmud all day instead of Scripture! But David doesn’t say “follow the written and the oral law”. He says walk in Gods ways as is written in the book of Moses.


The last piece of evidence comes from the book of 2 Kings 22. Here, the book of Kings tells us that the book of the Torah was lost for a period of time and rediscovered by Hilkiah, the priest. Now this is what the text says:

8 And Hilkiah the high priest said unto Shaphan the scribe: ‘I have found the book of the Law in the house of the LORD.’ And Hilkiah delivered the book to Shaphan, and he read it…. 10 And Shaphan the scribe told the king, saying: ‘Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book.’ And Shaphan read it before the king. 11 And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the Law, that he rent his clothes. 12 And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Achbor the son of Micaiah, and Shaphan the scribe, and Asaiah the king’s servant, saying: 13 ‘Go ye, inquire of the LORD for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found; for great is the wrath of the LORD that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us.’

So if the Written Torah was lost for a period of time, how can there possibly have been an oral law that told them what was in the Written Torah? Josiah obviously had no idea whatsoever what was written in the Torah about certain things. But when he heard he rent his clothes. How can you ever explain to someone that the Written Torah was lost, but the oral law was still at large and the people still did what the oral law required? If the oral law explains the Written Torah and by doing what the oral law says you automatically do all that is written in the Torah, then why does king Josiah say that “our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us”? This happened in the 18^th year of his reign and he was a righteous king that followed the footsteps of his father David. Yet that was the first time he laid his eyes on the Torah and in all those 18 years there was no oral law to set him straight. Obviously, Josiah had no idea of any oral law and it’s impossible for an oral law to be preserved, when even the Written Torah was lost!


What more could have been said to make one realise that this oral law doesn’t go back to Sinai, let alone to God? Yet in spite of all this, the traditional Jewish side has still managed to come up with parts from scripture that supposedly “proof” that there was indeed an oral law given to Moses. Well, let’s examine that claim and look at this evidence presented by rabbi Singer. And as we do so, keep in mind that these are examples that are supposed to persuade others that there was an oral law given at Sinai, so consider this the strongest evidence from Scripture the rabbi could come up with.



“Toroth” referring to 2 Torahs (30:20)

Rabbi Singer then claims that whenever the Torah speaks of “Toroth” (plural of Torah) it speaks of the Written Torah and the oral torah., which is only between God and Israel. This can also be refuted by just looking at the application of the word Toroth and we will see that this argument of rabbi Tovia Singer is totally fabricated. For example, if we look at the first time the word Toroth is used, in Genesis 26:5, we see that God is speaking to Isaac and telling him that Abraham kept all his laws (Toroth). It is then fair to ask the question to what “bibles”, as rabbi Singer claims, God is referring to here! What “two sets of laws” did God give Abraham that He would speak of “toroth”?
Next example is from the prophets, namely Ezekiel 43:11. God tells Ezekiel to tell Israel about the Temple. Ezekiel is to make known all the laws (Toroth) and to write them down. Again the question raises: What “bibles” was God referring to by using the word “toroth”? Certainly couldn’t be the oral law, since that is transmitted orally and the prophet is clearly told to write the Toroth down. Obviously this isn’t referring to 2 sets of laws at all.
Now, lastly, we will look at an example from the Writings. Next example is Nechemyah 9:13-14, where the prophet extols God and recounts the history of Israel coming out of Egypt. He says that God gave commandments and laws (Toroth) and the next verse tells us what he is referring to: He refers to the Torah that God commanded “by the hand of Moses, your servant”! (b’yad Moshe, av’decha) Whatever happened to the oral law? How did Nehemiah first refer to the “toroth” and in the very next verse the prophet explains that it is the Written Torah from the hand of Moses that he is referring to and not any separate set of teachings called oral law.
So we see three clear examples from the Torah, Prophets and Writings where rabbi Tovia Singer’s claims about “toroth” having the meaning of two sets of laws or two “bibles” is proven to be dead wrong. The word “toroth” simply means “instructions”, contained, of course, in one set of laws: The Written Torah. This would be false claim #1.



What to do? (35:00)

Then rabbi Singer gives us a few examples of what he means when he says that you need an oral law to perform the commandments. We will look at the largest argument he makes in the list: the Shabbat. The rabbi then asks his audience what “work” is since it is not specified in detail in the Torah. But since God intended for the Shabbat to be a day of rest and rejoicing, let’s see what rabbinic Judaism has come up with to observe Shabbat as a day of rest and rejoicing. Now if I would carry a pot of soup and a big basket of bread to a square and feed the hungry and homeless, I would violate the Shabbat commandment according to rabbinic standards, since that would be qualified as “work”. But let’s see what is considered to be work on Shabbat. Here is a small sample of how to observe Shabbat and what to watch out for in order not to violate the Shabbat:

q It is permissible to scratch one’s head of beard lightly, and one need not be afraid that one might thereby pull out some of the hairs.
q It is also permissible to extract the remains of food stuck in one’s beard, so long as one takes care not to pull out any of the hair.
q One is allowed to remove loose dandruff from one’s hair with one’s hand, but
q One must be careful not to remove dandruff which is still attached to the skin.
q One may neither comb one’s hair, nor
q Brush one’s hair with a hard brush
q …if the end of a nail as become detached for most of its width and is therefore, close to coming off and
q it is causing, or one is afraid that it will cause, pain, it may be removed either by hand or with the teeth, but not with an instrument.
q One is generally not allowed o wash of shower the whole, or the major part, of one’s body in such water [i.e. water that has been heated before the Shabbat], even if one does so bit by bit.
q Anyone washing himself on Shabbat should take care to avoid squeezing water out of his hair.
q If, upon opening an electric refrigerator on Shabbat or Yom Tov, one finds that the internal light has automatically been switched on, one should consult a qualified rabbinical authority about what to do with regard to closing the door of the refrigerator again.
q One shall not search his garments for or kill vermin on Shabbat.
q One who searches his garments and finds a louse shall not crack it, but simply rub it with his fingers and throw it away (on the Sabbath).


And we haven’t even scratched the surface yet. Add to this hundreds of other prohibitions and discussions, such as if one is allowed to stretch his arm outside of his residence to receive something and then pull it into the residence, or if it’s allowed to throw something in the air and catch it with the other hand or with the same hand and if such activities qualify as “work”, and the restrictions from the oral law are an equivalent to the commandment “play dead”! This way, one is more occupied with worrying not to violate Shabbat then one is with honouring God on Shabbat. How resting, liberating or rejoicing can this be?



Fast days (39:50)

The proof of the fast days in Zechariah is brought up next. Rabbi Tovia Singer uses this passage to prove that those days are kept just as the oral law says. But is the prophet Zechariah really testifying about an oral law? No way! The Bible itself tells us where the fast days come from and it has nothing to do with an unbroken chain of traditions coming from Sinai. Look at one chapter before the quote of rabbi Singer. In Zechariah 7:4-5 God says:

4 Then came the word of the LORD of hosts unto me, saying: 5 ‘Speak unto all the people of the land, and to the priests, saying: When ye fasted and mourned in the fifth and in the seventh month, even these seventy years, did ye at all fast unto Me, even to Me?

This has been going on for only 70 years, since they went into exile. So this is not oral law, but a later instalment of custom and hardly a mitzvah! And what God is saying about the fasts in Zechariah 8 is not that they will be holy days in the Messianic age. What He is saying is that He will turn their misery (their fasting) into joy in the Messianic Age. He explains that He first did them harm, but now will only do them good (v. 14-15) Notice also that he only mentions that it will be for the house of Judah, so this is hardly a national feast God is referring to. Why does He mention the house of Judah only? Obviously because they have been fasting in those months for 70 years now, since the destruction of the first Temple. So, again, this serves as no proof for an oral law either. This would be false claim #2. So even if rabbis didn’t make up “tisha b’Av” they took a biblical example and made it mitzvah when such a thing is never intended. Which is something that has been done with many things.



2^nd level of evidence
Daniel 1: Food & wine (46:50)

Rabbi Tovia Singer then goes to Daniel to prove that the prophets even kept the Oral Law. There, Daniel refuses to eat the food of the king and the wine of the king as well. So rabbi Tovia Singer takes this as observing the Oral Law, because it says that Jews are not allowed to eat the food and drink the wine that is touched by a heathen, which is nowhere commanded in the Written Torah. Well, sounds convincing again, doesn’t it? Why does Daniel refuse to eat the food of the king and refuse the wine? Because of the idolatry. But do we need oral law for that to explain this to us? NO! Scripture testifies that the people in Israel did that very thing when they were in their idolatry, so Daniel refused to follow that example, since that got them exiled in the first place. This is no teaching of the oral law, Daniel experienced it first hand! For instance, look at Deuteronomy 32, which says:

35 Vengeance is Mine, and recompense, against the time when their foot shall slip; for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that are to come upon them shall make haste. 36 For the LORD will judge His people, and repent Himself for His servants; when He seeth that their stay is gone, and there is none remaining, shut up or left at large. 37 And it is said: Where are their gods, the rock in whom they trusted; 38 Who did eat the fat of their sacrifices, and drank the wine of their drink-offering? let him rise up and help you, let him be your protection. 39 See now that I, even I, am He, and there is no god with Me; I kill, and I make alive; I have wounded, and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of My hand.

This is a testimony of wine being offered at false gods and God taking away his protection to leave His people to be protected by their deities, challenging His people to seek the help of those false gods, who really can’t help them. From verses such as these, Daniel could have known that he wasn’t to touch the wine of the king, since he had experienced this himself in the idolatry of his people that caused their downfall. How is that something from the Oral Law? It’s right there in scripture! This is what Hoshea 4 says about the use of the wine of his people:

10 And they shall eat, and not have enough, they shall commit harlotry, and shall not increase; because they have left off to take heed to the LORD. 11 Harlotry, wine, and new wine take away the heart. 12 My people ask counsel at their stock, and their staff declareth unto them; for the spirit of harlotry hath caused them to err, and they have gone astray from under their God. 13 They sacrifice upon the tops of the mountains, and offer upon the hills, under oaks and poplars and terebinths, because the shadow thereof is good; therefore your daughters commit harlotry, and your daughters-in-law commit adultery.

So according to rabbi Singer and the anti-missionaries, verses like these couldn’t have been Daniel’s reason to refuse the wine of the pagan and idolatrous king of Babylon, but the oral law was the reason for it. Of course they will claim that and not mention verses such as these to try to convince their listeners of an oral law, since verses like these will dramatically decimate their chances of finding any proof of oral law in Scripture. Note that rabbi Singer is probably more versed in the Tenach then I am, yet he simply disregards verses such as these to be able to prove there was an oral law given. There simply is no proof for it and therefore they have to do things like this to come up with “proof”. As for the food, we also have to consider that there might have been the case of non-kosher food (fat, pork, etc.), which Daniel refused to eat. And there is an interesting account in Jeremiah, where Jehojachin was granted favour by God so that he found mercy in the eyes of the king of Babylon and ate at his table. You could argue that Jehojachin was a wicked king after all, so this hardly serves as proof. But this was after it’s said that he repented and God granted him favour. So much for an Oral Law, which says we’re not supposed to touch the food and drinks of the heathens. This would be false claim #3.



Daniel 6: three-times-a-day prayer (56:35)

The next “proof” for the oral law is Daniel 6 and the proof that oral law was kept by Daniel, since it teaches that we are to pray 3 times a day. Rabbi Singer gives his explanation based on this text. But does this prove that his claim is valid. To show you how weak this claim really is I will ask you the following: What would rabbi Singer say if a Christian told him that Daniel prayed 3 times a day, because he believed in the trinity? Would he think that Daniel 6 would be a valid proof for that position? Of course not! He would ridicule that statement all day in his lectures. How is this then used as a proof for oral law? It just says that Daniel prayed 3 times a day. What the real issue is here is that the satraps wanted to prevent Daniel to call unto God in any way possible, since they saw that he was blessed by Him. If they really wanted to prevent him to pray 3 times a day in order not to keep oral law, they could have argued for a 1-time-a-day prayer instead. But what they wanted is to move God out of the way and replace Him with Daryavesh (Darius), which is actually idolatry and forbidden per Written Torah! So this has nothing to do with any oral law that Daniel supposedly kept. Another argument anti-missionaries use to prove the oral law from this text is that Daniel prayed 3 times a day to coincide with the 3 times a day sacrifices in the Temple. As Dr Brown correctly points out:

“…there is one major problem: There were only two daily times of sacrifice (see Num. 28:1-8; Ezra 3:4l for references to “the evening sacrifice,” se 1 Kings 18:29; Ezra 9:3-5; Ps. 141:2; Dan.9:21). The correspondence doesn’t work because the correspondence isn’t there.
Then why did Daniel pray 3 times daily? I’ll answer this question with a question: Why not? We often make reference to doing something “morning, noon and night,” and it is really quite natural to divide the day into three parts. On the other hand, the psalmist spoke of praising God seven times a day (P. 119:164), yet we would never think of making a doctrine out of this practice. He also said, “At midnight I rise to give you thanks for your righteous laws” (Ps. 119:62). What Temple ritual was this replacing? The answer, of course, is self-evident. None at all.” (AJOJ Vol.2, pg 143)

That makes this false claim #4.



Deuteronomy 12:21 (1:08:45)


Then rabbi Tovia Singer goes on to demonstrate the existence of the Oral Law and gives us another of his “proofs” from Scripture. From Deuteronomy 12:21 he reads that if you want to slaughter the animal to eat it, you have to slaughter is in a certain manner, meaning ritual slaughter. So he says “you can stand there all day, you won’t find it” in the Written Torah. Well, if you are talking about “ritual slaughter” then he is right and you won’t find it in the Written Torah, since it is only in the Oral Law which is invented by the rabbis. But if he is talking about the manner of slaughtering, then you will find it in the Written Torah, even in the same chapter he uses as proof for an Oral Law. What God meant is explained a couple of verses earlier in verse 15-16:

“15 Notwithstanding thou mayest kill and eat flesh within all thy gates, after all the desire of thy soul, according to the blessing of the LORD thy God which He hath given thee; the unclean and the clean may eat thereof, as of the gazelle, and as of the hart. 16 Only ye shall not eat the blood; thou shalt pour it out upon the earth as water.”

That’s it! Do you need ritual slaughter for this? God gives us here His instructions on how an animal is allowed to be eaten. It’s right there and repeated in verse 22-23: 22 Howbeit as the gazelle and as the hart is eaten, so thou shalt eat thereof; the unclean and the clean may eat thereof alike. 23 Only be stedfast in not eating the blood; for the blood is the life; and thou shalt not eat the life with the flesh. That’s it! But if you want “ritual slaughtering” so badly, you “can stand there all day, you won’t find it”. But do we need ritual slaughtering to understand that you have to drain the blood out in order to be able to eat a clean animal? Says who? This makes false claim #5.




T’filin (phylacteries 1:12:10)

Rabbi Singer makes a case for the Oral Law, based on the t’filin, tiny boxes attached on leather bonds, which are tied on the head and on the arm. According to traditional Judaism, this was mandated by God to wear. This comes from the passage of the “Sh’ma” in Deuteronomy 6:4-9, which says:

4 Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one. 5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. 6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be upon thy heart; 7 and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thy house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. 8 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thy hand, and they shall be for frontlets between thine eyes. 9 And thou shalt write them upon the door-posts of thy house, and upon thy gates.

I can be very brief about this. Why do rabbi Singer and the anti-missionaries ignore verse 6? If this is talking about literally binding upon the hand and the forehead then we should take “upon thy heart” literally as well, shouldn’t we? Of course this is not about “totafot” (frontlets) between your eyes. This passage is about keeping them in mind at all times: They will be on your heart always, everything you move your hand to do (for a sign on your hand) and everything you look at (frontlets between your eyes) should be in accordance with all I command you, from the time you get up till the time you sleep.
There are so many other examples for this:

Tie them upon your heart always, don them upon your throat (Prov 6,21)

8 Hear, my son, the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the teaching of thy mother; 9 For they shall be a chaplet of grace unto thy head, and chains about thy neck. (Prov 1)

9 And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thy hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes (Exo 13:9)

16 And it shall be for a sign upon thy hand, and for frontlets between thine eyes (Exo 13:16)

Note that Exodus verse 9 says “ul’zikaron” and verse 16 says “totafot” yet they mean the exact same thing. The word “zikaron” means “memorial/remembrance”. But if you want to tie them on your forehead and hand, then by all means. But don’t say that we should all do that because it’s mandated by Torah. This has nothing to do with phylacteries either because then we should have them literally put on our hearts also. This concludes part one of this lecture with false claim #6.


Nakdimon

Email me!
Go to Part II Back to the main page

geovisit();

Oral Law pt 2

The best Scriptural “proof” for the oral law

Jesus believed in the Oral Law?(0:15)


Rabbi Tovia Singer makes the amazing statement that Yeshua believed in the oral law. Now we have already seen that Yeshua rejected the idea of an oral law and never heard of such a thing. We also saw that he called it Tradition of the Elders instead of the “oral law”. Also, we have acknowledged that a religious Jew who believed in the oral law would never entertain the idea of speaking against it, let alone act against it. And as also shown, he did speak and act against it, even juxtaposing it to the Written Torah! As far as the claim goes of what Yeshua should have said to the Pharisees if the oral law was an invention of the rabbis, Yeshua already made his point clear about the Traditions elsewhere, passages that rabbi Singer, of course, doesn’t quote to his audience, lest it blows his argument to pieces. But in this instance he wanted to make another point. He points them to the story of David and strangely enough, rabbi Singer claims that Yeshua doesn’t get the story right and starts picking on the New Testament’s accuracy. Let’s look at the story of David in 1 Samuel 21:2-7 before examining what Yeshua did say about this:


2. And David came to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest, and Ahimelech came trembling toward David, and said, “Why are you alone, and no one with you?” 3. And David said to Ahimelech the priest, “The king charged me with a matter, and said to me, ‘Let no man know anything concerning the matter upon which I am sending you, and with which I have charged you.’ And I troubled the young men (to advance) to a hidden, secret place. 4. And now, what is there in your possession? Five loaves of bread? Give them into my hand, or whatever is found.” 5. And the priest answered David, and said, “There is no ordinary bread in my possession, but there is holy bread, if the young men have but kept themselves from women.” 6. And David answered the priest, and said to him, “But, women are withheld from us as of yesterday and the day before yesterday when I left, and the young men’s garments are hallowed, and that is in a manner common, and even if today it would be hallowed in the vessel.” 7. And the priest gave him hallowed (bread), for there was no bread there, except the showbread, which was removed from before the Lord, to place warm bread on the day it was taken.


So the story says that David came alone but was to share the bread with his companions. So although he was alone it was understood that the intend was to share the food with his companions. As for the reference to Avyatar “the high priest”. This is obviously a wrong translation of the Greek word, which has it right. The Greek word used here is more often used in reference to “chief priests”, rather than high priests. For example, when we look at Matthew 26:3

Then assembled together the chief priests [archiereus], and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest [archiereus], who was called Caiaphas,
The word “archiereus” is used for “chief priests” as well as for “high priests”. So instead of speaking about “Avyatar, the high priest”, Yeshua spoke of “Avyatar, the chief priest”, probably mentioning Avyatar rather than his father Achimelech, because Avyatar was the only survivor of the massacre Saul caused at that place, killing everyone accept Avyatar, who got away. So it is actually the translation of the Greek that is unfortunate, instead of Yeshua not getting it right. So let’s look at what Yeshua says about this in Matthew 12:2-6:


But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? But I say unto you, That in this place is [one] greater than the temple.

So how did Yeshua NOT get it right? It is clear that rabbi Singer, yet again, works for the sole purpose of slanting the New Testament faith and that he is the one that doesn’t have it right since Yeshua was right on point! He tells the heart of the story just as it is supposed to be read. But because rabbi Singer wants the New Testament to err so badly, that he doesn’t even see that the New Testament has it correct.



Matthew 23 forwards the Oral Law? (5:30)


Rabbi Tovia Singer claims that the Pharisees and the scribes have the authority of Moses as far as Matthew 23:2 is concerned. This, of course, is nothing but wishful thinking from the zeal to prove that there was an oral law and he therefore has to claim that Yeshua enforces the oral law. There are a couple of ways to dismantle this claim:

1. Yeshua pointed to the Pharisees and the scribes rather than to the Sadducees because the Sadducees only found the Torah to be authoritative and not the Prophets and the Writings. They also didn’t believe in the resurrection of the dead, which is something the Prophets and the Writings clearly teach. So they basically rejected the majority of God’s revelation to His people.
2. In light of this, Yeshua correctly points to the Pharisees and the scribes instead, but NOT saying that they had the authority of Moses, i.e. authority consisting of an Oral Law.
3. Evidence against rabbi Singer’s position is in the very next verse: the heavy loads they put upon people! What other “heavy loads” could he be talking about if not their traditions, the oral law? They make their t’filin extra wide and their tsitsit extra big to show off and seek the favour of the people by their “display of holiness”. This behaviour we are to distance ourselves from. So again there is no acknowledgement of the Oral Law where rabbi Tovia Singer claims it is.
4. Another way to handle this absurd claim is Yeshua’s words in Matthew 21:42-45. Here Yeshua tells the religious leaders that those who reject him will lose their authority over God’s matters and be given to those that accept the Kingdom of God. So even IF one wants to take Matt 23:2-3 as saying that followers of Yeshua should adhere to Pharisaical (i.e. rabbinic) authority, Yeshua says here that the people who reject Him will nolonger have that authority. This authority belongs ONLY to those who except Him. This should take care of anti-missionaries constant pointing to Matthew 23:2-3 and claiming that we are to follow rabbinic authority.

Keeping up count from part 1 of this lecture, this is false claim #7.



Talmud: arguments or agreements? (6:50)


First thing that should be noted is that the rabbi himself (12:12) says that pieces of information went missing because of “dark periods” in our history. Which is exactly what I am talking about when I say that such an exhaustive set of laws is destined to be forgotten if it’s not written down. The funniest thing is that the Oral Law is preserved up to now BECAUSE of it’s written form! I assure you that, if you burn all the volumes of the Talmud and transmit it all orally, within a few generations most of it will be lost forever, since there will be no longer any source to look things up anywhere. He claims that the Sages had to come together and say if things are in comparison to situations in the past. This is the whole story of the Talmud. They are constantly bickering about how things should be viewed. The conclusion, for example, of the marital value in the story about the penny and the dollar is also unclear to me. How can those two views be in agreement about the value if they give two different minimum values? It could be sufficient for both parties to accept a dollar or more because both criteria are met, but you can’t come with half a dollar, since that’s more than a penny but less than a dollar, which is the minimum criterion for a marriage. How do they then agree? They don’t! That’s like the Republicans say that the budget for Defence should be at least half a billion dollars to go to war, while the Democrats say that the budget should be at least 2 billion dollars to go to war. If the budget, then, is 1 billion it meets the requirements of the Republicans, but certainly not that of the Democrats, since you are at least 1 billion short! So there is no agreement whatsoever. Another example is from the Talmud itself. Now look at this lists of prohibited works and see how the Talmudic rabbis are in agreement:

We have learned, R. Simeon b. Elazar said: “One shall not kill vermin on the Sabbath.” So said Beth Shamai; Beth Hillel, however, allowed this. R. Simeon b. Elazar used also to say in the name of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel: “One is not allowed to negotiate marriage engagements for children, nor to engage teachers or artisan masters for children, nor to pay visits of condolence to mourners, nor to visit the sick on the Sabbath. Such is the decree of Beth Shamai; Beth Hillel, however, allows all this.

Yet another example from the Mishna:

MISHNA V.:
The Beth Shamai said: Ink, dye material, or fodder (for animals) shall not be put into water (on Friday) unless there is still time for them to soak through while it is day. The Beth Hillel, however, permits this.
The Beth Shamai prohibits putting bundles of linen thread (to bleach) into the oven unless there is sufficient time left for them to become heated through while it is yet day, or wool into a dye-kettle unless there is still time for it to be soaked through the same day. The Beth Hillel permits this.
The Beth Shamai says: Traps shall not be set for animals and birds, or nets for fishes (on Friday), unless there is still time for them to be caught before sunset. The Beth Hillel permits this.
The Beth Shamai says: One shall not sell anything to a Gentile (on Friday) or help him load his animal, or help him shoulder a burden unless he (the Gentile) can reach (with his load) the nearest place while it is yet day. The Beth Hillel permits this.
The Beth Shamai says: Hides shall not be given to a tanner nor clothes to a Gentile washer (on a Friday) unless there is still sufficient time left for him (the Gentile) to finish it while it is day. The performance of all these acts of labor heretofore mentioned was permitted by the Beth Hillel (on Friday) while the sun was still shining. Rabbi Simeon b. Gamaliel said: At my father’s house it was the custom to give out white clothes to a Gentile washer three days before the Sabbath. Both schools, however, agree that the presses may be put on olives and grapes in the press-pits (as long as it is still daytime).

Where is the agreement between the two most authoritative rabbinic schools of the day of Shammai and Hillel? (except for the last point in this list) Totally absent! Yet rabbi Singer wants us to believe that the rabbis in the Talmud are in agreement with each other when they have different opinions. Sure! This makes false claim #8.

Also notice that this is Mishna, which is supposed to come from Sinai. This is the system that is supposed to clarify for us what to do and how to do it, yet it creates more confussion by giving us contradictory statements AND it lists the opinion of rabbis! If this was from Sinai, why isn’t God’s decree anywhere to be found? Where is God’s decree in all this? Instead of telling us what God said at Sinai, the followers of this rabbi is arguing with the followers of that rabbi about how to keep Shabbes! There is no “HaShem told Moshe Rebeinu…” at all. And we’re supposed to believe that this comes from Sinai?



3rd Level of evidence:
Prophets telling us to keep Oral Law? (22:16)


Rabbi Tovia Singer is now going to give us a few examples of the prophets forwarding the Oral Law. Now bare in mind that when someone wants to prove something, if he wants to persuade someone of a certain point, he will try to gather the best evidence from Scripture he can find to support his position. Likewise we should remind ourselves that rabbi Singer is presenting us the best proofs from the Tenach that he is able to find. So let’s look at his proofs from the Tenach regarding the prophets telling us to keep the Oral Law.


1. Nechemyah 10:29-34:

First evidence rabbi Tovia Singer comes up with is the proof of the 39 m’lachot (39 categories of prohibited work) of Shabbat. This proof consists of Nechemyah 10:29-34 and 13:14-22. Now of all the proofs in the Scriptures this is one of the best he could come up with. Here, Nechemyah speaks about not buying and selling on Shabbat. Because we don’t find this specific commandment in the Written Law, it must be in the oral law, so says rabbi Singer. But is that what’s being referred to here? Not at all! The people only give one example how they will honour the Shabbat. That’s all! As the prophet Isaiah tells us, we are not supposed to go about our business on the Sabbath say:

13 If thou turn away thy foot because of the sabbath, from pursuing thy business on My holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, and the holy of the LORD honourable; and shalt honour it, not doing thy wonted ways, nor pursuing thy business, nor speaking thereof;

We are not to pursue our business on God’s holy day, this is NOT the way to honour it. And Isaiah wasn’t quoting from the oral law! So if we are to pursue our business six days of the week but aren’t to do that on the Sabbath, it stands to reason that you’re out of order if you try to make a buck on Shabbat. This also goes for Nechemyah 13:15-18, treading winepresses and carrying burdens are not from the 39 m’lachot of the oral law. Instead, the oral law got these examples from these texts and made them law! As we saw earlier with the fasts, which was said to be from the oral law, but in reality we saw that it has nothing to do with that. It is not “selling and buying” specifically that’s being referred to as what Moses told our forefathers at Sinai, but the honouring of the Sabbath is what is being referred to, which is exactly what Moses told us to do. To honour that commandment we don’t do what we usually do on weekdays, when we pursue our business and are so caught up in our labour that we tend to forget God. Instead we are to rest and look back at what God has given us the power to do and honour Him and seek Him, especially on that day! THAT’S honouring the Shabbat, not not-doing specific work! This makes false claim #9.



2. Jewish by mother and not by father

Second piece of evidence is Ezra. This one is a simple one, says rabbi Singer. Ezra sends away the Gentile women with their children. So if the children were Jewish they wouldn’t have been sent away. This proves that one’s Jewish ness doesn’t go through the father. Pretty convincing story and surely is the “checkmate” rabbi Singer is talking about, isn’t it? Not at all! We have the same story in Nechemyah 13 and look at what Nechemyah says about intermarriage:

1 On that day they read in the book of Moses in the hearing of the people; and therein was found written, that an Ammonite and a Moabite should not enter into the assembly of God for ever; 2 because they met not the children of Israel with bread and with water, but hired Balaam against them, to curse them; howbeit our God turned the curse into a blessing. 3 And it came to pass, when they had heard the law, that they separated from Israel all the alien mixture….23 In those days also saw I the Jews that had married women of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab; 24 and their children spoke half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews’ language, but according to the language of each people. 25 And I contended with them, and cursed them, and smote certain of them, and plucked off their hair, and made them swear by God: ‘Ye shall not give your daughters unto their sons, nor take their daughters for your sons, or for yourselves. 26 Did not Solomon king of Israel sin by these things? yet among many nations was there no king like him, and he was beloved of his God, and God made him king over all Israel; nevertheless even him did the foreign women cause to sin. 27 Shall we then hearken unto you to do all this great evil, to break faith with our God in marrying foreign women?’ 28 And one of the sons of Joiada, the son of Eliashib the high priest, was son-in-law to Sanballat the Horonite; therefore I chased him from me. 29 Remember them, O my God, because they have defiled the priesthood, and the covenant of the priesthood, and of the Levites. 30 Thus cleansed I them from everything foreign, and appointed wards for the priests and for the Levites, every one in his work;

The concern was never about the race of the children. It had to do with the fact that these women could lead them from God to follow other gods. Just as even Solomon, in all of his wisdom and grace, was led into idolatry due to his foreign wives. The fear was therefore idolatry and assimilation and had nothing to do with ethnicity. Furthermore, if the prohibition of intermarriage had anything to do with fear of non-Jewish offspring, then why were men allowed to take the beautiful women of the countries they conquered in war as their wives? (see Deuteronomy 21:10-14) Why was that allowed if the concern was the “Jewish ness” of their offspring? However, for a priest it WAS unlawful to marry a gentile woman:


14 A widow, or one divorced, or a profaned woman, or a harlot, these shall he not take; but a virgin of his own people shall he take to wife.

And that’s the primary concern of Ezra and Nechemyah when they saw that the people married foreign wives and they took drastic measures and cleansed the entire land from ALL those “aliens”. (Notice that Nechemyah and his came to this conclussion only after READING about it from the BOOK of the Torah! And NOT from any oral teaching!) Look at Nechemyah’s words in verse 29 when he says “they have defiled the priesthood, and the covenant of the priesthood, and of the Levites “. That’s why only the men are addressed, but it stands to reason that the Jewish women were included to release their foreign men too. Really honestly tell me that this had anything to do with oral law and the ethnicity of the children.

This whole argument, that you are only a Jew if your mother is a Jewess is not even logical. Since the children of a Jewish mother and a gentile man are likely to get an upbringing that corresponds with the beliefs of the father rather that of the mother, especially in ancient times, where there was no such things as equal women rights movements. Which would automatically mean that the Jewish child would get a non-Torah based upbringing. And if someone is Jewish by mother alone and not by father, then we can safely conclude that Rechavam (Rehobeam), the son of Solomon was NOT a Jew, since his mother is said to be a gentile from Amon. And the excuse of conversion can’t be used either, because it is explicitly said that Solomon’s Gentile wives, without exception, caused him to practice idolatry. And since there is no proof of “conversion” of any kind, we would have to conclude that Solomon’s son was a Gentile based on oral law standards and Israel had a Gentile king sitting on David’s throne. This has actually been an argument an anti-missionary moderator used when I confronted him with this. The best response he had was “do you really think that G-d would have a Gentile rule over Israel after He prohibited it in His Torah?”. Well, that is exactly my point! It was because Rechavam was NOT a Gentile but thoroughly Jewish even though having an “unconverted” Gentile mother and a Jewish father that he was able to sit on his grandfather’s throne. Which, by the way, is totally contrary to the oral law! This also goes for the offspring of Achav, who’s wife, Jezebel, was a Gentile and absolutely not a “convert to Judaism”. Yet, Achav’s child sat on the throne and ruled over Israel, which is, again, totally contrary to the so-called “oral law”. Clearly another false claim, moving the tally up to #10.



3. Jeremiah 17:19-27

Then rabbi Tovia Singer is trying to prove that Jeremiah tells us that God commanded us not to carry any burdens and that this goes back to Sinai. But, again, God is NOT saying that He told our forefathers about not carrying any burdens at Sinai. He is telling us that He told our forefathers to “hollow the Sabbath day” as a holy day and not to labour thereon. Nothing more and nothing less! Obviously the people were carrying their merchandise on the Shabbat to be able to labour, just as we have seen at Nechemyah. And then rabbi Singer does something remarkable again. He actually is trying to make his case for the oral law based on words like “hear” and “listen”. You’d have to be very desperate to try to prove the existence of an Oral Law based on the word “hear”. These words have nothing to do with any oral law. They have everything to do with the Written Law. People didn’t have their own copy of the Torah at home as we do nowadays so they would “hear” the words at their assemblies, when the Torah was read out loud. There they would “listen” to the Written Torah! Just look at the following example from Nechemyah 9:14-16:

13. And You descended upon Mount Sinai and spoke with them from heaven, and You gave them right ordinances and laws of truth, good statutes and commandments. 14. And Your holy Sabbath You made known to them, and commandments and statutes and the Law You commanded them, by the hand of Your servant Moses. 15. And bread from heaven You gave them for their hunger, and You took water out of a rock for them for their thirst, and You said to them to come to inherit the land that You raised Your hand to give them. 16. But they and our forefathers behaved wickedly, and they stiffened their necks and did not hearken to Your commandments.

Now this should be very interesting. Notice that in verse 14, as noted before, Nechemyah speaks of commands and laws “b’yad Moshe” (by the hand of Moses), which can only refer to the Written Torah and then in verse 16 says that they didn’t “listen” (velo sham’u) to those laws. What “auditory language” is being spoken here? How can one honestly claim that the words “listen” and “hear” actually refer to “auditory language” which naturally “proof” that the oral law is being referred to? There is simply no merit at all for the reading of rabbi Tovia Singer and there is no oral law being forwarded by the prophets at any time in history and certainly not in the Tenach. The “proof” is simply not there, which makes this false claim #11.




Proof of Oral Law given by God

Fish: Rabbi Singer then goes on to give us an example of the wisdom of the Sages who spoke of things that people didn’t know at that time. He mentions that the Sages said that a fish can have fins and yet have no scales, but you will find no fish that has scales and yet has no fins. So what does this prove? Nothing at all. The secular world has come up with a lot of things that aren’t in the Bible that people didn’t know. Does that mean that everything they claim is “given from God”? Again, rabbi Singer assumes what he wants to prove.


The Calendar: There are some that argue that the rabbinic Calendar is off by at least a few minutes per year. Which doesn’t sound that dramatically at first glance, but this will eventually mean that it needs to be revised if you want to, let’s say, keep celebrating Pesach in spring time in a few millennia from now. I will not get into details here, because it is very complex stuff, but I will give you a website that argues for a revision of the Hebrew (rabbinic) calendar. You can find this information at http://individual.utoronto.ca/kalendis/hebrew/index.html .
Perhaps this will be of some value for you.



Summary: In part one of this lecture on (29:50-30:24) rabbi Singer tells us that the Sages make a comparison to the relationship between a man and a woman, saying that the written law is like a ring that is for everyone to see and that the oral law is like the words that a man speaks in the ears of the woman which is only for her to hear. Subsequently he then asks which of the two is more precious to that woman. And he points to the fact that the spoken words, in other words, the oral law, is the more precious one. This is clearly a statement that the oral law is above the Written law in importance and value! According to rabbi Singer THESE ARE THE WORDS OF THE SAGES!

Here is what the Talmud says: “These laws were given at Sinai to the Children of Israel through Moses> God did not make a covenant with Israel except by virtue of the Oral Tradition (Gittin 60b).”

Also: Rabbi Z. H. Chajes, a leading nineteenth-century authority said, the Talmud indicates that the words “that were transmitted orally” by God are “more valuable” than those transmitted in writing.

Well, there is no denying this statement. The oral law is more valuable than the Written Torah, according to the most authoritative rabbinic sources! That is to say, that the books that contain the words of the Living God Himself as believed to be dictated to Moses are LESS IMPORTANT and INFERIOR to the books that contain NO WORDS of God, but only gives us the opinion of human beings! So, according to this statement, the words of the God of Israel come SECOND to the words of the rabbis of Israel! The question, of course, would be: Where do we find this in Scripture??????

Bottom line remains that all the proofs that rabbi Singer brought up for the existence of an oral law are simply not there and he is just trying too hard to prove that there was an oral law given by God to Moses and being forwarded by the prophets, using texts from the Tenach and even from the New Testament (!!) that say no such thing. Any reference being made to violating the Word of God and being unfaithful to His Covenant is ONLY made to the Written Torah, which is the foundation of God’s Covenant with the Jewish people. The bible doesn’t only forget to mention any oral law, but it testifies that there is nothing besides the written and that there was not a word said that was not written down. Also consider that every time the Torah mentions sin or transgression of Gods Torah, it always makes reference to the Written Torah and never to the oral law. If an oral law was already given at Mount Sinai and if the oral law was an equally important (or even MORE important) norm to determine sin, then how come it’s completely ignored in crucial parts throughout the Scriptures? Because it wasn’t there! Something to really ponder is that words are written down so that they can be reviewed to make sure they aren’t forgotten. And if they are forgotten they can be looked up and remembered. That’s why we make notes. But we are to believe that God gave us a Written Torah to remind us of the testimony and the Covenant with Him, but told Moses not to write the part that is many a times larger, more exhaustive, and more important than the Written Torah? Sure!

Nakdimon


Email me!
Back to Part I Back to the main page

geovisit();

Sin and Atonement

March 14, 2009 at 9:32 pm · Filed under Christ, Christianity, Jesus, Messiah, Messiahtruth, Messianic, Messianic Jews, Nakdimon ·Tagged Anti-Missionary, Anti-Missionary Rebuttal, Jesus, Messiah, Messiahtruth, Nakdimon, Tovia Singer

Taken from Nakdimon’s page. Nakdimon, who is a Dutch Messianic Jew is the original author of this article.

Here is the actual link:

http://www.geocities.com/nakdimonspage/sinandatonementrts.html

Sin and atonement

Rabbi Singer’s distortions and misapplications of texts

Methods of atonement (12:50)

Rabbi Tovia Singer asks his audience which method of atonement is most important. The rabbi then tells his listeners that repentance is the greatest and sacrifices is the least important method of atonement. Is this correct? Let’s see what rabbi Tovia Singer brings up from the Tenach in order to try to back his claims up.

According to rabbi Tovia Singer, the prophets declared that the people shouldn’t get caught up with blood, because the pagan religions emphasized the importance of blood sacrifices. Truth is that the prophets never said this! Rightly understood the prophets declared that sacrifices were so important that when not brought with the proper devotion and state of heart, they would not function. You might as well not bring them at all! According to rabbi Singer God prefers other things than a sacrifice when it comes to making atonement. In addition, rabbi Singer’s position would lead us to believe that we are better off in exile without a Temple. That Jews in exile without the Temple had a better method of atonement (prayer) than Jews living in the land of Israel with the Temple (sacrifices). That would be like having to drive a Bentley as punishment and when the punishment is over you’re being “blessed” with a lil’ old Hyundai. What logic is this based on?

The rabbi then points us to Psalm 40:5-6. Rabbi Singer claims that this chapter “without question” shows us that God is pretty much done with sacrifices. But what is David really saying? David says that God rather has us hearing His word and obey it than us bringing sacrifices without obeying His word. He would rather have us living according to His word than have us sinning and bring “chatot” (sin offerings) or turning a deaf ear to His word and bring “olot” (burnt offerings). Ironically this also goes for prayers and charity. God would rather have us hearing and obeying His word than turning a deaf ear to His Torah and give charity or pray all day. In that case He doesn’t want your prayers nor does He see your charity. Of course at the heart of all this lies repentance. Fact is repentance doesn’t atone! Repentance is the foundation of every atonement process. Without repentance there is no atonement! Not with sacrifices, not with prayer, not with charity. So to say that God “doesn’t even want it” based on these verses is nothing else than misleading. It’s not as if David had the entire sacrificial system in mind when he wrote these words. Yet rabbi Singer quotes David as saying just that. This is the very man that had the intense desire to build the Temple of God. The very Temple that automatically would mean more sacrifices being brought than were ever brought in David’s days or any pre-Temple period! So we’re supposed to believe that David practically repudiated the entire sacrificial system and yet was eager to build the Temple where sacrifices would be brought continually before God? That would be like a fire fighter trying to put out a fire with gasoline!

Then he goes on to claim that the author of Hebrews saw “the need to molest the verse”. First of all, the author of Hebrews didn’t change a thing and rabbi Singer knows this! Rabbi Singer is aware of the fact that the quote from Hebrews is not from the Masoretic Text (MT) but from the Septuagint (LXX), which was not a “Christian” translation, but the leading Jewish translation of that day from the Hebrew to the Greek. There was no such thing as a “Christian” translation. The LXX was pre-Christianity and therefore didn’t have any “christological” agenda. It basically had the authority of the modern day Soncino, Judaica Press Complete Tanach and the New Jewish Version combined. Rabbi Singer of course downplays the authority of the LXX in many lectures, although he is aware that the LXX sometimes gives us the correct reading, which is subsequently supported by the DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls), where the MT gives us a different reading. Who would think of accusing the rabbi of changing words to deceive people when he would quote from the NJV-translation? Second, notice that the part that was supposedly “molested” was never used by the author of Hebrews. He completely ignores the “molested” part and makes his case based on the part that is according to the MT-reading. So rabbi Tovia Singer gives his audience a completely distorted reading of what the writer of Hebrews really was trying to say.

David, Uriah and the Talmud (26:20)

Rabbi Tovia Singer then comes with the account of Uriah and David and wants to demonstrate that David like no other experienced atonement without blood. He then tells his audience the story in summary and then comes to the part that supposedly supports his lecture. David gets rebuked by Nathan the prophet and confesses his sin. According to rabbi Singer he is then atoned for, this is what the text actually says:

13 And David said unto Nathan: ‘I have sinned against the LORD.’ And Nathan said unto David: ‘The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.

David was already forgiven before he confessed. God had already decided that David was not to die for the murder he had committed. But was he atoned for? No way! There is a difference between forgiveness and atonement. Forgiveness doesn’t necessarily take away the immediate consequences of sin where as atonement does take away the immediate penalty for sin. As we read on David gets the punishment for his crime and the child dies. More support on this is found in Psalm 51 where David goes all out and pleas for Gods mercy. Why do that if you have been atoned for without blood? He should be thanking God instead for his atonement without blood instead. But rabbi Singer again quotes David in Psalm 51 to be saying that God wants nothing to do with sacrifices. Again, what is David, who himself longed to build the Temple for God, trying to say? If we read on this is what David says:

18. For You do not wish a sacrifice, or I should give it; You do not desire a burnt offering. 19. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; O God, You will not despise a broken and crushed heart. 20. With Your will, do good to Zion; build the walls of Jerusalem. 21. Then You will desire sacrifices of righteousness, a burnt offering and a whole offering; then they will offer up bulls on Your altar. (Judaica Press Complete Tanach)

This is a pretty strange conclusion coming from a man who supposedly tells us here, beyond a doubt, that God doesn’t think our sacrifices are at all relevant or important. He is talking about bringing offerings in righteousness and not in a sinful state. So after repentance from a contrite heart God desires the sacrifice of the just! That He will not reject. So according to rabbi Singer David first says that God rejects sacrifices (v.18), but he will offer them anyway (v.21). Who would believe that?

For the Talmudic element that rabbi Singer is talking about, please see the section “Questionable rabbinic interpretations of Scripture”.

Hoshea 3 + 14 (37:00)

Rabbi Tovia Singer claims that Hoshea 14:3 tells us that we have prayers as a replacement for sacrifice, claiming that this is a teaching that tells us what to do in the time when Israel has no Temple with it’s sacrifices. The analogy of the rabbi is nowhere to be found in the text, talking about “…don’t worry! Take with you words…”, etc, giving the audience a whole other picture of what is being said by the prophet. However a thorough look at Hoshea 14 will reveal that it has nothing to do with Israel in exile, from the time of separation from the land and Temple with sacrifices. And therefore has nothing to do with “what to do in the meantime” or “how to replace sacrifices”. This is evident from Hoshea 3 speaking of Israel being without sacrifice, etc. and afterwards returning to God and David their king (Messiah) in the latter days. This is what Hoshea is expanding on. After those “many days without sacrifices” Israel is to return:

This is exactly what Hoshea is talking about in chapter 14:2, which leads us to the verse that rabbi Singer misuses to try to back his claim up:

Now honestly tell me that this is a declaration of the prophet about what to do when in exile to procure atonement for sins. This is what Israel is to do when it returns to God! When does this happen? In the latter days! When Israel returns to God using upright words from a pure heart in the latter days. These are the “fruit of our lips” the NIV refers to, also using the LXX reading, which reads “we will offer up the fruit of our lips”, instead of the MT reading. And of course, rabbi Singer claims that the Christian translators didn’t like the verse and changed it. The NIV didn’t change a thing, it just didn’t follow the reading of the Hebrew Text, but of the LXX, just as the writer of Hebrews alluded to that verse, when he says “By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of [our] lips giving thanks to his name.” As Dr Michael L. Brown in his book Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus Vol. 2 writes:

Second, and more importantly, there are difficulties in the translation of Hosea 14:2[3], since the Hebrew literally reads, “Forgive all iniquity, and take good, and we will pay [Hebrew, shillem] bulls our lips.” For that reason, there are Jewish scholars (such as Robert Gordis) who suggest that the oldest Jewish translation of this verse, namely, the Septuagint, should be followed here, reading the word “fruit” (peri) instead of “bulls” (parim)-thereby undercutting the entire anti-missionary argument. Not only so, but a careful reading of the Hebrew text-even leaving the word bulls intact-indicates that the verse has nothing to do with offering sacrifices, since the Hebrew verb shillem is never used in the entire Bible with reference to making an animal sacrifice. Rather, it is most frequently used in the context of paying a vow, and its actual meaning-which is not disputed in any Hebrew dictionary I have found- is “to fulfil, complete, pay, repay, compensate, “ as in Ecclesiastes 5:4[3]:”When you make a vow to God, do not delay in fulfilling it [shillem]. He has no pleasure in fools; fulfil [shillem] your vow.” Therefore the meaning of the phrase is, “We will pay the vows of our lips to God” as opposed to, “We will replace animal sacrifices with the offerings of our lips.”

All this should give us a pause for thought, since it would be highly unlikely-to put It mildly- that the Lord would hang a major, life-critical, Torah-revising revelation on just one verse, especially when that verse in the original Hebrew is somewhat obscure grammatically and clearly does not mean what the anti-missionaries claim it means. (page 94, emphasis his)

Dr Brown surely has a point. It is surely possible that due to a scribal error (no “rabbinic conspiracy”!!!), the words (un’shalma parim s’fateinu) originally were (“un’shalma p’ri mis’fateinu), literally meaning “and we will pay the fruit of our lips”, which is a complete and grammatically correct sentence. And the meaning of this phrase is obvious, although rabbi Singer acts as if it means nothing. But the “fruit” of something means the product of something. Just as the fruit of the land stands for what the land produces, so does the fruit of the lips stands the product of the mouth, namely spoken words. (e.g. Isaiah 3:10; 10:12, Amos 6:12; Prov. 12:14) What I finally want to address is that the translation of the verse as rabbi Tovia Singer reads it is a totally distorted translation of that verse! It doesn’t say “and let us render for bulls the offerings of our lips” at all. The words (un’shalma parim s’fateinu) literally mean “and we will pay bulls our lips”. What does that mean? Could you imagine what rabbi Singer would have accused the NIV or the King James translators of if this verse was translated as such by them? But NOW rabbi Singer doesn’t mind the Hebrew text and goes with the faulty translation instead. Why? For obvious reasons, since he needs this verse to support the notion that prayer replaced sacrifices. A position that is faulty, as we have seen so far and will continue to see below.

1 Kings 8:46-50 (40:00)

Then rabbi Singer takes us to 1 Kings 8 where he claims that king Solomon “makes a speech for the nation” and prophesises about the time when Israel is in exile without the Temple and what to do in the meantime for atonement. However anyone familiar with the text knows that this is not a “speech” at all and certainly not a prophecy! This is a prayer from king Solomon and a request to God if he will accept the people’s prayers when they are in exile. This is not a prophecy about “this is how it’s going to be and that is what you are going to do”. Therefore it’s not Solomon’s prayer that is decisive, but Gods answer that is the measuring rod and the starting point of any doctrine that flows from the text. So let’s see what God answers Solomon. First, let’s look at Solomon’s “prophecy”:

46. If they sin against You, for (there is) no man who does not sin, and You will be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, and their captors will carry them away captive to the land of the enemy, far or near. 47. And they shall bethink themselves in the land where they were carried captive, and repent, and make supplication to You in the land of their captors, saying, ‘We have sinned, and have done perversely, we have committed wickedness.’ 48. And they shall return to You with all their heart, and with all their soul, in the land of their enemies, who led them away captive, and pray to You toward their land, which You gave to their fathers, the city that You have chosen, and the house which I have built for Your Name.
49. And you shall hear their prayer and their supplication in heaven, Your dwelling place, and maintain their cause. 50. And forgive Your people what they have sinned against You, and all their transgressions that they have transgressed against You, and give mercy before their captors, that they may have mercy on them.

Now this is hardly a prophecy. This is a request to God and not a speech to the people! Well, let’s see what God does with Solomon’s request in 2 Chronicals 7 (parallel to God’s answer in 1 Kings 9):

12. And the Lord appeared to Solomon at night, and He said to him, “I have heard your prayer, and I have chosen this place for Myself for a House of sacrifice. 13. If I shut up the heaven and there be no rain, and if I command locusts to devour the land, or if I send pestilence upon My people. 14. And My people, upon whom My name is called, humble themselves and pray and seek My presence and repent of their evil ways, I shall hear from heaven and forgive their sin and heal their land. 15. Now, My eyes will be open and My ears attentive to the prayer of this place. 16. And now, I have chosen and consecrated this House that My name be there forever, and My eyes and heart will be there at all times. 17. As for you, if you walk before Me as your father David walked, and do according to all that I commanded you, and you keep My statutes and My ordinances. 18. I shall set up the throne of your kingdom as I decreed to your father David, saying: You shall never lack a man ruling in Israel. 19. But if you revert and forsake My statutes and My commandments, which I placed before you, and you go and worship strange gods and prostrate yourselves to them.
20. I shall uproot them from upon My land, which I gave them, and this House, which I have consecrated for My name I shall cast from before Me, and I shall make it a proverb and a byword among all peoples. 21. And this House, which was exalted, every passerby will be astounded, and they will say: Why has the Lord done this to this country and to this Temple?
22. And they will be told: Because they forsook the Lord, the God of their forefathers, Who took them out of the land of Egypt, and they adopted strange gods and prostrated themselves to them and worshiped them; therefore, He brought upon them all this evil.”

Does this look like God grants Solomon his request of so called “replacing sacrifices with prayers”? He basically says “this is what we’re going to do. I chose this place as my house of sacrifice and my eyes and ears will be here continually. If you sin and I punish you, and you turn from your evil ways, I will hear and forgive you and restore your land. But if you continue to sin and fail to repent, I will kick you out and destroy this place.”
In other words, God makes it very clear that as long as the Temple is standing He would hear their prayers FROM that Temple (, not TOWARDS that Temple!), forgive them and restore the land. Meaning that this can ONLY be the case when Israel is IN the land and the Temple is standing. (How does it make any sense for God to say that He will restore their land if they are exiled and outside of the land? Or to command locusts to devour the land if the people are exiles from the land. What good will that do to the people? ) But when they would fail to repent, He would reject the Temple – which would evidently mean that he would reject their prayers as well – and throw them out. Why then does rabbi Singer claim that Solomon’s prayer, and not God’s answer, is decisive evidence that teaches us that when the Jewish people are without the Temple, we can use prayers as replacement for sacrifice? That is not at all what Solomon – and certainly not what God – is saying. God doesn’t even touch the subject of sacrifice and atonement! His answer is solely based on the request of the prayer of Solomon. Nothing about replacing sacrifices. And since rabbi Singer claims that it’s not so much about what was said but about what wasn’t said, then how does he come to the conclusion that prayer replaces sacrifices, when no such thing is being said? And this is the man that calls others deceitful! It’s clear that rabbi Tovia Singer’s claim, again, has no merit whatsoever!

Vicarious atonement. (44:37)

According to rabbi Tovia Singer vicarious atonement has no place in Judaism. It’s amazing how rabbi Singer seems to suffer from amnesia all of a sudden. The very system he claims that is repudiated by the prophets and replaced by prayer is founded on this principle of vicarious atonement. The innocent animal dies for the sins of the guilty sinner. As rabbi Singer himself explains at the beginning of the lecture in his analogy of “Moishe”, saying “you should have been me, but your not me, because I didn’t do it intentionally”. Of course he goes on to claim that this is merely a “teaching tool”, but the bible explicitly tells us that this works out atonement for our sins. It doesn’t say “you are to offer bulls so you can learn a lesson”, it says that by offering up the prescribed animals you work out atonement for your sins. But since rabbi Singer claims that vicarious atonement has no place in Judaism, it must be a pagan myth and we should find no such teachings in either the Tenach or rabbinic sources. I have already given you the biblical source for this teaching. Now let’s see what some rabbinic sources have to say about the righteous dying or suffering for the wicked. There are so many I don’t even know where to start:

Rashi’s commentary on Isaiah 53:4, 5 and 12

Indeed, he bore our illnesses Heb. an expression of ‘but’ in all places. But now we see that this came to him not because of his low state, but that he was chastised with pains so that all the nations be atoned for with Israel’s suffering. The illness that should rightfully have come upon us, he bore.
yet we accounted him We thought that he was hated by the Omnipresent, but he was not so, but he was pained because of our transgressions and crushed because of our iniquities.
…
the chastisement of our welfare was upon him The chastisement due to the welfare that we enjoyed, came upon him, for he was chastised so that there be peace for the entire world.
…
and with transgressors he was counted He suffered torments as if he had sinned and transgressed, and this is because of others; he bore the sin of the many.
and interceded for the transgressors through his sufferings, for good came to the world through him.

Rashi’s commentary on Numbers 20:1

Miriam died there Why is the passage relating Miriam’s death juxtaposed with the passage of the Red Cow? To teach you that just as sacrifices bring atonement, so the death of the righteous secure atonement. — [M.K. 28a].

Yeven Metzulah, end of chapter 15:

“Would the Holy One, Blessed is He, dispense judgment without justice? But we may say that he whom God loves will be chastised. For since the day the Holy Temple was destroyed, the righteous are seized by death for the iniquities of the generation”

The Zohar:

As long as Israel dwelt in the Holy Land, the rituals and the sacrifices they performed [in the Temple] removed all those diseases from the world; now the Messiah removes them from the children of the world (2:212a)

Leviticus Rabbah 20:12:

“Rabbi Hiyya Bar Abba said: The sons of Aharon died the first day of Nisan. Why then does the Torah mention their death in conjunction with the Day of Atonement? It is to teach that just as the Day of Atonement atones, so also the death of the righteous atones.”

I could go on and on to no end. Yet rabbi Singer says that there is no place for these teachings in Judaism. And of course we know that the anti-missionaries will seek to downplay the importance of these teachings any way they can, but consider this note:

q You will not find one teaching about reincarnation being forwarded in rabbinic Jewish sources. Why? Because it has no place in Judaism!
q You will not find one teaching about the consummation of blood being forwarded in rabbinic Jewish sources. Why? Because it has no place in Judaism!
q You will not find one teaching about sleeping around being forwarded in rabbinic Jewish sources. Why? Because it has no place in Judaism!


And we can down the list. But there are numerous commentaries to be found on vicarious atonement in rabbinic Jewish sources. Why? Because it HAS a place in Judaism and, more importantly, is founded on the Torah! This shows us again to what length the anti-missionaries will go to try to disprove the Messianic Jewish faith. I will close with 2 notes (emphasis mine). Here is a quote from an article from Jewish Encyclopedia.com:

Piacular Human Sacrifice.

Piacular sacrifice seems historically to have begun with human immolations. This is the view taken by the writer of Gen. xxii. (E), where the burnt offering of Isaac by Abraham is commuted by the sacrifice of a ram. The sacrifice by Mesha, king of Moab, of his eldest son (II Kings iii. 27) was expiatory; for, in the view of the narrator, the “wrath” of the offended deity was diverted upon Israel. Such were also the horrible sacrifices made to Moloch in the later days of the kingdom. These practises are amply illustrated from other ancient nations. But not all Old Testament human sacrifices were burnt offerings. Agag was not burned (I Sam. xv. 33); nor were the seven sons and grandsons of King Saul (II Sam. xxi. 8, 9). Both of these executions were made “before Yhwh,” and were therefore real sacrifices, the latter being expressly stated to be expiatory.

An influential author on the Sho’a (Holocaust), rabbi Ignaz Maybaum, speaking about the Sho’a once wrote that “In Auschwitz Jews suffered vicarious atonement for the sins of mankind”, even going as far to say that “the Golgotha [i.e. Calvary, where Yeshua was crucified] of modern mankind is Auschwitz” (Maybaum, The face of God after Auschwitz, 36)

Ezekiel 18+33

But what about the words of Ezekiel? He says nothing about atonement. He just gives us the traits of a righteous person that his righteousness counts for himself and so it is the case for ones wickedness. But does this mean that this speaks about the atonement process? No! and it certainly has nothing to do with the atonement process of the people outside of the land, i.e. in exile. As dr Brown notes in AJOJ Vol.2:

You see, he was not making a statement about atonement and forgiveness without sacrifices. Rather, he was responding to a widespread misunderstanding that existed among his contemporaries, a misunderstanding that completely undercut individual moral responsibility. According to this view, the parents could sin and escape scot-free, while their children would suffer for the parents’ sins… if we wanted to press your argument, we could say that according to Ezekiel 18, Sabbath observance is not important, since the prophet doesn’t mention it in chapter 18, nor are any of the holy days-including Passover, Rosh Hashanah, and Yom Kippur-of any importance, since he doesn’t mention it in the chapter, not is prayer of any importance, since he doesn’t mention it in the chapter. Would you accept this line of reasoning? Obviously not. Then why do you argue that the chapter teaches Jews in exile how to get right with God without sacrifices and offerings? And why, for that matter, didn’t the Lord remind Ezekiel that prayer replaced sacrifices while the Temple was not standing? It was because Ezekiel 18 had nothing to do with the subject of how to receive atonement while in exile. In fact, some of the language used by Ezekiel-referring to the wicked who eat at the mountain shrines”(Ezek. 18:6, 11, 15; cf. also 6:13) might best be applied to Jews living in the land of Israel.

Further, the anti-missionary interpretation of Ezekiel 18 is unknown to the Talmudic rabbis and medieval Jewish Bible commentators. In other words, it is a recent invention devised with the sole purpose of refuting Messianic Jewish beliefs. There is no record of any prominent rabbi in the past utilizing this text to prove that God provided an alternative method of atonement for his exiled people living without a Temple. This says a great deal….(p. 146, 148-149, emphasis his)

Ezekiel doesn’t even touch the subject of atonement! Using the same line of reasoning to the teachings of rabbinic Judaism, this works just as devastating to their views.

Ezekiel’s Temple: Checkmate?

According to rabbi Tovia Singer the Temple of Yechezeq’el [Ezekiel] is checkmate for the Messianic Jewish view, since it teaches that due to the sacrifice of Yeshua there is no longer need for sacrifices of sin. Whereas rabbinic Judaism teaches that when Moshiach comes, there will again be sacrifices. So he points us to Ezekiel 40-48, where Ezekiel the priest tells us about the sacrifices of what seems to be the Third Temple. So, “game over”, right? Not exactly, since Messianic Judaism teaches that there is no need for sin sacrifices, not that they will not be brought at all. Furthermore, a literal reading of the text of Ezekiel would raise serious problems for the rabbinic Jewish position as well. Namely:

ü If God will remember their sins no more as far as the New Covenant is concerned (Jer. 31:33), then what are sin sacrifices brought for?

ü If the World to come will be a utopia, then how come we are still sinning, since we are to bring sacrifices for our sins? As dr. Brown asks: If this “was to be the age of once-and-for-all forgiveness and complete undefiled righteousness. What need is there for sacrifices of atonement?”

ü The sacrifices in the Temple vision of Ezekiel differ from the sacrifices prescribed in the Torah! If we are to read this literally, what does that tell us about Ezekiel himself, using the same canon of critique the anti-missionaries use against the New Testament Scriptures? Doesn’t he, as a priest, know how the sacrificial system works according to the Torah? Or will the Torah be revised? If not then what gives? If so, then why accuse Yeshua of revising the Torah? You can’t have it both ways!

What is also interesting to note, is that sacrifices for sin in the Messianic Age will be a step backward if we are to take rabbi Singer’s word for it. Remember, he said that this is the method of atonement that was the least significant and the least effective of all methods of atonement! Again, according to this view we are staying at the Hilton’s Presidential Suite when we’re in exile and when we are in Israel and the Temple is standing we are merely staying at some roadside motel.

See AJOJ Vol.2 p. 169-186 for an in depth refutation to this objection. Dr Brown also explains that, as far as the Messianic Jewish point of view goes, these verses about sacrifices of atonement might as well be of communal nature. Just as the Torah pointed toward Yeshua’s death and atoning works, so can the sacrifices in Ezekiel’s visions point backward to commemorate the work of God through the Messiah. Just as it is done with the Passover Seder in Jewish homes every Pesach, pointing back to the going out of Egypt and God’s redemptive works, through Moshe. Just as it is done with “the Lord’s Supper, which is celebrated over and over again by followers of Yeshua to commemorate what he has done for us.

So instead of focussing on Yeshua’s atoning death and talking about “checkmate” to try to refute Messianic Jewish teachings, the rabbi and his should focus on how their views face the same difficulties if the same line of reasoning is being applied.

In summary: What do we make of rabbi Singer’s allegations and arguments? They have no truth to them whatsoever. Nowhere does the Tenach ever hint that prayer replaces sacrifice or that sacrifices are repudiated.

Nakdimon

http://www.geocities.com/nakdimonspage/isaiah53pt1rts.html

Isaiah 53 – Who is this servant?

March 14, 2009 at 9:27 pm · Filed under Christ, Christianity, Jesus, Messiah, Messiahtruth, Messianic, Messianic Jews, Nakdimon ·Tagged Anti-Missionary, Anti-Missionary Rebuttal, Jesus, Messiah, Messiahtruth, Tovia Singer

This article was originally written by Nakdimon, a Dutch believer in Jesus. I give full credit to Nakdimon!

Here are the the original links:

http://www.geocities.com/nakdimonspage/isaiah53pt2rts.html

Isaiah 53 – Who is this servant?
Part I: What rabbi Tovia Singer failed to tell his audience.

This chapter must be the most discussed section of any book of any religion in any time. There has been much speculation about this chapter as to who is this servant the prophet is talking about. Who IS this servant? Let’s consider the claims that rabbi Tovia Singer comes up with to prove that Isaiah 53 couldn’t be talking about Yeshua.

First I want to point to the fact that the rabbi always speaks of “fundamentalist Christians” or “fundamentalist Evangelicals” when he speaks of the people that take their faith in the Messiah of Israel seriously (1:50). All this because the word fundamentalist has a very negative charge. Think of what he would say if CNN would cover a story about devout Orthodox Jews calling them “fundamentalist Orthodox Jews” all the time. Let’s go to the arguments rabbi Singer raises in the first part of his lecture and see if there is any truth to them.

Charge no 1: Who is speaking? (7:40)

Rabbi Singer raises the question to the audience about who the think is the speaker. The people all come up with their options and the rabbi explains why their options wont work. But when someone says that Israel is the speaker, he denies that Israel is the speaker but fails to explain why Israel can’t be the speaker! Why doesn’t the rabbi explain this as he did in the other cases? Simply because he can’t. This is just subject to interpretation and therefore there is no argument he can come up with besides theological preference. Israel can’t be the speaker, because if it is then it can’t be the servant.

Charge no.2: Identity of the servant. (35:50)

Rabbi Tovia Singer wants to identify this servant and to know who this servant is, he comes with an analogy about a book he read and started somewhere on page 273, where the book spoke of a Danny and Sally. He didn’t know who they were so he started to back paddle as little as possible to show who they were. So he does too with this servant. There is only one problem with this analogy: that book spoke of specific names and there was only one Danny and one Sally, but in the book of Isaiah has not but one servant. Isaiah, Eliakim and David are also called Gods servant. Also curious is the fact that the rabbi says he wanted to back paddle as little as possible and starts reading towards Isaiah 53 (37:15, 40:00) and deliberately skips the one time the word “servant” is mentioned that is closest to the “4^th servant song”, namely Isaiah 50:10! And who is this servant?

4 The Lord GOD hath given me the tongue of them that are taught, that I should know how to sustain with words him that is weary; He wakeneth morning by morning, He wakeneth mine ear to hear as they that are taught. 5 The Lord GOD hath opened mine ear, and I was not rebellious, neither turned away backward. 6 I gave my back to the smiters, and my checks to them that plucked off the hair; I hid not my face from shame and spitting. 7 For the Lord GOD will help me; therefore have I not been confounded; therefore have I set my face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be ashamed. 8 He is near that justifieth me; who will contend with me? let us stand up together; who is mine adversary? let him come near to me. 9 Behold, the Lord GOD will help me; who is he that shall condemn me? Behold, they all shall wax old as a garment, the moth shall eat them up. 10 Who is among you that feareth the LORD, that obeyeth the voice of His servant? though he walketh in darkness, and hath no light, let him trust in the name of the LORD, and stay upon his God. 11 Behold, all ye that kindle a fire, that gird yourselves with firebrands, begone in the flame of your fire, and among the brands that ye have kindled. This shall ye have of My hand; ye shall lie down in sorrow. (Is 50:4-11)

This servant is not Israel. Notice the last sentence where this servant speaks of “This shall ye have from my hand; ye shall lie down in sorrow.” The servant is the speaker! How can this be about Israel?

When it comes to the servant, rabbi Singer wants to disprove Yeshua and so he goes on to emphasize the differences rather than the similarities. However, when it comes to Israel being the servant he points us to the similarities but disregards the differences. But what do those similarities say? Nothing at all. We must keep in mind that the majority of the Tenach is about the history of the relationship between God and His people Israel and that therefore there is a lot written about Israel. So since there is so much written about Israel, there is a lot of material that can be taken as a parallel to the servant. To illustrate what I mean, here are some similarities between Cyrus and the Unnamed servant in the Servant Songs.

- Taken by the hand (45:1 – 42:6)
- Called by his name (45:4 – 49:1)
- he will make God known all over the worlld (45:6 – 49:6)
- he will cast down nations (45:1 – 52:15))

And this is from just 6 verses written about Cyrus in Isaiah 45 and I still could find up to 4 similarities, whereas there is much more written about Israel. Which means you can find anything you want about Israel to apply on any situation at any time in history. Theologically, though, you have a problem. Rabbi Tovia Singer’s examples of resemblance say absolutely nothing.

What IS interesting though is that there are major differences between the unnamed servant and Israel. Namely:

-Israel is called blind and imprisoned (422:19) – the servant will open the eyes of the blind and release prisoners (42:7)
-Israel is called deaf and is rebellious ((42:19,20,25) – the servant has opened ears and isn’t rebellious (50:5)
-Israel walks in darkness and looks for liight (59:9) – the servant brings people from out of the darkness and will be a light (42:7, 49:6)
-Israel is punished for their disobediencee (42:24-25) – the servant is rewarded for his obedience (49:4-6)
-Israel speaks lies (59:3) – the servant hhas not spoken deceitfully (53:9)
-Israel has lost its way (59:7-8) – the seervant leads Israel back on track (49:5-6)
-Israel suffers for their own sins (42:25)) – the servant suffers for the sins of others (53:3-9)
-Israel suffers to their own shame (50:1-33) – the servant suffers and knows he will not be ashamed (50:7)
-Israel is in need of salvation (59) – thee servant will bring salvation. (49:6)
-Israel needs an intercessor (59:16) – thee servant IS an intercessor (53:12)

Charge no.3: Israel suffers because of the sins of the gentiles? (29:25)

So rabbi Tovia Singer argues. This cannot be! Allow me to illustrate and please pay close attention to the following:

When you say that hitting someone goes too far and will not be tolerated and on the other hand say that hitting someone is acceptable behaviour, then these two are contradictory statements for obvious reasons, right?

When you tell your child that you will discipline him when he steals and on the other hand you say that he can steal and you will not discipline him, then these two are contradictory statements for obvious reasons, right?

When you say that Isaiah 53 is about events such as the Holocaust, etc [events where the gentiles have gone too far] and that God isn’t pleased about these events or caused them to come upon Israel and these events were entirely due to the wickedness of the gentiles and, on the other hand, the prophet says that God was indeed pleased with whatever happens in Isaiah 53 and God did indeed cause it to come upon the servant, then these two are contradictory statements for the same obvious reasons!

What do I mean by all this? Well, rabbi Tovia Singer boldly says:

“the reason why the Jews have endured the suffering and persecution and pain and unwanted death is not because of their iniquity of their rejecting Jesus, of killing God, but it’s gonna be because of as a result of the sins of the world. When the gentile kings sinned what did they do? They punished, they persecuted the Jews. Am I right? That was their sin? Who suffered as a result of that sin? The Jewish people! And that is going to be their recognition at the end of days!”

Listening to his words a little later he quotes Zechariah 1:15 (1:18:12) saying:

“’I am very angry with the nations…’ why? ‘…because they’re at ease. And I was wroth a little but they helped to do harm.’ They did far more than Israel ever deserved.”

In other words, rabbi Tovia Singer says that God is angry with all the persecution and the harsh and cruel treatment Israel got from the nations, and the nation’s wickedness was the cause of the suffering of Israel and it was not God’s intention to cause Israel to suffer as much as they have by the hands of the nations. Every time the nations went too far and overstepped their boundaries against the Jewish people to bring them great suffering, even to the point of annihilation, it was because of their own iniquities rather than by Gods cause and God had nothing to do with it. But this view is contradictory to what the prophet Isaiah is saying! This is what the prophet says:



6 All we like sheep did go astray, we turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath made to light on him the iniquity of us all…
10 Yet it pleased the LORD to crush him by disease…



There is clearly a contradiction here. Did God cause the Gentiles to overstep their boundaries against Israel? Was God pleased with the extreme cruel treatment of the Gentiles against His people? Of course not! If what rabbi Tovia Singer says, and therefore the entire anti-missionary position, is true, then the prophet is wrong! But that is not an option since we are trying to figure out what the prophet is trying to say. So if the prophet says that, whatever he is describing in Isaiah 53, God has caused it to come upon the servant (v.6) and was pleased with it (v.10), then how can the rabbinic Jewish position say the exact opposite and claim that it is saying exactly the same as the prophet? LET THE TRUTH BE KNOWN: It is the exact opposite of what Isaiah is saying! Obviously this can’t be about Israel suffering from the exceedingly cruel behaviour at the hands of their persecutors, because if it was about that, then God would not be pleased with it and so the rabbi and Isaiah are in disagreement with each other, to say it politely. Cause where rabbi Singer claims that God is angry with the nations for such behaviour and God didn’t have anything to do with it, the prophet Isaiah says God was pleased and that God caused it to come upon the servant. So who do we believe: Y’shayahu ben-Amots hanavi or rabbi Tovia Singer? So from the Traditional Jewish (anti-missionary, Talmud, etc) position, if what they are saying is true and this is about Israel, then God would be pleased with events such as the Holocaust! Therefore, this simply can’t be about Israel as the rabbi, in trying to prove Israel as the servant, contradicts what the prophet says.

Let me be more specific: If the rabbinic Jewish position is flawed about Israel being the servant, then who IS the prophet really talking about? And seeing that they are clearly wrong, and have merely been echoing the voice of the Sages and rabbis of the past, then this does serious damage to the infallibility accredited to these Sages and rabbis of the past as far as their interpretation of other texts goes.



Additional comments:

To elaborate on the analysis of verse 6 and 10 above, some anti-missionaries take Deuteronomy 28:63 as a parallel to those verses claiming that God seems to be saying that He is pleased to destroy Israel to cause them to repent, even to the point of annihilation. Obviously Deuteronomy 28:63 isn’t about events such as the Holocaust, but for the sake of argument we will accept that claim, then we still have a major problem at our hands. Israel did not repent after the Holocaust! In fact, more Jews have lost their faith in HaShem BECAUSE of the Holocaust to the point that Israel is a secular state, from the day it declared it’s independence up till now. So if the Holocaust was God’s plan for teshuvah (repentance) then that whole plan backfired! In addition, this grasping at Deuteronomy 28:63 blows another hole in the anti-missionary position that rabbi Tovia Singer uses in this lecture, namely, the Gentile king’s recognition in the end of days that God had nothing to do with the severe persecution and that it was solely the wickedness of the Gentiles that caused Israel to suffer as much as they did. Either way you put it, Israel as the servant will not work!


In his zeal to prove that Israel is the servant (51:44) rabbi Singer quotes from a couple of Nazi source about their opinion on the appearance of the Jew in comparison of to the appearance of the ape where man supposedly has come from. Rabbi Singer then actually sees this as proof and a parallel to Isaiah 52:14 by quoting it. Now this is actually the best he could do, as he says so himself! The only major problem is, that this is supposed to be the opinion of the gentiles, according to rabbi Tovia Singer, but Isaiah 52:14 isn’t the gentiles speaking, but it is God speaking about his servant! According to rabbinic Judaism’s views, the gentiles don’t start speaking until two verses later in Isaiah 53:1! So unless one wants to argue that God shares the opinion of the Nazi’s about the appearance of His people, we can safely conclude that rabbi Tovia Singer totally made this up! This verse has nothing to do with Nazi opinion. This verse is about God speaking about His servant’s marred appearance from the humiliating suffering, not about his ugliness, as the Nazi paper reports.


In order to prove that the Christians will come up to Jews in the end of days, rabbi Tovia Singer quotes Jeremiah 16:19, proving that Christianity is a false religion.

(19) O YHWH, my strength, and my stronghold, and my refuge, in the day of affliction, unto Thee shall the nations come from the ends of the earth, and shall say: ‘Our fathers have inherited nought but lies, vanity and things wherein there is no profit.’

However, let’s consider where Christianity started: In Israel with a handful of Jews. This isn’t a gentile faith, this is from the Hebrew Bible and thoroughly recognizes the Tenach as the sole word of God. If anything this verse speaks of those gentiles of the religions apart from the Hebrew Bible and the gentiles that are atheists and have adapted the views that there is no such thing as a God and that man is the highest level or all organisms “so make sure you live your life to the fullest, cause you only live once”. So this verse doesn’t prove anything against Messianic Jewish beliefs.

Isaiah 53 – Who is this servant?
Part II: What rabbi Tovia Singer failed to tell his audience.




Charge # 4: Lamo (10:40)
Rabbi Tovia Singer promised (9:40) that even if he only had Isaiah 53 and nothing else he could prove that this wasn’t talking about Yeshua. He starts with the famous “lamo” argument and lashes out to the translators of the KJV translation, who translate it as “him”. The verse that rabbi Singer reads to his audience goes:


for the transgression of my people a plague befell them (vs


This above translation is the translation the rabbi suggests in his lecture. Notice that I have given the translated words parallel colours. Take note that he makes a big deal (1:14:00, part 1) about the KJV translating verse 5 (…we are healed) in the present tense while that sentence is in the past tense and condemns those translators, but now rabbi Singer uses the past tense where there is no past tense at all! The word “befell” is nowhere to be found in the text, that’s why it’s left in the colour black. I thought that was a bad thing! So when the KJV does it, it is one of the great Christian deceiving tactics, but now the rabbis does it and it is considered an accurate translation, acceptable at worst. But to continue with the word “lamo”, we can be very brief: the rabbi is right! Lamo means “for them”. BUT, how is it consistently used in the scriptures? The rabbi goes on to give us examples of other verses where lamo is used and they are, of course, all plural. Now the following is interesting. There are 3 instances of lamo being applied to a single individual or item and guess what the KJV does in all those instances. It translates it accordingly! If the word lamo refers to a single person, then it should be translated in the singular form, which is exactly what the KJV does! Here are the quotes:


#1 And he said, Blessed [be] the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. (Gen 9:26)
#2 he maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto. (Isaiah 44:15)
#3 for the transgression of my people was he stricken (Isaiah 53:8)


So what is rabbi Tovia Singer complaining about? The KJV has no agenda here, it just translates it in accordance with the context and thus follows a consistent pattern. But rather than the KJV having an agenda, it is the rabbi who has an agenda. He not only blatantly lies about the KJV translating the word “lamo” as “them” in all other places, as has clearly been demonstrated, but he then goes on to ignore the use of lamo in Isaiah 44:15! WHY? Because it doesn’t support his claim! Look at the context and you will see it is totally singular. I have put all the singular Hebrew words in brackets and made them red:


10 Who hath fashioned a god [el], or molten an image [uphesel nasach] that is profitable for nothing?
11 Behold, all the fellows thereof [chaveraav] shall be ashamed; and the craftsmen skilled above men; let them all be gathered together, let them stand up; they shall fear, they shall be ashamed together.
12 The smith maketh an axe, and worketh in the coals, and fashioneth it [yitserhu] with hammers, and worketh it [wayif´alehu] with his strong arm; yea, he is hungry, and his strength faileth; he drinketh no water, and is faint.
13 The carpenter stretcheth out a line; he marketh it [y´ta´arehu] out with a pencil; he fitteth it [ya´asehu] with planes, and he marketh it [y´ta´arehu] out with the compasses, and maketh it [wa´ya´asehu] after the figure of a man, according to the beauty of a man, to dwell in the house.
14 He heweth him down cedars, and taketh the ilex [tirzah] and the oak [w´alon], and strengtheneth for himself one among the trees of the forest; he planteth a bay-tree [oren], and the rain doth nourish it [y´gadel].
15 Then a man useth it [w´hayah] for fuel; and he taketh thereof (i.e. from the pieces of wood), and warmeth himself; yea, he kindleth it , and baketh bread; yea, he maketh a god [el], and worshippeth it; he maketh it [asahu] a graven image [pesel], and falleth down thereto [lamo].

And then it goes on and tells the same story in the singular. So it looks like the KJV translates lamo correctly. You might say “but this is about idols in general hence the plural lamo”. But the context is singular, uses a substantial number of singular words to describe the idol and the actions of the worshipper and so it should be translated accordingly. Likewise, the language of Isaiah 53 is thoroughly singular and therefore lamo should be translated accordingly. So why does rabbi Tovia Singer ignore this passage? And where does this leave his claims of distortion? Also, there are translations that translate it as saying “for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due”, making it clear that this servant got the punishment that the speakers deserved.



Charge #5: b’motav (19:00)
Rabbi Tovia Singer makes the claim that the word must be changed to the singular because it is a “nuisance to the cross”. But again, I must give the rabbi credit where credit is due: he is right again. “B’motav” means “in his deaths” and “b’moto” means “in his death”. But does this indicate plurality? NO! If it were “b’moteihem/b’motam”, then he would have a point beyond any doubt, since this would mean “in their deaths/in their death”, which is indisputably plural. But this word in Isaiah 53:9 does not support anything he goes on to say. The rabbi then goes on to say that he can’t prove his point from the Tenach because the word “b’motav” doesn’t appear in the rest of scripture. But the plural expression of that word is indeed used elsewhere in scripture. But rabbi Singer doesn’t quote that and we will see why he doesn’t. Let’s look at Ezekiel 28:



(8) They shall bring thee down to the pit; and thou shalt die the deaths of them that are slain, in the heart of the seas….
***

(10) Thou shalt die the deaths of the uncircumcised by the hand of strangers; for I have spoken, saith the Lord YHWH.’


These are examples of a single person being addressed and threatened to die deaths (plural). Now it is often said that these are instances that the word “deaths” refer to the plural “uncircumcised”. Well, that doesn’t excuse the plural use either, because the Tenach shows us that the singular is used in reference to a multitude [e.g. Numbers 23:10; Let me die the death (singular; moth) of the righteous (plural; y’sharim)]. And also verse 8 is a striking example of the plural being applied to a singular person. It speaks of “m’motei chalal b’lev yamim” which translates “in the deaths of one slain in the in the hart of the seas”. The plural (chalalim) is not used here (e.g. Isaiah 66:16, Daniel 11:26). Again, rabbi Tovia Singer claimed that this was an exceptional word and this form doesn’t appear in the rest of the Tenach so that means he must have studied it out. So if he has studied this out, how come he “forgot” to mention these two instances? So again, rabbi Tovia Singer’s charge of deceit is yet again without any substance whatsoever and I again leave it up to you to decide if this was just an accidental mistake or he deliberately left out the information.



Charge #6: God promises God
Rabbi Singer keeps arguing that God is making promises to God, that is, God making promises to Himself. For starters, this is not a deal that is made. It is a description of what awaits the servant when he has fulfilled his task. But if you want more on the concept of the Devine nature of the Messiah, please see my response on the “Trinity” lecture.



Charge #7: Deal? (27:50)
Rabbi Tovia Singer makes a big deal about a word that can be translated any way you like. Since this is a prophecy and this is surely to happen it isn’t a question of “if” the servant will do something, but “when” he will have done it! (for example Isaiah 4:4) So the word “אִם” (im) actually wont prove neither the rabbinic reading nor the messianic reading. So there is no deal as far as the messianic reading is concerned. The servant will do that and when he has done it that will be the result. Sure prophecy, sure fulfilment. Also notice that the servant will live and see generations after he has made his soul a “guilt-offering”, in other words, after he has died. This can only be speaking of a resurrection.


Charge #8: Seed/ זָרַע (Zera) (30:15)
Rabbi Singer then goes on a rampage about the fact that Yeshua didn’t have any seed when the prophet explicitly says this, that is, according to the rabbi. The rabbi says that the servant has to have children. Rabbi Singer argues that the word “בֶן” (ben) is the proper word to refer to non-physical children, not “זָרַע” (zera). He actually goes so far to say that

“the word ‘zera’… can only mean physical children, NEVER spiritual children. By definition the word ‘zera’ means ‘seed’. It’s talking about that which leaves the loins of a man. It’s not talking about those people that follow his teachings. ‘Zera’ only means PHYSICAL children. NEVER does it mean someone’s gonna have spiritual children, that’s IMPOSSIBLE! And therefore it’s clear here that this is talking about physical children. ‘Prove it to me!’ Boy, am I gonna prove it to you!”

Then the rabbi gives us some verses that prove his point and then drills his point home with an account in Genesis 15, a dialogue between God and Abram where God appears to Abram and Abram mistakes Eliezer for his son (בֶן/ben) and says that God didn’t give him any seed (זָרַע/zera). Sounds like a pretty convincing story, doesn’t it? However… yet again rabbi Tovia Singer is not telling the whole story and plays with the mind of his audience. Look at the quotes above again:

zera only means physical seed…
never spiritual seed…
that’s impossible …
boy am I gonna prove it to you…

If what rabbi Singer says is actually true, then we won’t be able to find a single instance where zera is used metaphorically (referring to non-physical seed) in the Tenach since he told his audience that was impossible, right? Okay! Now what the rabbi failed to tell his audience and conveniently left out is the following. A few chapters after Isaiah 53 we see the word seed used again. This is what Isaiah 57:4 says:


עַל-מִי תִּתְעַנָּגוּ עַל-מִי תַּרְחִיבוּ פֶה תַּאֲרִיכוּ לָשׁוֹן | הֲלוֹא-אַתֶּם יִלְדֵי-פֶשַׁע זֶרַע שָׁקֶר
Against whom do ye sport yourselves? Against whom make ye a wide mouth, and draw out the tongue? Are ye not children of transgression, a seed of falsehood,

Now unless rabbi Tovia Singer is going to argue that the people of Israel are direct descendants and physical offspring of falsehood, this pretty much looks like a metaphorical use of the word “zera”, something that rabbi Tovia Singer, who has great knowledge of Hebrew, said that was IMPOSSIBLE! Why does Isaiah then seem to think otherwise? Didn’t he know enough Hebrew to know what rabbi Singer knows? No, it’s simply because Isaiah doesn’t have to disprove or discredit anyone, but rabbi Singer clearly does! Again, is this just a slip of the tongue or deliberately left out? Now we will proceed to the next example, which comes from Psalm 22:31:



A seed shall serve him; it shall be told of the Lord unto the next generation.

Unless you believe that God married some hot goddess and will have physical children, this pretty much looks like a metaphorical usage of the word “zera”. At least it looks like the word zera is used to describe to other peoples’ offspring and not of the subject itself, God. “But…”, you object, “…this doesn’t speak of Gods children at all. This just says that “a seed” (zera) will serve Him and not that “his seed” (zero) will serve Him!” To which my answer is; don’t you do the exact same thing regarding the servant in Isaiah 53? What does it say?



He will see seed


Exactly! It says “yir’eh zera” and not “yir’eh zero”, so why does rabbi Singer claim that the servant must have children or that he is promised children? The text doesn’t say that at all! Now I am aware of instances that the prophet doesn’t use the possessive form but it is still implied. But who says that he is implying it here? Nowhere in the text of Isaiah 53 is there ever a promise to the servant that he will have children. Maybe people with a double agenda may think so, but looking at the Hebrew text, which is the source of rabbi Singer’s arguments, there is no basis for that argument. Except theological bias, of course. Here are more references to metaphorical uses of zera in Isaiah:

“4 Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evil-doers, children that deal corruptly…” (Isaiah 1)

“20 Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, thou hast slain thy people; the seed of evil-doers shall not be named for ever.”(Isaiah 14)

“3 But draw near hither, ye sons of the sorceress, the seed of the adulterer and the harlot.” (Isaiah 57)

Unless one is going to argue that all the parents of the ones being addressed here are truly considered harlots and evildoers, you are going to have to concede that it’s implied here to refer to people who follow the evil works and the ways of adultery like the generations before them, regardless if they are their physical children or not. For all we know most of the parents of those being addressed here have been righteous while they wandered off. This clearly refers to the works of their predecessors rather than their origins.

So this charge remains without teeth, is made up from thin air and rabbi Singer is caught lying yet again!



Charge #9: Vindication by blood alone?
Rabbi Singer claims that Yeshua has only vindicated His followers through His blood. The rabbi says that it can’t refer to Yeshua because according to the Gospels “christians are healed by the blood of Jesus and not by his knowledge, as is said of this servant” (my rendition). This is a totally inaccurate position, because we believe it all goes hand in hand. Yeshua knew he had to give up his life in order for us to be saved. It was his knowledge that made him say “Let this cup pass me by… but it is not as I want but as You wish”. Without this knowledge, things would have been very different and either one is completely blind to this fact or just chooses to nitpick in order not to come to this conclusion. We believe that through his life, suffering, death and resurrection all good things have come to mankind. They are all a piece of the big puzzle. So clearly rabbi Singer wants to nitpick and he can go just head. He makes a claim of vindication through knowledge based on one verse and ignores all the other verses that speak of this servants suffering bringing vindication and atonement to the speakers. This is a point even Rashi makes in his commentary on Isaiah 53. I advice anyone to read it on http://www.chabad.org/library/article.htm/aid/63255/jewish/The-Bible-with-Rashi.html . This is his commentary (in italics, all emphasis mine):

4. Indeed, he bore our illnesses Heb. אָכֵן, an expression of ‘but’ in all places. But now we see that this came to him not because of his low state, but that he was chastised with pains so that all the nations be atoned for with Israel’s suffering. The illness that should rightfully have come upon us, he bore.
yet we accounted him We thought that he was hated by the Omnipresent, but he was not so, but he was pained because of our transgressions and crushed because of our iniquities.

5. the chastisement of our welfare was upon him The chastisement due to the welfare that we enjoyed, came upon him, for he was chastised so that there be peace for the entire world.

Now this is not “the big prove” that this speaks of the suffering of the servant bringing atonement, but since rabbi Singer claims that the Christian reading is flawed, he is obviously also in contention with Rashi’s reading.



Charge #10: The New Testament slips! (1:04:20)
In order to demonstrate that the Israel interpretation was common and the Messianic interpretation was not rabbi Tovia Singer claims that the New Testament slips by showing that the Messianic reading of Isaiah 53 was new at that time and everyone knew that Israel was the subject of that chapter. So he brings us to Matthew 16 where Yeshua announced His suffering and death and Kefa (Peter) took him aside and rebuked Him, saying “that should not be unto thee”, showing clearly that the Messianic interpretation was unknown in that day. Well, once again, the rabbi is right. There was no teachings that the Messiah, son of David, was to die. This is also something that the New Testament teaches. Sha’ul (Paul) makes this point in his letter 1 Corinthians 2:7-9:

But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known [it], they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

So Paul makes it emphatically clear that it was not known that the Messiah, son of David, had to die, this was hidden in Scriptures. But does this support the claim of the rabbi that “everyone” knew that it was speaking of Israel in the singular? Of this the New Testament gives us a conclusive answer also. Let’s look at the account of the book of Acts, chapter 8, where Philip meets the Ethiopian who happens to read the chapter of Isaiah 53:

“29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. 30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? 31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. 32 The place of the scripture which he read was this,

He was led as a sheep to the slaughter;
and like a lamb dumb before his shearer,
so opened he not his mouth:
33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away:
and who shall declare his generation?
for his life is taken from the earth.

34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.”

This man didn’t know what Isaiah 53 was speaking about either! When it was read he asked of whom it spoke, “the prophet himself or some other man”. He asked of which individual it spoke! It never occurred to the man that it could be speaking about a nation in the singular. What he should have said is “of course I know who this speaks of. It speaks of Israel in the singular”. But he never thought of that. So, no, this Israel interpretation was not commonly known in those days.



Charge #11: Rashi invented Israel interpretation. (52:50)
Rabbi Tovia Singer goes on with the argument that the Israel interpretation is invented by Rashi and then goes on to tell us how that claim is wrong, quoting other sources that should date before Rashi. Now there is something fishy going on here, because those same sources claim that this chapter is about the Messiah as well. Yet, if you would raise this to an anti-missionary, he would be quick to point you to the fact that these interpretations are mere “midrash” or homily and not the “p’shat” (straight forward) meaning of the text and therefore irrelevant. Including rabbi Singer, who blatantly lied about there not being one rabbi that said that Isaiah 53 was about Messiah ben David in a debate with Dr Michael L. Brown. (listen http://www.realmessiah.com/Listen/Entries/2008/12/11_Debate_-_DR_brown_and_Rabbi_Singer.html at about 48:50 in the debate) So where they will disregard the midrash saying it’s about the Messiah, the same midrash is taken to be valid evidence that the Israel interpretation is actually pre-Rashi.

Now let’s look at the sources rabbi Singer comes up with:

The Zohar: is quoted as pre-dating Rashi. But the Zohar isn’t ancient, although rabbinic Judaism claims it is. It’s most likely 12^th century, composed by Moses de Leon. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zohar )

Midrash Rabbah: This is actually just a side reference to a midrash on Ruth and is actually the closest any pre-Rashi traditional Jewish source comes to the Israel interpretation.

Brachot 5a: isn’t about the “righteous remnant” of Israel nor is it about “all Israel”, but just righteous people in general. It has nothing to do with a particular group of righteous people.

Targum: I have the Aramaic at home but I haven’t read it, because I don’t know Aramaic. But I have read some translations (Driver & Neubauer; Levey) of the entire the Targum and there is nothing that indicates that Israel is the servant. Yes, Israel suffers, but so do the Gentiles! What does that tell us? Absolutely nothing! What IS evident is the intercessory role that is allotted solely to the Messiah and absolutely absent in relation to Israel. Instead, just as the servant in Isaiah 53 intercedes for the transgressors, so does the Messiah intercede for his people in the Targum. The intercessory role is ascribed solely and totally to the Messiah and this shows us whom the Targum understands to be the servant. But because the Targum obviously doesn’t believe that the Messiah would die, it ascribes some of the sufferings to the gentiles and some to Israel. If, according to the Targum, the suffering of the servant was the main theme of the chapter, i.e. to identify the servant, then it wouldn’t have ascribed any suffering to the gentiles. So according to the Targum, the servant, who intercedes for the sins of his people, is the Messiah.

Origen: Now this is the only pre-Rashi source that I have been confronted with in my years of debating anti-missionaries that gives us a literal reading of Israel being the servant in Isaiah 53. Note that it’s not even a rabbinic source! That’s how rare this view was. But let’s see what Origen is saying exactly in chapter 55 of his book:

Now I remember that, on one occasion, at a disputation held with certain Jews, who were reckoned wise men, I quoted these prophecies; to which my Jewish opponent replied, that these predictions bore reference to the whole people, regarded as one individual, and as being in a state of dispersion and suffering, in order that many proselytes might be gained, on account of the dispersion of the Jews among numerous heathen nations. And in this way he explained the words, “Thy form shall be of no reputation among men;” and then, “They to whom no message was sent respecting him shall see;” and the expression, “A man under suffering.” Many arguments were employed on that occasion during the discussion to prove that these predictions regarding one particular person were not rightly applied by them to the whole nation. And I asked to what character the expression would be appropriate, “This man bears our sins, and suffers pain on our behalf;” and this, “But He was wounded for our sins, and bruised for our iniquities;” and to whom the expression properly belonged, “By His stripes were we healed.” For it is manifest that it is they who had been sinners, and had been healed by the Saviour’s sufferings (whether belonging to the Jewish nation or converts from the Gentiles), who use such language in the writings of the prophet who foresaw these events, and who, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, appiled these words to a person. But we seemed to press them hardest with the expression, “Because of the iniquities of My people was He led away unto death.” For if the people, according to them, are the subject of the prophecy, how is the man said to be led away to death because of the iniquities of the people of God, unless he be a different person from that people of God? And who is this person save Jesus Christ, by whose stripes they who believe on Him are healed, when “He had spoiled the principalities and powers (that were over us), and had made a show of them openly on His cross?” At another time we may explain the several parts of the prophecy, leaving none of them unexamined. But these matters have been treated at greater length, necessarily as I think, on account of the language of the Jew, as quoted in the work of Celsus.

Notice Origen says that it was on this one occasion that he was presented with this weird interpretation. He starts with “I remember”, which is not something that you say when you hear something all the time. This tells us that he had to dig it up from deep in his memory. Origen speaks of “on one occasion” debating with “certain Jews”. What is also evident is that he speaks of these Jews claiming this is about “the whole people”, and not about “a righteous remnant”. We also see that this wasn’t regarded as intercession, but “in order that many proselytes might be gained”. This is a whole other interpretation than that of modern day Judaism. Take note also that according to Celsus, who was anti-Christian this was reckoned as “the language of the Jew”, and thus Israel is speaking here and this was not seen as being the language of the gentile kings. There is nothing in this chapter that would indicate that this was “the” Jewish view of that time.

What then do we make of rabbi Tovia Singer’s claims? They are totally untrue!

A little summary:




It’s funny to see how rabbi Singer fails to tell the whole story all the time and only gives his audience the part that fits his agenda and then claims that others try to deceive their readers by asking “why play with my holy scriptures”. If anyone is playing with scripture – and with the mind of his listeners – it is obviously rabbi Singer, who is clearly enjoying his one sided story. You may say: “well, cut the rabbi some slack. He might have missed it”. Then he shouldn’t go and accuse others of deliberate distortion and then go hiding behind the excuse that people make mistakes when it comes back to him, because the examples are right there in the book of Isaiah and it is highly unlikely that he missed it. If he wants people to be considerate towards him, he should be considerate towards them. But if anyone in his audience knew Hebrew and was half as critical to his views as he was against the Messianic view, then he would fall on his face right there.

As for that comment that they “play with our Bible” and about “leaving skid marks”, which rabbi Singer uses repeatedly, my answer would be: if any system has “played with our Bible” it is the Talmud, that added and subtracted tons of laws from the Written Law and given us numerous crooked interpretations of the Tenach. If anyone with half the critique one has towards the New Testament is let loose on the Talmud he would need at least quadruple the amount of time and paperwork to criticize it as one needs to criticize the New Testament.

Nakdimon

Go to Part I Go to rabbinic section of Isaiah 53

Jesaja 53

THE FIFTY-THIRD CHAPTER OF ISAIAH ACCORDING TO THE JEWISH INTERPRETERS

Translations by S.R.Driver and Ad. Neubauer

But the chiefmost answer to all of the above objections, and to the very conception that the one spoken of in Isaiah 53 must be the people of Israel, instead of the messiah, is that the sufferer must be righteous; without sin; and suffering innocently. And yet never is Israel’s exile said to be without cause, or wanton; but rather, as the punishment for sins. And the principal reason provided for the delay in the messiah’s arrival is the continuance of sin among them. Thus, they cannot be both innocent and suffering without cause, yet at the same time be guilty of such sins as warrant their exile and the delay of the messiah.

Ibn Crispin complains of “the forced and far-fetched interpretations, of which others have been guilty. . . [those who would interpret this passage collectively of Israel] distort the passage from its natural sense, [since] the singular is used throughout”; and whereas the prophet calls the people, “Israel, my servant” previously, in this passage he says only, “My servant”. [And this is also the only place in scripture where the express phrase, "My righteous servant", is to be found.] Further, he says, “These expositors shut the doors of the literal interpretation against themselves, and wearied themselves to find the entrance.” He himself goes back to “the teachings of our rabbis, [who affirm that it speaks of] the King Messiah.”

Rabbi Isaac b. Eliyyah Cohen, while speaking strongly against the Christian interpretation, says, “I have never in my life seen or heard an interpretation by a clear or fluent commentator, with which my own judgement, and that of others who have pondered the question, might completely concur.” Saadiah Ibn Danan (a contemporary of Abarbanel), says, “I set before myself the notes of those who had commented upon this chapter. . . and pondered over them, and examined the opinions they contained. But all alike, I found, lacked solidity and soundness.” (For example, the Karaites interpreted the section of their own sages, on the grounds that they were persecuted. Some rabbinic Jews applied it to the righteous among themselves. Others thought it might refer to Isaiah himself, or Jeremiah, or Hezekiah, or Job; some, to the seed of David in exile.)

Abraham Farissoll apologizes for those who interpreted it of the messiah. “Whatever justice there may be in the expressions of our sages, who applied the prophecy to the messiah [note, therefore, that some sages did in fact apply this passage to the messiah], it should be borne in mind that although they themselves and their words are both truthful, yet their object was [only] allegorical.”

Moses Elsheikh says, “The verses in the chapter are difficult to fix or arrange in a literal manner, so that the various parts, from the beginning to the end, may be combined and connected closely together.I see commentators going up and down among them, and yet neither agreeing on the subject to which the whole is to be referred, nor disentangling the words with any simple plan.” He himself then plans, in “all humility”, to set himself to “apply to it a straightforward method, according to the literal sense of the text, such as should be adopted by one who would rightly unite the several words and periods, and determine what view is legitimate, and what not.” He then interprets it of the Messiah; yet, when he comes to verses 9-12, all of which speak of the death, he says, “These verses are all of them hard, though we shall not touch on everything which might be noticed.”

Shlomo Levi says, “Throughout this prophecy, all the commentators exert their utmost on its interpretation, and are at no small variance as to its import.” Even in later times, R. Napthali Altschuler expresses his surprise that “Rashi and David Kimchi have not, with the Targum, applied them to the Messiah likewise.”

Passani expresses his surprise at former commentators, and says, “Not one of the explanations is in complete accord with the language of the text, or succeeds in satisfying us–still less the [Christians].” He thinks that, like all other prophecies, most of Isaiah’s also point to the latter days, when the Messiah shall have appeared, but exhorts caution how it should be interpreted. “Take heed, O wise man, in your words, even though the language be meant to be metaphorical and indirect.”

Rabbi Tanchum seems to be carefully ambiguous. He uses the phrase, “any person or nation”, but speaks of the subject as being “one of the generation in exile”, who had died, yet “a guide and a deliverer”, who “rescues them from captivity and their enemies generally”, and speaks of “his hidden nature, the mystery connected with him not being revealed to them.” He concludes with a protest against there being anything allegorical, and seems to think that the intention of the prophet was, not to be understood.

Ibn Amran says, “As relates to the Jews, there is no little difficulty in giving a sense to these most obscure words of Isaiah at the present; they manifestly need a prophetic spirit; thus our older and more abstruse masters went apart from one another to different explanations. But,” he satisfies himself, “each very far removed from the exposition of the Christians.”

For error is manifold, truth but one.

(Oxford, 1876)

Mosheh El-Sheikh

Isaiah 52:13 The verses in this parashah are difficult to fix or arrange in a literal manner, so that the various parts, from the beginning to the end, may be combined and connected closely together. . . I see the commentators going up and down these parts, yet neither agreeing about the subject to which the whole is to be referred, nor disentangling the words in any simple plan.

I, therefore, in my humility, am come after them; not with any sense of the wisdom that I am about to utter, but merely with the object of applying to its elucidation a straightforward method, in accordance with the literal sense of the text, such as ought to be chosen by one who would rightly unite the several words and periods, and determine what view is legitimate and what not.

I may remark, then, that our rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the King Messiah, and we shall ourselves also adhere to the same view; for the Messiah is of course David, who, as is well known, was “anointed”, and there is a verse in which the prophet, speaking in the name of the Lord, says expressly, “My servant David shall be king over them” (Ezekiel 37:24). The expression My servant, therefore, can justly be referred to David; for from what is explicit in one place we can discover what is hidden or obscure in another.

Our rabbis say that of all the suffering which entered into the world, one third was for David and the fathers, one for the generation in exile, and one for the King Messiah. If we examine the meaning of this saying, we shall see that there are punishments for iniquity, and also punishments of love, the latter being endured by the righteous for the wickedness of his own generation. Now those who do not know how far the reward of the righteous really extends feel surprised at this. . . wondering whether it can be true that He will be wroth with a just and perfect man who never sinned, and heap on him the iniquities of wrong-doers, in order that they may rejoice, and he, the just man, be pained; that they may be ’stalwart in strength’ while he is stricken and smitten; that they may exult at his calamity, and mock during their feasts at his distress, while he is smitten for their sakes.

In order to put an end to the “fear from this thing”, God declares in these verses how far the merits of those who suffer for the sins of their own age extend their effects, adducing a proof from the case of the Messiah who bore the iniquities of the children of Israel, “and behold his reward is with him” The Almighty argues with Israel, saying, “. . . look and learn how great is the power of the man who suffers for a whole generation; you shall see then from the exaltation which I shall confer upon the King Messiah how vast are the benefits of the chastisements of love to him that endures them.”

Behold my servant (i.e., the Messiah) will prosper–this prosperity of his will extend through four worlds, viz., the lower world; the world of angels; the world of stars; and the highest world of all; in each of which the same prosperity will attend him. He will be high in this world; exalted in the world of the stars; and lofty in the world of angels; exceedingly because prosperity will accompany him in the uppermost world as well, in the presence of God, according to the saying of the rabbis on Psalm 2:8, that he will be ‘like a dear son, delighting himself before the Creator’; He says therefore, Ask of me, etc. [Psalm 2:8] , because of the good fortune which is to be his in each of the four worlds.

Our rabbis further say, “He shall be higher than Abraham . . . lifted up above Moses. . . and loftier than the ministering angels.” As Moses ruled even in the world of the stars–for the rabbis say that for this reason the hail, the locusts, and the grasshoppers were sent through his instrumentality–so, even more fully, will the Messiah hold sway over these likewise. This does not imply that he will be superior to Moses in wisdom or in prophecy, nor again, that at the time alluded to Moses will not in every respect be the greater (indeed anything different from this will not be credited by those who have real knowledge), but only that he will be more exalted than Moses was previously, in his own lifetime.

And he is to be loftier than the angels, according to the text (Ezek. 1:18), for these had “loftiness and fear”, i.e., in spite of their high position, they still stood in awe of the Almighty, not venturing, like the righteous one who “played before him, as a son before his father”, to make request of their Creator.

Isaiah 53 The Almighty, however, says that there is no need for surprise at their attitude of incredulity in the presence of these marvels [of the restoration of Israel], for who believed our report–the report, namely, which we made known to you from heaven, but which the kings had not heard of? So fearful was it, that in the eyes of everyone who did hear it [of the restoration of Israel], it was too wondrous to behold; and upon whom was the arm of the Lord revealed as it was upon the King Messiah? The sum of the whole is that he obtained this honor for himself owing to his merits in enduring for Israel (as has been said) chastisements of love. The contents of this and the following verses show unmistakably that they are the words of the prophet, instructing or guiding the people, and not the words of God. From the fact that the rabbis expounded the previous verses of the Messiah, it may be seen that these speak of the righteous who endures in the present world the chastisements of love; and therefore I maintain that up to this point we have had the words of God announcing the greatness of the Messiah in return for his sufferings.

Here, however, the prophet seems to set before us the words of Israel endorsing the Divine declaration, and affirming in their own persons its entire truth. “The ‘tried saying of the Lord’ ” , they exclaim, “which He has made known to us concerning the King Messiah, has opened our ears and removed the blindness of our eyes; we beheld a man, just and perfect, bruised and degraded by suffering, despised in our eyes, and plundered verily before God and man, while all cried, ‘God has forsaken him!’ ; he must surely, therefore, we thought, be ‘despised‘ likewise in the eyes of the Almighty, and this is why He has made him ‘an offscouring and refuse’ (Lam. 3:45). But now the Lord has awakened our ear, and taught us that the chastisements of love are infinitely great; henceforth, then, will ‘his strength be magnified’, when we see him just, and humble in spirit, stricken, and smitten; for them we shall all agree in concluding that what we had seen before meant nothing except that he was carrying our sicknesses; and that his sufferings were for the protection of his generation.”

Such is the substance of what the prophet puts into the people’s mouth. And first of all they say, “He came up as a tender shoot”, etc. ; i.e., we see one who was as tender shoot with water for it to absorb, and growing great and tall; he was like this, however, only in the upper world; for though this just and perfect sufferer flourished and grew great before God in the upper world, yet in the earth which we see below, he was as a root coming forth out of the dry earth, where there was no water for him. Being lowly, therefore, in the sight of our eyes, he was without form and comeliness in the world; his form was “darkened” by the blackness of his sufferings (cf Lam. 4:8), and “his own leanness bore witness in his face”; neither had he any beauty that we could desire him on account of his righteousness, but, on the contrary, he was rejected in our eyes.

But besides this, he was despised, also, in is own eyes; it is not stated that he was humbled for his pride, since in reality men hid their faces from him, nor from any fault of his own, but for the iniquity of his generation; though he himself looked upon the matter differently, imagining in his goodness that he must be guilty, and thus was punished for his sins. Accordingly he was both despised in his own eyes, and we esteemed him not. Yet in truth the cause of this “face-hiding” lay not in him, but in the people, for, as we learn from the expression used in the preceding verses, he carried our sicknesses, that he was ready to carry them of his own accord.

We, however, thought that he was not bearing them of his own accord, but that he was stricken and smitten of God, by a judgement of retaliation for his own iniquities, and not out of love. Yet it was because he was wounded for our transgressions that he was “broken by sickness”; and because he was bruised for our iniquities that he became “a man of pains”; and he was “afflicted” with poverty, because the chastisement of our peace was upon him. His being wounded and bruised for our iniquities had merely the negative effect of rescuing us from our punishment; in order for us to enjoy positive peace and prosperity, further sufferings were needed, and these consisted in his being “afflicted” with poverty. For while the direct consequences of our sins had been averted by his sickness and stripes, something still was needed in order to confer peace upon us.

All we like sheep had gone astray–like sheep which all follow after their leader, so that if the leader strays, they all stray with him, because of the unity of the whole flock; as the rabbis say, “When the shepherd is angry with his flock, he makes their leader blind.” (Baba Kama 52a) But in this case, we learn from also that “each turned to his own way“, showing that with us this was not so, but that it resulted from the separate action of each individual. Had it indeed been otherwise, our guilt would not have been so great. But see now the mercy of God: after we had individually gone astray, he might have been expected to punish us individually likewise; yet the Lord did not look to this, but counted us as one man, reckoning up the iniquity of us all together, and causing it to light upon this just one, who was accordingly sufficient to bear the whole of it, which would not have been the case had each one’s iniquity been reckoned up against himself.

As for his generation, would that someone would declare to them how it was cut off from the land of life for the iniquity which the just one had before averted, because they did not repent. Hitherto, he means to say, this just one had been stricken for the people’s transgression; but henceforward the stroke would be upon themselves, for there would be no one else to be smitten for them. It is possible, from his use of the singular “transgression“, that Isaiah means to allude to their sin in supposing that he had died for his own iniquity, and in not having brought themselves by his death to repentance.

And he made his grave with the wicked. I will show you an instance of this in the chief of all the prophets [Moses], who, by still suffering after his death, endured a heavier penalty than others who had suffered for their generation. Moses was buried away from the Promised Land, together with the wicked ones who died in the wilderness. For these were unworthy to enter the world to come, had not Moses borne the disgrace of being buried at their side, in order that he might bring them into it with himself. [A story--found in Deuteronomy Rabba 2.9-- illustrates this belief, by telling of a man who dropped some pennies and a single gold piece on the floor of a darkened room. He had a light brought and collected up all the coins. Had he dropped only pennies, however, he would not have bothered to fetch the light and search for them. So for the sake of the gold piece, the rest were also collected.]

Moses was not, however, buried solely with these. In the wilderness also rested Korah, who was “rich“, along with all those who perished with him (Num. 17:6). With all these Moses made his grave, in order to bring them likewise into the future world. For it is well known that even Korah and his deaths, i.e., those who died in his cause, will all rise up with him. The prophet thus appeals to a known case: he, Moses, made his grave with the wicked, for he was buried in profane ground in order to bring them in with him into the future world.

Because he afterwards died for the iniquities of his generation, therefore with the mighty, the patriarchs and those like them, he will divide spoil, because he poured out his soul to die for the sake of Israel, and also because he was numbered with the transgressors; for people said when they saw his sufferings that he was smitten of God for his sins, and classed him with the transgressors. This he knew, yet went on enduring, and carried this sin of many, not caring to be vexed with them, but, on the contrary, interceding with the Holy One for–that is, on behalf of–the transgressors; the ones, namely, who spoke thus of him; not, like some, from ignorance, but from actual malice. And therefore by his knowledge, i.e., in accordance with his will, the just one, my servant, will justify many and bear all their iniquities without solicitude, and without inquiring whether it is not a strange thing to endure distress for the sake of others after death. (For if this be the case, why did Moses our master endure, for the sake of those who perished in the wilderness, to be buried with the wicked in a foreign land?)

And do not wonder, if this is an excessive reward for him to receive. Had it not been for him, they would never have entered into the world: did not Moses [likewise]“pour out his soul to die” when he “put his soul into his hand”, saying, “But if not,–blot me, I pay you, out of the book you have written.” (Exodus 32:32), where he expresses his willingness to die in their stead? Moses was also on their account “numbered with transgressors”; Accordingly it is said that “he was numbered with them”, i. e. he felt no anxiety at having given his soul for them, and, besides this, that “he carried the sins of many”, as God said to him, “Go, get you down” (Exodus 32:7), as though to say, Descend from all your greatness, because Israel has sinned; but still, in spite of this, “he made intercession for the transgressors”, because in every place that Israel sinned he interceded for them. And this is the prophet’s meaning when he writes, “And he carried the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.”

YEPHETH BEN ALI

Isaiah 52:13 The commentators differ concerning this section. The Fayyumi [Sa'adyah Gaon of Fayyum] lost his senses in applying it to the prophets generally, or, according to some authorities, in supposing that it referred to Jeremiah. Some of the learned Karaites apply the prophecy to the pious of their own sect. Others think that the subject of it is David and the Messiah, saying that all the expressions of contempt, such as “many were desolated at you“, refer to the seed of David who are in exile; and all the glorious things refer to the Messiah. As to myself, I am inclined, with Benjamin of Nehawend, to regard it as alluding to the Messiah, and as opening with a description of his condition in exile, from the time of his birth to his accession to the throne.

The expression “My servant” is applied to the Messiah as it is applied to his ancestor in the verse, “I have sworn to David My servant” (Psalm 89:4).

“As many were desolated at him” (verse 14) His condition is described as being such that anyone seeing him would be desolated at him, on account of the sicknesses which had befallen him. The prophet explains the cause of their desolation concerning him by saying, “His countenance was marred beyond any man“, in other words, the complexion of his face was so changed as to become like that of a corpse. He adds further, “And his form beyond the sons of Adam”. In other words, he was so altered in form as to resemble a corpse; and alluding to the same fact, he says, towards the end of the section, “For he was cut off out of the land of the living.”

“At him the kings shall shut their mouths“. (verse 15) This means that the kings of the world will close their mouth when he lays a command or prohibition upon them.

Isaiah 53 Here begins Israel’s words; they ask, in their amazement, Which of the nations believed the report that was among us? Not one of them; for they all agreed that there would be for Israel no recovery. “Upon whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”, in other words, through which nation has the might of God revealed itself?

Israel now (verse 2) turns back to describe the manner of the Messiah’s birth, comparing him to a young twig or shoot because he is one of the children of David, and to a root because he will become a root like his father David. “And . . . out of the dry earth” means that he resembles a root emerging, sickly and weak, out of the arid soil. This comparison relates to the beginning of his career; and the same is the case with the words, “he had no form or comeliness“.

By the words, “surely he has carried our sicknesses“, they mean that the pains and sicknesses which he fell into were merited by them, but that he bore them instead. The next words, “yet we did not esteem him“, intimate that they thought him afflicted by God for his own sins, as they distinctly say, “smitten of God and afflicted“.

And here I think it is necessary to pause for a few moments, in order to explain why God caused these sicknesses to attach themselves to the Messiah for the sake of Israel. We say that God makes known to the people of their own time the excellence of the prophets who intercede for a period of adversity in two ways. First, while Israel’s empire lasted, it was shown in prayer and intercession, as in the cases of Moses, Aaron, Samuel, David, Elijah, and Elisha, whose prayers for the nation were accepted by God. Second, in a time of captivity and extreme wickedness, though their intercession showed no such traces as these, yet the burden of the nation’s sins was lightened; such was the case with Ezekiel when God obliged him to sleep 390 days on his left side and forty on his right (Ezekiel 4:4). He carried on the first occasion the iniquity of Israel, and on the second the weight of that of Judah. The nation deserved from God greater punishment than that which actually came upon them, but not being strong enough to bear it (as Amos says, “O Lord, forgive, I beseech you; how can Jacob endure, for he is small?”) the prophet had to alleviate it.

Inasmuch as now at the end of the captivity there will be no prophet to intercede at the time of distress, the time of the Lord’s anger and of his fury, God appoints His Servant to carry their sins, and by doing so lighten their punishment in order that Israel might not be completely exterminated. Thus, from the words, “he was wounded for our transgressions“, we learn two things: first, that Israel had committed many sins and transgressions, for which they deserved the indignation of God; and second, that by the Messiah bearing them they would be delivered from the wrath which rested upon them, and be enabled to endure it, as it is said, “And by associating with him we are healed.”

The expression “smitten of God” signifies that these sicknesses attacked him by the will of God; they did not arise from natural causes. And the word “afflicted” corresponds to “despised” in verse 3, the meaning being that he was afflicted with poverty.

Verse 6 exhibits Israel’s wickedness in not awaking to repentance after God had punished them with his plagues. They are compared in this respect to sheep without a shepherd, wandering from the way, and torn by wild beasts, going astray among the mountains without any to lead them back,. In like manner Israel in captivity has no one to call him, and lead him back to the right way, and if a guide rises up to them, desiring to bring them back, they hasten to kill him, and so cause their captivity to be prolonged. By the words “we have turned every one to his own way“, they mean that each is occupied with the necessities of life and with establishing his fortune. And while God looks upon their work, and they do not think of their sicknesses, their guilt is thrown upon this guide, as it is said, “And the Lord laid upon him the iniquity of us all.” The prophet does not mean literally “the iniquity“, but rather the punishment for this iniquity.

Verse 9 says, “And he made his grave with the wicked.” This means that he sometimes despaired so much of his life as either to dig for himself a grave among the wicked (i.e., the wicked Israelites), or at least desire to be buried among them. The general sense is that he resigned himself to die in exile.

It was said, “The Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all“, and the prophet repeats the same thought here, saying that God was pleased to bruise and sicken him, though not in consequence of sin. The prophet next says, “When his soul makes a trespass offering“, indicating thereby that his soul was compelled to take Israel’s guilt upon itself, as it is said, “And he bore the sin of many“.

I must here give a compendious account of the whole of the Messiah’s career. It is as follows: his first advent will be from the north, as we have explained upon Isaiah 41:25
“I have raised one up from the north and he came“. Then with his arrival in the land of Israel the period of affliction and violence will cease from Jacob, and at the same time all the things mentioned in the present section will happen to him. Every good quality will be united in him, but in spite of all this the people will not recognize in him the will of God. For his sake, however, God will deliver Israel from all her afflictions.

And when the season of redemption comes, our lord Elijah will appear to the people and anoint him, and from that moment he will begin to be prosperous, as it is said, “Behold My servant shall prosper“. His forces will then spread in every direction and be victorious; and then at last Israel will dwell in safety. When news of this reaches Gog, they will rush forth and “gather themselves together against the Lord and his Anointed” (Psalm 2:2); but when he prays to God in the midst of his people, God will come to him with deliverance, as his forefather prophesied, “The Lord will answer you in the day of trouble“, etc. (Psalm 20). And then he will be “high and exalted and lofty exceedingly“.

MYSTERIES OF RABBI SHIMON BEN YOHAI +/-161 C.E

And Armilus [i.e., the devil] will join battle with the Messiah, the son of Ephraim, in the East gate. . . and Messiah, the son of Ephraim, will die there, and Israel will mourn for him. And afterwards the Holy One will reveal to them Messiah, the son of David, whom Israel will desire to stone, saying, You speak falsely; already is the Messiah slain, and there is none other Messiah to stand up (after him). And so they will despise him, as it is written, “Despised and forlorn of men“; but he will turn and hide himself from them, according to the words, “Like one hiding his face from us“.

THE ZOHAR

The souls which are in the Garden of Eden below go to and from every new moon and Sabbath, in order to ascend to the place that is called the Walls of Jerusalem. . . After that they journey on and contemplate all those that are possessed of pains and sicknesses and those that are martyrs for the unity of their Lord, and then return and announce it to the Messiah.

And as they tell him of the misery of Israel in their captivity, and of those wicked ones among them who are not attentive to know their Lord, he lifts up his voice and weeps for their wickedness, as it is written, “He was wounded for our transgressions”, etc.

There is in the Garden of Eden a palace called the Palace of the sons of sickness. This palace the Messiah enters ,and summons every sickness, every pain, and every chastisement of Israel; they all come and rest upon him. And were it not that he had thus lightened them off Israel and taken them upon himself, there had been no man able to bear Israel’s chastisements for transgression of the Law; and this is that which is written, “Surely our sicknesses he has carried.”

The children of the world are members of one another. When the Holy One desires to give healing to the world ,he smites one just man among them, and for his sake heals all the rest. From were do we learn this? From the saying, “He was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities”, i. e. , by the letting of his blood–as when a man bleeds his arm–there was healing for us–for all the members of the body. In general a just person is only smitten in order to procure healing and atonement for a whole generation.

At the time when the Holy One desires to atone for the sins of the world, like a physician who to save the other limbs, bleeds the arm, he smites their arm and heals their whole person, as it is written, “He was wounded for our iniquities”, etc.

MOSHE KOHEN IBN CRISPIN

This Parashah the commentators agree in explaining of the captivity of Israel, although the singular number is used throughout. The expression My Servant they compare rashly with Isaiah 41:8, “you Israel are My servant”; here, however, he does not mention Israel, but simply says, My servant; we cannot therefore understand the word in the same sense. Again in verse 41:8 he addresses the whole nation by the name of their father Israel (or Jacob, as he continues, “Jacob whom I have chosen“), but here he says My servant alone, and uniformly employs the singular, and as there is no cause restraining us to do so, why should we here interpret the word collectively, and thereby distort the passage from its natural sense?

Others have supposed it to mean the just in this present world; but these, too, for the same reason, by altering the number, distort the verses from their natural meaning. As then it seemed to me that the doors of the literal interpretation of the Parashah were shut in their face, and that “they wearied themselves to find the entrance“, having forsaken the knowledge of our Teachers, and inclined after the “stubbornness of their own hearts“, I am pleased to interpret it, in accordance with the teaching of our rabbis, of the King Messiah, and will be careful, so far as I am able, to adhere to the literal sense; thus, possibly, I shall be free from the forced and far-fetched interpretations of which others have been guilty.

My servant. I may begin by remarking that we find this term used in scripture of an individual prophet, as Moses; of all the prophets generally (Amos 3:7), and of the whole of Israel (Lev. 35:42). But we do not find it used of angels, known clearly to be such, because it is only applicable to one who enslaves himself assiduously to the service of God, and directs both his person and his thoughts “to serve Him with all his heart and with all his soul”. This service is implanted in the heart; it cannot, therefore, be said of an angel, for [this service] has its seat in a bodily organ, in the heart, and nowhere else, and an angel has no body. As obviously, then, the expression cannot possibly be applied to the substance of the Creator Himself, as is done by our opponents in their theory of the Trinity (according to which this man was of the substance of the Creator). Yet even granting all this, which, though it is impossible to speak about, still less to conceive, how could he describe himself as “My servant“, since for a man to be called his own servant is a palpable absurdity.

He shall be high, etc. These words likewise afford an answer to our opponents, for they refer exclusively to the future. And this language clearly cannot be applied to God. For how could it be said of Him that, like a mortal man, He will at some future time be high and exalted, as though he had not been so before? The prophet says that he is to be “high and exalted“; but during the whole time that he [Jesus] is reported to have been incarnate, we do not find that exaltation or supremacy ever fell to his lot, even to the day of his death.

He shall be high and exalted, and lofty exceedingly. He will be more exalted than Moses; for when he gathers together our scattered ones from the four corners of the earth, he will be exalted in the eyes of all the kings in the whole world, and all of them will serve him, as Daniel prophesies concerning him, “All nations, peoples, tongues shall serve him.” (Dan. 7:14). He will be loftier than Solomon, whose dignity was so lofty that he is said to have “sat on the throne of the Lord” (I Chron. 29:23), and our rabbis say that he was king over both the upper and the nether world. (Sanhedrin 20b) But the King Messiah, in his all-comprehending intelligence, will be loftier than Solomon. Exceedingly above the ministering angels, because that same comprehensive intelligence will approach God more nearly than theirs.

And when this “servant of the Lord” is born, from the day when he comes to years of discretion, he will continue to be marked by the possession of intelligence enabling him to acquire from God what it is impossible for any to acquire until he reaches that height wither none of the sons of men, except him, have ever ascended; from that day he will be counted with his people Israel, and will share their subjugation and distress; “in all their affliction” (Is. 53:9) he will be exceedingly afflicted; and because of their being outcasts and scattered to the ends of the earth, his grief will be such that the color of his countenance will be changed from that of a man and pangs and sicknesses will seize upon him, and all the chastisements which come upon him in consequence of his grief will be for our sakes, and not from any deficiency or sin on his part which might bring punishment in their train, because he is perfect, in the completeness of perfection, as Isaiah says (11:2ff) .

Truly all his pains and sufferings will be for us; continually he will be prostrating himself, and stretching out his hands to God on our behalf, and praying to him to hasten the time of our redemption, until in compassion upon him, and in order to shorten the intense grief felt by him for us, the Creator “speeds” the time of our deliverance.

And so great will be his grief and pain endured thus on our behalf, that those who see him will despise him, thinking that in consequence of his many deficiencies and sins God brought all those chastisements upon him; for they will never believe that such sufferings could be caused merely by grief. And because of their attributing them to these deficiencies and sins, he will be despised in their eyes, and they will count him as nothing, not perceiving the great perfection that is in him, who will be a compassionate father to have compassion on us, even more than Moses our master, and in the multitude of his compassion for us will draw to himself all those sicknesses and chastisements, until the Creator hears his prayer, and looks upon all his pain, and has compassion on us for his sake, and speeds our redemption, and sends him to redeem us.

So will he sprinkle many nations. As his countenance is marred beyond man when he comes to redeem us, so he will scatter many nations and disperse them to the ends of the earth, like one who sprinkles, i.e., who scatters blood. The expression sprinkle means that he will scatter them without difficulty, like one who sprinkles blood.

Who has believed our report? Who was able to believe the report which we heard of him, when they said to us that , as the prophets had announced, he had at last come to redeem Israel ,”with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm“, until we saw the matter with our own eyes?

Verse 53:2 states how the servant of the Lord grew up, like a branching tree which had sprung up out of the dry earth. The King, thus, through the grief and sorrow which he bore on our account from the time of his coming to years of discretion, and which clung to him until it left him no form or comeliness, resembles either the branching tree coming up out of a root planted in the dry earth, or both the branches and the root together, which sprang up out of the dry soil.

A man of pains and known to sickness, i.e., possessed of pains and destined to sickness; so all that see him will say (murmur) of him. They will also, it continues, on account of his loathsome appearance, be like men hiding their faces from him; they will not be able to look at him, because of his disfigurement. And we, when we see what he is like, shall despise him till we no longer esteem him. We shall cease to think of him as a Redeemer able to redeem us and fight our battles because of all the effects which we see produced by his weakness.

Surely our sickness he has carried. These words explain the cause of his sufferings; they will all come upon him on account of the grief and sorrow which he will feel for the sickness caused by our iniquities. It will be as though he had borne all the sicknesses and chastisements which fall upon us. Or, perhaps, “carry” may mean take away, forgive, as in Exodus 10:17; from his pity and his prayers for us he will atone for our transgressions. And our pains he has borne, as a burden upon himself; all the weight of our pains he will carry, being himself exceedingly pained by them. And we esteemed him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. We shall not believe that there could be any man ready to endure such pain and grief as would disfigure his countenance, even for his children, much less for his people. It will seem a certain truth to us that such terrible sufferings must have come upon him as a penalty for his own many shortcomings and errors; and therefore we shall account him “smitten of God“. But it is not so; they are not a penalty sent from God, but he was panged for our transgressions–pangs, as of labor, will seize him for the distress that has come upon us for our transgressions. And by union with him we are healed. Although he is in the utmost distress from pain and sickness, yet by union and nearness to him, we are healed from all the diseases to which our afflictions give rise. God will have mercy upon him and, by sparing him fro the sake of his sufferings endured on our account, heal us.

Like sheep which have no shepherd, and which wander hither and thither on the plain, so we were wandering in our own works and ways, each going after his own business, and none caring for the service of God. Our iniquity was “too great to be forgiven”, and because in our exile we had incurred the most extreme penalty, behold it was as though this penalty, which was deserved by all of us, had been laid by God upon him.

For he, is cut off, etc. The nature of this Messiah is truly wondrous. He soul is “cut off from the land of the living“, in other words, it is derived from the living angels who exist forever, from these abstract intelligences. These form the source from which his own intelligence emanates, and gradually, in virtue of its comprehensive wisdom, ascends to an elevation which, as we have already explained, none else has ever attained.

His body, on the other hand, is composed of griefs and pains and sicknesses–of grief for the transgression and affliction of his people (which was so great as to disfigure his appearance), and of pains and sicknesses greater than those of other men. And it is an indication of his perfection that he does not care for the pain of his own body, for he recognizes its proper rank, and its deficiencies, in this nether world–a world which has no permanence. And therefore, all that hear of him, or know him, will marvel at him exceedingly, because never in the world had a prophet or wise man been heard of who was compounded of two natures such as these.

This prophecy was delivered by Isaiah at the divine command for the express purpose of making known to us something about the nature of the future Messiah, who is to come an deliver Israel, and his life from the day he arrives at the age of discretion until his advent as a redeemer, in order that if anyone should arise claiming to be himself the Messiah, we may reflect, and look to see whether we can observe in him any resemblance to the traits described here. If there is any such resemblance, then we may believe that he is the Messiah our righteousness; but if not, we cannot do so.

RABBI SHLOMOH ASTRUC

My servant shall prosper, or be truly intelligent, because by intelligence man is really man–it is intelligence which makes a man what he is. And the prophet calls the King Messiah My servant, speaking as the One who sent him. Or he may call the whole people My servant, as he says above My people (52:6). When he speaks of the people, the King Messiah is included in it. And when he speaks of the King Messiah, the people is comprehended with him. What he says then, is that My servant the King Messiah will prosper.

Our rabbis declare that he will be higher than Abraham; more exalted than Moses; and loftier than the angels. Lofty through the angels, in that he will depend upon the intelligent powers which belong to him and are his ministers, and which tend to attach themselves to God, so that he will be like the Angel of the Lord of Hosts. Of him also, it is said, that “His angels He will appoint for you, to keep you in all your ways.” (Psalm 91:11).

In verse 52:14, the prophet, speaking of Israel as a whole, says, Just as all who saw you were amazed at the greatness of your distress, and said, What is the heat of this fierce anger (Deut. 29:24) that is upon this people more than any other people? and, Is this the city which men used to call the perfection of beauty (Lam. 2:15)? [so will they now be amazed at your glory]. For as before the Lord gave full measure in smiting you, so now he will give you full measure of prosperity, so that the dignity of this Annointed One, when he is annointed, will surpass that of all others who are annointed, by the radiancy of his countenance which will shine like that of Moses (Ex. 34:30).

[Normally this verse is translated, "he was marred beyond any other man"; but with a slight change in the spelling of one word it could read, "he was annointed beyond any other man". Apparently this is how the verse is being interepreted in the above passage. It is interesting to note that one of the versions of Isaiah found among the Dead Sea Scrolls also has this alternate reading--ed.]

Chapter 53: A continuation of the words spoken by the gentiles and their kings. Who, at the time when our [gentiles'] exaltation and prosperity seemed secure to us, would have believed this report brought to us? Such a wondrous change could have been anticipated by no one. And upon whom was the arm of the Lord ever revealed to raise him to such dignity as this Messiah? For when we looked at him, and gazed upon his countenance, it had no beauty, and we did not desire him. (The prophet means to say here that there was nothing in him to cause us–the gentiles– to desire him. Or, the meaning may be, “and now we desire him”, on account of the many desirable qualities which he possesses.

He was despised and forlorn of men. He was not permitted to enter the society of men, because he was a man of pains, and broken by sickness. Or perhaps this denotes that he was so well known generally for the sicknesses which he endured that in imprecation men would say, “May such a one be like him!”

The next words assign the reason why Israel was rejected and cast aloof and hated in their [gentile] eyes. They say, “When we saw the face-hiding, the manner in which God hid His face from him [i.e., from Israel], and carried him [Israel] far away captive among the gentiles, he [Israel] was then despised and cast aloof by us [i.e., the gentiles], and we esteemed him [Israel]not–he had no value in our eyes”. Or, “We did not think of him [Israel] that God would again open his eyes and have mercy upon him, after having thus rejected and removed him far from his own place.”

SA’ADYAH IBN DANAN (to +/- 1493)

I was perusing the book of the prophet Isaiah, and when I came to the Parashah Behold My servant, I set before myself the notes of those who had commented upon it, and pondered over them and examined the opinions they contained. But all alike, I found, lacked solidity and soundness; as was the more palpable, since each differed from the rest in the subject to whom he supposed it to refer, some expounding the Parashah of the congregation of Israel as a whole, and others, in one way or another, of the King Messiah, who will speedily be revealed in our days. This, in fact, is done by our rabbis, who , in the section Heleq (Sanhedrin 94a), on the words To the increase of his government (Isaiah 9:7), expound as follows: The Holy One sought to make Hezekiah the Messiah, and [to make] Sanacherib, Gog and Magog.

And the heretics explain it of their messiah, by their method of interpretation, discovering in its arguments relating to his passion and death, and their false belief in him, which, however, have been refuted oftentimes with unequivocal proofs by learned Jews. One of these, Rabbi Joseph ben Kaspi, was led so far as to say that those who expounded it of the Messiah, who is shortly to be revealed, gave occasion to the heretics to interpret it of Jesus.

May God, however, forgive him for not having spoken the truth! Our rabbis, the doctors of the Talmud, deliver their opinions by the power of prophecy, possessing a tradition concerning the principles of interpretation, so that their words are the truth. The principle which every expositor ought to rest upon is never to shrink from declaring the truth. And now I will make known what has been communicated to me from heaven, namely, the Parashah was originally uttered with a reference to Hezekiah, king of Judah and Israel, but being “a word deftly spoken” (Prov. 25:11), nevertheless alludes covertly to the King Messiah. . .

Says the author: Behold, we have explained the several parts of this Parashah in an elegant and plausible manner; and the interpretation here given is the one that is revealed and open to all, but there is a secret one, sealed and treasured up in its midst, which sees throughout allusions to the King Messiah (who is assuredly to be speedily revealed in our own days). And in the same sense it is expounded by our rabbis.

We cannot, however, interpret each individual detail in it of the Messiah, because we do not know all the incidents of his advent, or the precise manner of the redemption which he will then accomplish for Israel. Still, what our rabbis teach in this respect, we must accept, for, like all their other opinions, it will be true and right; but anyone who imagines himself able to apply every single particular in the Parashah to the Messiah is in error, and feeling after darkness rather than light, as is the case with the heretics who struggle vainly to refer it to their messiah in detail. We see then their error and delusion, which has already more than once been sufficiently replied to by our wise men. May God, for His Name’s sake, lighten our eyes with the illumination of his Law, and bring us forth out of darkness into light, and redeem us with a perfect redemption!

MOSHEH BEN MAIMON (MAIMONIDES)

Iggeret Teiman, translated by Boaz Cohen, notes by Abraham S. Halkin

Messiah culminates in the following manner “Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee.” (Psalms 2:7). All these statements demonstrate the pre-eminence of the Messiah.

Transcendent wisdom is a sine qua non for inspiration. It is an article of our faith that the gift of prophecy is vouchsafed only to the wise, the strong, and the rich. Strong is defined as the ability to control one’s passions. Rich signifies wealthy in knowledge. Now if we dare not put trust in a man’s pretensions to prophecy, if he does not excel in wisdom, how much less must we take seriously the claims of an ignoramus to be the Messiah. That the man in question is a sciolist is evident from the order he issued, as you state, to the people to give away all their possessions for eleemosynary purposes. They did right in disobeying him, and he was wrong inasmuch as he disregarded the Jewish law concerning alms-giving. For Scripture says, “If a man will devote anything of all that he has” and the rabbis explain in their comment on this verse, “part of all that he has, but not all that he has,” (Sifra ad locum). The sages accordingly set bounds to the bounty of the beneficent in an explicit statement which reads “He who is inclined to be liberal with the poor, may not part with more than a fifth of his possessions. (Ketubot 50a). There is no doubt that the process of reasoning which led him to claim that he is the Messiah, induced him to issue a command to his fellow-men to give away their property and distribute it to the poor. But then the affluent would become destitute and vice-versa. According to this ordinance, it would be necessary for the nouveaux riches to return their recently-acquired property to the newly impoverished. Such a regulation, which would keep property moving in a circle, is the acme of folly.

As to the place where the Messiah will make his first appearance, Scripture intimates that he will first present himself only in the Land of Israel, as we read, “He will suddenly appear in His Temple” (Malachi 3:1). As for the advent of the Messiah, nothing at all will be known about it before it occurs. The Messiah is not a person concerning whom it may be predicted that he will be the son of so and so, or of the family of so and so. On the contrary he will be unknown before his coming, but he will prove by means of miracles and wonders that he is the true Messiah. Scripture in allusion to his mysterious lineage says, “His name is the Shoot, and he will shoot up out of his place” (Zechariah 6:12). Similarly, Isaiah referring to the arrival of the Messiah implies that neither his father nor mother, nor his kith nor kin will be known, “For he will shoot up right forth as a sapling, and as a root out of the dry ground.” (53:2). After his manifestation in Palestine, Israel will be gathered in Jerusalem and the other cities of Palestine. Then will the tidings spread to the East and the West until it will reach you in Yemen and those beyond you in India as we learn from Isaiah. “That sendeth ambassadors by the sea, even in vessels of papyrus upon the waters, go, ye swift mesengers [sic], to a nation that has been pulled and plucked to a people that suffered terribly from their beginning onward.” (18:2). The process of the final redemption will not be reversed so that it will first appear in distand lands, and ultimately reach Palestine.

What the great powers are, which all the prophets from Moses to Malachi ascribe to the Messiah, may be inferred from various statements in the twenty-four books of Scripture. The most significant of them all is the fact that the mere report of his advent will strike terror into the hearts of all the kings of the earth, and their kingdoms will fall, neither will they be able to war or revolt against him. They will neither defame nor calumniate him, for the miracles he will perform will frighten them into complete silence. Isaiah refers to the submission of the kings to the Messiah in the verse, “Kings shall shut their mouth because of him.” (52:15). He will slay whom he will, none will escape or be saved, as it is written, “And he shall smite the land with the rod of his mouth.” (Isaiah 11:4). Revolution and war in the entire world, from East to West, will not cease at the beginning of the Messianic era, but only after the wars of Gog and Magog, as was indicated by Ezekiel. I do not believe that this man who has appeared among you posesses [sic] these powers.

You know that the Christians falsely ascribe marvelous powers to Jesus the Nazarene,¹⁸ may his bones be ground to dust, such as the resurrection of the dead and other miracles. Even if we would grant them for the sake of argument, we should not be convinced by their reasoning that Jesus is the Messiah. For we can bring a thousand proofs or so from the Scripture that it is not so even from their point of view. Indeed, will anyone arrogate this rank to himself unless he wishes to make himself a laughing stock?

Notes

¹⁸Cf. Krauss, J.E. VII.171, Ha-Shiloah 45:130, G. Levi della Vida, “Gesu e il teschio (leggenda Musulmana) in Bilychnis,” Rivista mensile de Studi Religiosi, Rome 1923, pp. 116-121 and Giustiono Boson, “La leggenda di Gesu e il re di Tiro” in Revue de l’Orient Chretien, XXI (1918-19) 225-240.

MEIR BEN SHIMON

Behold My servant, etc. This Parashah is applied by the Nazarenes to Jesus; such an explanation, however, is untenable even on the ground of their own allegations. For example, they assert Jesus to be the Son of God, and to be himself God, but if so, how is he called my servant? Almighty God is not a servant; on the contrary, all are His servants. If to this it be replied that Jesus is termed servant, as being a servant of the Godhead, do not the Christians assert that he is God? How, then, can one who is the Creator of all and the Lord of all receive such a title?

Again, how can it be said that he should prosper? In what did his prosperity consist? Were not his misfortunes and general ill-success clear to all, when the Pharisees and the doctors condemned him to death (as is related in their own book), and he was slain with his disciples? And how can it be said that he should be high and exalted and lofty exceedingly? Jesus in his lifetime was only thus exalted at the time of his crucifixion.

YOSEPH ALBO 1380-1444

Sometimes, too, misfortunes light upon the righteous not as a punishment, but for the sake of a whole nation, that atonement might be made for it. This is because the Almighty takes pleasure in the preservation of the world, and knows that the righteous will bear his sufferings cheerfully, without quarreling with any of his attributes. He therefore brings sufferings upon the just, as a satisfaction for the evil [otherwise] destined to afflict a whole people, in order that it may be thus averted. This is what our rabbis mean by their saying (Moed Katan 28a), “The death of the righteous works atonement“.

We find the Law stated clearly in scripture. God says to Ezekiel (4:4-6), “Lie on your left side, and I will place upon it the iniquity of the house of Israel”, etc., and you will bear it; and when you have finished these things, then you shall lie again on your right side, and shall bear the iniquity of the house of Judah.” In accordance with the same principal, the statements found in the Parashah, Behold My servant shall prosper, are all to be referred to Israel (who is here called My servant, as in Isaiah 44:2, 41:8). When the prophet says, Surely he carried our sicknesses, etc., but we thought him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted, he means to say that when men see sufferings falling upon the righteous, they think they fall on them of their own account, and are hence naturally surprised. It is not so in fact, however; they do not fall upon them for any sin they may have committed, but as an atonement, whether for all the world, or for the entire people, or for some single city.

DON YITZCHAK ABARBANEL 1437-1508

The first question is to ascertain to whom [this passage] refers; for the learned among the Nazarenes expound it of the man who was crucified in Jerusalem at the end of the Second Temple, and who, according to them, was the Son of God, and took flesh in the virgin’s womb, as stated in their writings. But Yonathan ben Uzziel interprets it in the Targum of the future messiah; and this is also the opinion of our own learned men in the majority of their midrashim, although one of the verses (verse 12) is referred to Moses our master.

In the same way I see in the exposition of Rabbi Mosheh ben Nachman that he explains the prophecy [as being about] the King Messiah. The Gaon Rabbi Sa’adyah, however, interprets it entirely of Jeremiah. And Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra, and also Rabbi Menachem [ben Shlomoh] Meiri speaks of this interpretation as “excellent”, though what may be the goodness or excellence that they see in it, I do not understand.

Rashi, however, and Rabbi Joseph Qamchi, and his son, the great Rabbi David Qamchi, all with one voice explain the entire prophecy of Israel.

The opinion held by the learned among the Nazarenes is that the prophecy refers to Jesus of Nazareth, who was put to death at the end of the Second Temple. . . However, the simple sense of the words themselves will not bear the interpretation put on them. And this for several reasons.

1) First, how could the prophet say of God, “He will become wise” (verse 52:13)? If the word here means “to acquire knowledge“, then God, just because He is God, knows all from eternity. How then can the prophet testify of him, “He will be intelligent“, as though he were devoid of intelligence now? And if this word is taken to mean, “prosperity” or “success“, what was the success which came to him as something new? Was it in things carnal or in things spiritual? For “successful” and “not successful” are terms which cannot rightly be used of the First Cause. Moreover, so far as the manhood [of Jesus] is concerned, it is evident from the history of his last moments, that he did not have “success”.

2) He is called “My servant“. Now how could God call one who was the self-same substance with Himself, His “servant“? Because “master” and “servant” are two distinct terms, each exclusive of the other. And it cannot be replied that the word is used relative to his manhood, because both the “prosperity” named previously and the “exaltation” are attributes applicable to him only in so far as he is (as the Christians think) God; the expression, “My servant“, therefore, which stands between the two, must perforce be understood in the same sense. An object is, moreover, not defined or described except by its “form”. A “man“, for example, is so called not on account of his material body, but because of his rational soul. Even, therefore, from the point of view of those who assert that God became incarnate, He could never be termed a servant.

[But see Isaiah 43:24, "You have caused Me to serve"--reduced Me to servitude--"by your sins". Thus the redemption was effected by One who, "being in the form of God", "took upon Himself the form of a servant" (Phil. 2: 6,7)--ed.]

3) Isaiah says, he will be “high and exalted“, the verbs being, as you know, all future. I wish I could learn whether this “exaltation” was to show itself in things pertaining to the body (relative to his manhood) or in those things pertaining to his Godhead. For, insofar as his manhood was concerned, he enjoyed no exaltation or dignity, but rather suffered humiliation and death. While if, on the other hand, the words relate to his Godhead, then the announcement is an idle one, for God is forever “high and exalted”. How then can a period be predicted when he will become high and exalted afresh?

4) He says that “his countenance was marred beyond man“; and again, that “he had no form or comeliness“, etc. Such phrases show that he was troubled naturally by melancholy ,and was also of weak constitution, and a feeble frame. This account of him, however, is not in accordance with fact: for Jesus was young and handsome–even their own teachers saying that his constitution was of a normal state. And if the words have reference to his death, everyone ’s countenance is altered when he is dead. He could not, then, on this account alone, be spoken of as “marred beyond men“.

5) He says, “He has borne our sicknesses and carried our pains”. These expressions cannot be understood of the sufferings borne by the souls of the just for sin, from which Jesus released them; because a spiritual penalty is never called “sickness”. [But see Isaiah 1:4-6; 9:12/13; 33:24, etc.--ed.] The natural sense of the words is that he took upon himself the sicknesses which he removed from them; accordingly, it is said, “We thought him smitten, stricken of God, and afflicted“–he was not stricken and smitten himself. If again, the words be understood of the sufferings inflicted upon Jesus at the time of his death, then the terms themselves present a difficulty, for the death did not consist of “sicknesses” or “pains”.

6) He says, “And he made his grave with the wicked.” This is referred by the Christians to Jesus of Nazareth, whose death was accomplished by the hands of the wicked; but according to their view, it ought to have been, “made his death with the wicked”, not his grave. The following words, “And the rich in his death“, have plainly nothing to do with him.

7) “The Lord was pleased to bruise him.” Now, if he had been God, and had consented to endure these sufferings in order (as the Christians hold) to rescue the souls of the righteous from the pit, how could it be said to be God’s pleasure thus to bruise and sicken him? Moreover, what is done without any assignable cause is attributed to “pleasure”, and not what is done for some definite purpose.

“He shall see seed, shall lengthen days“. Yet, according to what is related of his life, Jesus died in youth, and had neither son nor daughter. Or, if “seed” be explained of those who follow his doctrine, then such as these are never in the whole of scripture so named. [But see Gen. 3:15; Isaiah 1:4--ed.] And, if it be supposed to refer to God, it is well known that God sees and observes both future and past; how, then, can it be said that he “will see seed“, as though such “seeing” were something new for him? And if Jesus died in his youth, when not more than thirty-two years old, where are his “long days”?

It will be clear now from these considerations that, in accordance with its simple and straightforward sense, and as rightly understood, this prophecy cannot possibly be interpreted as is done by Christian expositors.

As regards the course taken by Yonathan ben Uzziel and our other wise men, who interpret it of Messiah our righteousness, I do not know whether in saying this they mean Messiah ben Joseph, who they believe is to come at the commencement of the deliverance, or whether they intend Messiah son of David, who is to arrive afterwards. In either case, however, the sense of the words will not admit of such an explanation. Of Messiah, son of Joseph, it could not be said that he would be “high and exalted, and lofty exceedingly”. And how could it be said he was to “lengthen his days” when he was to die at the beginning of his career?

If, on the other hand, our rabbis have in view Messiah the son of David, then a difficulty arises from the words “marred beyond man“, “without form or comeliness”, for Isaiah himself, so far from calling him “despised” or “forlorn of men“, describes him as God’s “chosen one, in whom his soul delights” (42:1). Then again, how could he be said to have “borne our pains”, or to be “stricken and smitten“? Rather, he is to be a righteous king–not “stricken and smitten“, but “righteous and victorious” (Zech. 9:9). And if this is the case, what can be the sense of the verses which teach how he will bear sufferings and death for Israel’s sake?

In a word, the interpretation of Yonathan, and of those who follow him in the same opinion, can never be considered to be the true one, in a literal sense, because the character and drift of the passage as a whole will not bear it. These learned men were concerned only with allegorical or adventitious expositions, and hence merely applied the traditions they had received respecting the Messiah to the present passage, without in the least imagining it to be its actual meaning.

RABBI SHMUEL LANYADO

My servant, i.e., the King Messiah, shall be high and exalted, and lofty exceedingly–he shall be higher than Abraham; lifted up above Moses; and loftier than the ministering angels. Rabbi Yitzchak Abarbanel was unable to comprehend how the Messiah could be lifted up above Moses, of whom it was said that “there arose no prophet in Israel like him“. (Deut. 34:10); and still more how he was to be greater than the angels, who are spiritual beings, whereas the Messiah is born of a woman. It is, in fact, upon that expression that the idolators [Christians] rest the chief article of their faith, the divinity of the Messiah. Abarbanel rejects also the opinion of the learned En Bonet, who explains it of the doctors, “for how”, he asks, “could it enter into anyone’s mind to speak of the doctors as exalted above Abraham or Moses?”

In my own humble opinion it seems that in this instance En Bonet is right; for in point of nobility the Messiah will excel even Abraham, and therefore it is promised that he shall be high. And in the ability to guide Israel he will be superior to Moses. For Moses, when he was a shepherd, had compassion on the kid which escaped from him in order to drink, and brought it to his bosom; and for that purpose the Almighty had chosen him (Shmoth Rabba)–how much more then that he might guide and tend Israel?

As regards En Bonet’s explanation of “loftier than the angels“, my judgement coincides with that of Rabbi Yitzchak Aramah and Rabbi Yitzchak Arbarbanel, who reject it on two grounds. I think that the words should be understood in their natural sense, but believe also that they involve a mystery which no mouth can utter.

It is, however, revealed in the Zohar, in the section on Deut. 22:6 (“When a bird’s nest chances before you”, etc.); so that we need not wonder if, as is the fact, he is to be loftier than the angels. The text appears to me to refer simply to the fear and dread which he will inspire into all flesh even more than the angels, who are yet so awe-inspiring that, as we know, when one appeared to Manoah and his wife, they exclaimed, “We have seen God; we shall surely die!” (Judges 13:22). Accordingly the Messiah is said to be loftier than the angels in respect of the terror which their presence creates, since everyone who beholds them, like Ezekiel, is “afraid and trembles”.

And then, lastly, he is called “the great mountain, which is greater than the patriarchs”, because each of the patriarchs in his turn helped to restore the world after it had been corrupted by the sin of our first parents. Isaac, for example, made atonement for bloodshed, inasmuch as, for the fear he felt, his own blood was as good as poured out on the altar. And Jacob averted the consequences of a forbidden marriage by preserving peace between two sisters, where anyone else would only have been a cause of rivalry and discord.

The opinions of our wise men on the interpretation of this verse have now been discussed. But we do not gather clearly from their language whether they are speaking of Messiah son of Ephraim or of Messiah son of David. The same doubt is suggested by Abarbanel, who thinks however that the former cannot be intended. For how, he asks, could it be said of him that he will be high and exalted, and lofty exceedingly? If, on the contrary, we refer the prophecy to Messiah son of David, there is a difficulty in the expression, marred beyond man; for Isaiah says, “Behold My servant, whom I uphold; My chosen one, in whom my soul delights.” (42:1) How, too, can he say of him, Stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted, for Messiah son of David will be just and victorious (Zech. 9:9), and so far from being despised and forlorn of men, that unto him will the gentiles seek (Isaiah 11:10)? Nor are the other verses more applicable to him, which declare how he will endure sufferings and death for Israel’s sake.

In a word, the explanation of the rabbis and of the Targum of Yonathan cannot possibly be conceived as being truthful in the sense of being literal; it is allegorical and adventitious, consisting, as it does, in the adaptation of one of their traditions to the language of the text. And a proof of this lies in the fact that the Targum itself refers the subsequent verses to Israel, and not to the Messiah, and that one verse , the last, is referred by our rabbis to Moses.

In my own humble opinion, I believe that they mean to assert that the verse speaks solely of Messiah son of David, to whom all the gorgeous language in it will apply. The prophet next addresses the people of Messiah son of Ephraim, and encourages them not to be afraid of the myriads which were against them; that even though the son of Ephraim were slain, the Almighty would avenge him by the hand of Messiah son of David, who would sprinkle the blood of many nations.

The words mean, then, As when you, O Messiah son of Ephraim, went forth into the world, many were astonished at you, wondering how it could possibly be that his countenance was so marred beyond men, and his form beyond the sons of men, whether also such was the usual appearance of a conqueror–as they thus mocked you without measure, so will the Messiah son of David sprinkle the blood of many nations.

The Messiah, son of Ephraim, who will come up before him, and in comparison with Messiah son of David (who will follow after him) will be as a shoot or a root out of dry ground. He is to have no form, to be despised, forsaken of men , and afflicted with endless pains–as our rabbis relate of him, he will stand in the gate of Rome, binding up each wound separately by itself, lest the season of Deliverance arrive too suddenly; and his pains and sicknesses will make it seem as though the faces hidden from them were averted because of himself and his deeds, which had been the cause of our esteeming him not. Yet in truth it was otherwise. In all his sufferings he was guiltless. It would our sicknesses that he bore–the sicknesses and pains which were in readiness to come for our iniquities upon us were carried by him instead, and we were in error thinking him stricken and smitten of God, i.e., as Rashi explains, an object of his enmity.

After his advent, to use again the words of Rashi, the son of Ephraim, who for a while had held sovereignty and executed judgement over Israel and the gentiles, was taken away, because the gentiles resolved to slay him; and who then could tell of his generation and the travail which befell him? For he was cut off out of the land of the living, and slain for the transgression of my people, the stroke intended for them being borne by him instead. He was not to be put to death speedily, but tortured by every conceivable method of producing a severe and painful end; and hence it is that the prophet says not in his death but in his deaths. And all this happened not because he had done no wrong in word or deed, but because it was the Lord’s good pleasure to bruise and sicken him.

Such is the sense of these verses, according to the opinion of those among our wise men who apply them to Messiah son of David, and to Messiah son of Joseph, who is of the tribe of Ehpraim.

But in my own humble opinion, the verses must be supposed to describe the righteous worshipper of God. Israel now asks, Who believed the glad tidings which they heard of our future exaltation? And upon whom were revealed the prophecies of vengeance about to be executed by the arm of the Lord upon them that hate him? Were they not revealed solely to us Israelites? And the gentiles, when they heard that we were to attain security and prosperity, would not believe; so that when they do perceive our successes, they will be seeing things which had never been told them. All this will happen on account of the one righteous who is here called My servant. But before the sons of men he will appear simply as a root devoid of moisture, rising out of the dry earth, without form or bodily beauty.

He himself carried our sicknesses, and bore our pains, and by saying he himself, the prophet indicates that the righteous, of his own free will, was pleased to carry them for Israel. We however thought him stricken of God for his own sins, whereas in reality he was stricken for ours, being himself just and perfect. The view here taken obviates the surprise felt by Abarbanel, as to how one man could possibly suffer for another, if even “the son shall not die for the iniquity of the father, nor the father for the iniquity of the son” (Ezekiel 18:20); for the righteous voluntarily and of his own accord bears the sicknesses of his generation, in order to merit the never-ending pleasure of making atonement for them.

THE MIDRASH KONEN

The fifth mansion in Paradise is built of onyx and jasper, and set stones, and silver and gold. . . there dwells Messiah son of David, and Elijah, and Messiah son of Ephraim. There is also the “litter of the wood of Lebanon” , like the tabernacle which Moses made in the wilderness; all the furniture thereof and “the pillars thereof of silver, the bottom of gold, the seat of purple“, and within it, Messiah son of David who loves Jerusalem. Elijah takes him by his head, and lays him down in his bosom, holds him, and says, “Bear the sufferings and wounds with which the Almighty does chastise you for Israel’s sake”; and so it is written, He was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities, until the time when the end should come.

ASERETH MEMROTH

The Messiah, in order to atone for them both [for Adam and David] will make his soul a trespass-offering, as it is written next to this, in the Parashah Behold My servant. And what is written after it? He shall see seed, shall have long days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.

YAKOV YOSEPH MORDECHAI CHAYIM PASSANI

I am much surprised at those commentators who have applied themselves to investigate the meaning of this Parashah. One, for example, maintains that it was the intention of the prophet to allude to Moses; another, that he referred to the Israelitish people; a third applies it to king Josiah; a fourth dwells much upon the King Messiah, and so brings the Midrash into the text. For ourselves, however, we know with certainty that scripture never bears any other than the simple and literal meaning.

Moreover, not one of the explanations mentioned is in complete accordance with the language of the text, or succeeds in satisfying us, still less does the opinion of the disbelievers who make these verses the foundation of their faith.

Thus the words had no form or comeliness cannot possibly be interpreted of Moses, for everyone is well aware that Moses had a fine form and the strength of a lion. And if (as is indeed the case) the words, For the transgression of my people were they smitten allude to Israel, then the person described as suffering for the nation cannot be the nation itself.

And as regards the explanation which refers it to the Messiah, we may say, Take heed, O wise men, in your words, even though the language be meant to be metaphorical and indirect.

I have therefore been led to the conviction that the Parashah may after all be referred intelligibly and naturally to Hezekiah.

RABBI NAPHTHALI BEN ASHER ALTSCHULER

Behold my servant. Since I see that unfortunately the gentiles have built upon this Parashah a heap of vanity, I have undertaken the task of refuting their errors by a true and convincing method in accordance with the teaching of my relation, the great and illustrious Rabbi, Nachman of Belsitz. If the opinion of the Christians is correct, why is he [Jesus] called My servant? Is he not by their own arguments God? And if it be replied that he is called servant in reference to the time during which he was still a man, why does Isaiah say he will be high and exalted? For even, by their own accounts, Jesus was never during his whole life in any position of authority. If again it be supposed that the expression relates to what will take place after the Resurrection, even then there is a difficulty; for even the gentiles say that at that time he will be altogether God; how then could he be called a servant?

I will now proceed to explain these verses of our own Messiah, who, God willing, will come speedily in our days. I am surprised that Rashi and Rabbi David Kimchi have not, with the Targum, applied them to the Messiah likewise.

He was despised in our eyes, and the most insignificant of men (or, forlorn of men, because they would not associate with him); a man of pains, who passed all his days in anxious dread lest the gentiles should appear suddenly and attack them; and taught of sickness, being accustomed to have the yoke pass over him. The prophet uses the singular, referring to the Messiah who is their king. Thus the Messiah is termed despised as representing Israel.

And he was as though we hid our faces from him, for we would not look at him because of the loathing which we felt for him; and we accounted him, i.e., Israel, for nought. But now we see that this was not a consequence of his depression, but that he suffered in order that by his sufferings atonement might be made for the whole of Israel, as it is said of the prophet Micah, that the blood issuing from him made atonement for all Israel. The sickness which ought to have fallen upon us was borne by him. The prophet means to say here, that when Messiah son of Joseph shall die between the gates, and be a marvel in the eyes of creation, why must the penalty he bears be so severe? What is his sin, and what his transgression, except that he will bear the chastisements of Israel, according to the words smitten of God?

Others consider that the passage speaks of the Messiah who is smitten now with the pains of the world to come (as it stands in the Gemara), and so endures the suffering of Israel. And yet we–it is Israel who are speaking–thought he had been hated of God. But it was not so. He was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities, and the chastisement which was afterwards to secure our peace was upon him.

Like sheep, i.e., like sheep without a shepherd so long as the Messiah had not arrived, we all went astray. Yet the Lord let himself be entreated by him and propitiated for the iniquity of us all, in that he refrained from destroying us.

From the confinement in which he was kept by them, and from the judgement or sentence of punishment, he was taken; and who said or suspected that his generation would ever attain such greatness that it has attained now? For at first it was cut off from the land of the living, that is, the land of Israel. Because for the transgression of my people had this stroke come upon the Messiah. He resigned himself to be buried in whatever manner the wicked might decree, who were always condemning Israel to be murdered; and was ready for any form of death (or deaths), according to the decision of the rich, that is, of the [wealthy] magistrate.

Why, however, should he have been thus punished although he had done no violence, except that the Almighty was trying him? The words allude to Israel who are now in exile; though others hold that they allude to the Messiah.

By his knowledge he will justify the just. The King Messiah will mete out right judgement to all who come to be tried before him; and My servant will also become a prince over many–the word ebed [i.e., servant] being used as in the Gemara, When I make you a prince, I make you also a slave.

(It may be remarked that Rashi explained this Parashah of the righteous who are in exile, and who endure there suffering and affliction.)

LEVI BEN GERSHOM

It follows necessarily from this verse (Deut. 34:10) that no prophet whose office was restricted to Israel alone could ever arise again like Moses; but it is still quite possible that a prophet like Moses might arise among the gentile nations. In fact the Messiah is such a prophet, as it is stated in the Midrash on the verse, Behold My servant, etc. , that he will be “greater than Moses”, which is explained to mean that his miracles will be more wonderful than those of Moses. Moses, by the miracles he wrought, drew but a single nation to the worship of God, but the Messiah will draw all nations to the worship of God. And this will be effected by means of a marvelous sign, to be seen by all the nations even to the ends of the earth, that is, the resurrection of the dead.

RABBI LIWA OF PRAGUE

The Messiah, who is the perfection of the world, will be high and lofty and exalted. Now, inasmuch as he is the perfection, he is also the consummation, and the consummation is above all things; and this is why it is said of this Messiah that he will be high and exalted and lofty.

A star shall proceed out of Jacob, and there shall arise a scepter in Israel. (Numbers 24:17) The King Messiah is here spoken of as a star, for (as we have explained above), his position and dignity will be of the highest, since it is said of him, He will be high and exalted and lofty exceedingly. He is here, therefore, compared to a star, because a star is elevated over all things.

Back to Isaiah 53 Back to Index geovisit();

http://www.geocities.com/nakdimonspage/zecharyah1210rts.html

Zechariah12:10 – Who is pierced?

March 14, 2009 at 9:18 pm · Filed under Christ, Christianity, Jesus, Messiah, Messiahtruth, Messianic, Messianic Jews, Nakdimon ·Tagged Anti-Missionary, Anti-Missionary Rebuttal, Jesus, Messiah, Messiahtruth, Messianic Jew, Nakdimon, Tovia Singer

Taken from Nakdimon’s page. Nakdimon, who is a Dutch Messianic Jew is the original author of this article.

Here is the actual link:

Zechariah12:10 – Who is pierced?

In this essay we will examine more claims of rabbi Tovia Singer and see if they are accurate. This time we are going to look at Zechariah 12:10. This verse is also quoted in the New Testament. Let’s take a look at it from Zechariah:


Wehibitu elai, et asher-daqaru, wesafdu alaaw, kemisped al-hayachid, wehamer alaaw, kehamer al-habechor
and they shall look unto Me because they have thrust him through; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his first-born.

Charge #1: John needed to change Zechariah 12:10 to make it fit Yeshua. (2:45)

This is the first claim of rabbi Tovia Singer. But did John really have to change the text? The way John quotes Zechariah 12:10 actually doesn’t change anything about the meaning of the verse. The point John wants to make is that Yeshua is the pierced one. It would have been a loose/loose situation anyway, cause had John quoted it as in Zechariah, then he would have been accused of trying to say that Yeshua was God and that therefore God was pierced, etc, you name the accusations. Instead, all John was trying to communicate to his readers is that Yeshua is the pierced one.

Notice also that John doesn’t quote the entire verse, but leaves out the mourning part. John is not saying that this prophecy is fulfilled there and then. He is trying to make clear that He is the one they will look upon, the pierced one. It is in Revelation that he actually quotes the entire verse including the mourning and then this prophecy will come to it’s fulfilment. But whether it says “they will look upon me” or, “they will look upon him” makes no difference to the message of John. Also the verse from Zechariah doesn’t say that they will look upon the pierced one there and then, meaning that the pierced one is pierced there and then. In order for them to look upon the pierced one, he must be pierced first and when this will happen is not told in the text. If this must still happen, then this will be very unusual in this time and age of guns and missiles. Rarely is someone in current wars being thrusted through. Bottom line is that John didn’t have to change anything to try to make Yeshua fit this prophecy. The point he wanted to make remains the same.

Charge #2: Et asher (11:20)

Rabbi Tovia Singer claims that the words “et asher” means “because of the one”. Is this true? And if it isn’t, is this just a slip of the tongue by the rabbi? Since there is an enormous pride in the anti-missionary community and an emphasis of knowledge of the Hebrew language, one may be lead to the logical conclusion that rabbi Singer either knows enough Hebrew to know what the meaning is or that rabbi Singer studied this out enough to know what he is talking about and, most importantly of course, we would find nothing to contradict that view the Tenach. The fact, however, is that rabbi Singer is completely wrong! The meaning of the words “et asher” is totally dependent on the context it is written in. Meaning, that it depends on whether it refers to a situation or it refers to a person. If it refers to a situation it means “because of” or “regarding” or “that which” (or anything similar), but if it refers to a person it means “whom” or “who” or “whosoever” (or anything similar).

I could find a total of 18 instances in 17 verses where the words “et asher” is used in relation to a person and I have noticed one thing: not 1 single instance can it be translated with “because of the one”, the translation rabbi Singer so confidently recommended, without making a total mess of the verse. I will give you some key examples of the application of “et asher” which clearly show the false claims of rabbi Singer:

The first example from 1 Samuel 16:3 is a striking example of what I have been saying above. The first “et asher” refers to a situation and is translated as “what”, whereas the second refers to a person and can’t mean “because of the one”, but plainly “whom”. The last example of Jeremiah has an exact same grammatical structure as Zechariah 12:10! I wonder how rabbi Singer can put his strongly suggested translation in this verse if “et asher” really means “because of the one”:

So where does this leave the claim of rabbi Singer? And I wonder how rabbi Singer can put his strongly suggested translation in this verse if “et asher” really means “because of the one”. How did he come to that conclusion? Fact is that rabbi Tovia Singer’s claim is false. The correct translation of this verse is: “And they will look to Me, Whom/the One they have pierced, …”. Since rabbi Singer practically accuses others for not knowing Hebrew and therefore unable to know the true meaning of certain words, didn’t rabbi Singer really know the meaning of the simple Hebrew words “et-asher” himself? I will let you decide if this was just a “slip of the tongue” of rabbi Singer or that this was a deliberate attempt to misinform his audience. But to me, this reveals to what lengths he will go to try to disprove Messianic Jewish faith.

Additional comments

As for the interchangeable use of “Me” and “Him”, this is common in the Hebrew Bible. I would point you to Genesis 18:17-19

And YHWH said: ‘Shall I hide from Abraham that which I am doing; seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? For I have known him, to the end that he may command his children and his household after him, that they may keep the way of YHWH, to do righteousness and justice; to the end that YHWH may bring upon Abraham that which He hath spoken of him.’

In addition, I would like to address a common charge of anti-missionaries. It goes “Jews never pierced Jesus, it were the Romans. So this prophecy couldn’t possibly be about Israel piercing Jesus because nothing like that ever happened.”

This argument is also contrary the testimony that the Hebrew Bible gives us. Let’s look at the story of David and Uriah in 2 Samuel 11. David sleeps with the wife of Uriah and wants to cover up his adultery, because he tried to have Uriah sleep with Batsheva so that people would think that Uriah was the father of the child she was carrying. But when Uriah didn’t go along with the game, David decided to get rid of Uriah in order to take Batsheva as his wife and all would be well. So he ordered to have Uriah put in the line of fire in the war with the Ammonites and make sure that he wouldn’t survive. And so happened. But look at how God thought about this act of David in 2 Samuel 12:9;

Wherefore hast thou despised the word of YHWH, to do that which is evil in My sight? Uriah the Hittite thou hast smitten with the sword, and his wife thou hast taken to be thy wife, and him thou hast slain with the sword of the children of Ammon.

So we see here that God smashes David for the death of Uriah although David was many miles removed from the battlefield. However God knows that David ordered and arranged the death of Uriah and God reckoned it as if David himself had personally slain Uriah. Likewise there is no denying that Yeshua’s death was ordered and arranged by leading men amongst the Jewish community.

Another common argument is the “mourning of the living”. This is how the anti-missionary argument basically goes: “If Jesus was to appear and we would see him alive, then why would we mourn? We would rejoice instead because Moshiach has finally arrived!”

I would say that, considering the way anti-missionaries think about Yeshua and all they have spoken against him and how they have resisted him to the extend that his name is even forbidden to be mentioned in a lot of traditional Jewish homes and is even a curse word! (Remember that Hitler and Muhammad are names that aren’t banned from Jewish homes and are persons that can be discussed freely!) If this same despised Yeshua would appear and reveal himself as Moshiach, whom the Jewish people have been longing for, for centuries and centuries and if everything we have said about him appears to be true and everything rabbinic Judaism has been saying about him appears to be wrong, from the moment he was rejected up until this day, do you really think that there would be a rejoicing? Just go to a search engine on the internet and type in the word “anti-missionary” or “counter missionary” and go to those websites and see what is the basic consensus among those groups about Yeshua. Now bare in mind that those aren’t words just to be making a statement, casual words. Those are words from the very heart! If all that violent rejection of what would suddenly appear to be Moshiach [i.e. Moshiach of “… - Ani ma’amin…], all this time actually has been the rejecting of the Anointed of YHWH, I doubt very strongly that there would be any rejoicing whatsoever taking place. Just listen to the lectures of rabbi Tovia Singer and his insults when he repeatedly speaks about “leaving skid marks”! Just think about that, that when reality hits home and reality shows that Yeshua is the One, Melech Moshiach ben David. What will your reaction be?

What then do we make of rabbi Tovia Singer’s claims? They are totally untrue!

geovisit();

Psalm 110: Who is speaking?

March 14, 2009 at 8:58 pm · Filed under Christ, Christianity, Jesus, Messiah, Messiahtruth, Messianic, Messianic Jews, Nakdimon ·Tagged Anti-Missionary, Anti-Missionary Rebuttal, Jesus, Messiah, Messiahtruth, Messianic Jew, Nakdimon, Tanach, Tovia Singer

The psalm 110 lecture of rabbi Tovia Singer’s “Let’s get Biblical” series is not about all of Psalm 110 but about the first verse. It is also one of the easiest to refute, simply because it is abundantly clear that David is the speaker here and speaks of the Messiah and of no one else. This is one of the lectures where I really wanted to be in the audience asking the very same question that was asked him. Namely, that there is more to the subject of this chapter than one might think. Of course he would tell me then that it was obvious from my question that I didn’t read or understand a word of Hebrew. If you didn’t know already, this is the standard anti-missionary scare tactic. They will challenge you on the Hebrew! Although the rabbi is right about one thing, which is that this verse doesn’t prove that the Messiah is God. But it does affirm the view that the Messiah was to be more than human. Because who can be more than king David? King David is the greatest king ever known to mankind. He was the king of kings. And yet he speaks here of someone as “his lord/master”. There is not a king that can come forth from the Gentiles, nor from the Jewish people, that could excel David. All the kings that followed him, were always compared to him in their righteousness. As the rabbi said it correctly “he was their measuring rod”.

You might say “this isn’t King David speaking, but the Levites for whom the Psalms were written to sing in the Temple”, just as the rabbi claims, hereby following the reading of the Ramban (aka Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman or Nachmanides). This is what the Ramban wrote (emphasis mine)

King David was the composer who wrote the Psalms with the aid of the holy spirit. He composed them for the purpose of having them sung before the altar of God. He himself did not sing them, nor was he permitted to do so, for that function was forbidden to him by law of the Torah. (Deuteronomy 18:6-7) Instead, he gave the Psalms to the Levites, so that they would sing them. This is clearly written in the book of I Chronicles 16:7 Therefore, King David perforce expressed the psalm in the language appropriate for utterance by the Levites. Thus, if King David had said; “The Eternal said to me”, the Levites repeating these words would be uttering falsehood. Instead, it is proper for the Levite to say in the Temple: “The Eternal saith unto my lord: (that is to King David) Sit thou at My right hand.” The purport of the term ’sitting’ is to state that the Creator, blessed be He, will protect him during his lifetime and that He will save him and cause him to prevail over his enemies. So it was, for he lifted up his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time. This is the right hand of God.

Is this reading actually valid? Let’s examine the text:


L’David, mizmor: N’um Yahweh l’adoni, shev limini; ad-asit oyveycha, hadom l’ragleicha
1 A Psalm of David.
The LORD saith unto my lord: ‘Sit thou at My right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.’

This is how rabbi Singer’s argument goes: This is a verse speaking about king David, who wrote it for the Levi’im (Levites) to sing in the Temple. And because he wrote it for them to sing in the Temple it was necessary for him to write it from their perspective, because would he write it from his perspective and said “the LORD said to me” and the Levi’im would say it likewise, then they would be lying. So that’s why he wrote it from their perspective and therefore had to write “the LORD said to my lord” referring to king David and then they would be truthful. (9:00)

Again, we ask the question: Is this a valid reading? Let’s look at the validity of this claim:

It starts out with (L’David mizmor) which means “a psalm of David”. It can also mean ”a psalm for/to David”. This is actually subject of dispute. The more likely form is the former, however, as mentioned, it can also mean the latter. The first claim is that it was exclusively written for the Levi’im to sing in the Temple. Well, the common phrase “lam’natseach” [for the leader], meaning the leader of the worship, is completely absent here. We find it in a lot of Psalms. We find it in Psalm 51 through 65, for example. The second claim is that this is written from the perspective of the Levi’im. But I couldn’t find one instance where David did this. In fact, he had a lot of Psalms where he could have used this method of writing. Let’s take the most striking example of all the Psalms: Psalm 51. This is a Psalm David wrote after he had sinned greatly and taken Batsheva, the wife of the Hittite Uriah, whom he murdered. He there goes all out to confess to God and what does he write?


Lam’natseach. Mizmor l’David
1 For the Leader. A Psalm of David;

This is beyond any doubt a Psalm written for the Levi’im to utter in the Temple. But what does king David do next? You would think that, if the rabbis were right, he would go on to write from the perspective of the Levites, right? Not so! He then goes on to speak from his own perspective and not from the perspective of the Levi’im. So according to the reasoning of rabbi Singer and the Ramban, the Levi’im would be lying if they uttered this Psalm in the Temple, because it didn’t happen to them, but to someone else, and therefore they couldn’t sing this as if it happened to them. That would be misleading. But this is not at all implied by the psalmist and this never occurred to him even once, otherwise he would have written this in the third person. Notice the expression in verse 16:


Hatsileini midamim, Elohim
16 Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God….

Where is the perspective of the Levi’im when it is needed the most? How about Psalm 59? Let’s look at how David writes there and never considers the perspective of the Levi’im:

1 For the Leader; Al-tashheth. [A Psalm] of David; Michtam; when Saul sent, and they watched the house to kill him. 2 Deliver me from mine enemies, O my God; set me on high from them that rise up against me. 3 Deliver me from the workers of iniquity, and save me from the men of blood. 4 For, lo, they lie in wait for my soul; the impudent gather themselves together against me; not for my transgression, nor for my sin, O LORD.

Well, do you see David writing from the perspective of the Levi’im? I certainly don’t! And we can’t imagine the Levi’im singing these Psalms, saying “Deliver him from his enemies” or anything of that kind. So it’s obvious that David never considered their perspective in the first place. And where does this leave the charge of deceit made by rabbi Tovia Singer? Absolutely nowhere! David wrote this Psalm, not for the Levi’im to sing in the Temple referring to him, but what God said about the Messiah.

Then there is of course the charge of the New Testament account that the Messiah raises this question to the Pharisees and says to them “if he is supposed to be the son of David, then how come David calls him “lord”?” According to rabbi Tovia Singer this is an unlikely event because the people who know a little Hebrew would point Yeshua to the fact that the two “lords” aren’t the same. But is that the point Yeshua wanted to make? That both “lords” in that psalm are the same and therefore the Messiah is God? Not at all! All he was trying to tell the people is exactly what he said there; how come that David, the greatest of kings in the history of all of Israel, calls the Messiah, who is supposed to be his son by many generations, his lord?

So whether the first lord and the second lord are or aren’t the same has never been the question. The question was if the Messiah is actually king David’s lord, then what does this tell us about the Messiah? So it is clearly demonstrated that rabbi Tovia Singer is totally wrong in his analysis and wrongly points us to the Ramban. But because it is the Ramban, the rabbi takes his analysis as the absolute truth and doesn’t ask any questions. If he would have been half as critical towards the commentary of the Ramban as he was to the New Testament, he would have seen that this analysis is, sad but true, wrong and therefore their conclusion is false. Apart from HaShem, it is the Messiah and the Messiah only who is David’s lord. Who else fits the bill?

What then do we make of rabbi Tovia Singer’s claims? They are totally untrue!

Isaiah 53 Part I Isaiah 53 Part II

Exposing The Lies Of Tovia Singer

December 30, 2008 at 5:06 am · Filed under Christ, Christianity, Jesus, Messiah, Messiahtruth, Messianic, Messianic Jews, Nakdimon ·Tagged Anti-Missionary, Anti-Missionary Rebuttal, Jesus, Messiah, Messiahtruth, Messianic Jew, Nakdimon, Tovia Singer

Let’s get critical.

Answering Tovia Singer


For the purpose of this website please read the foreword. In short, this website is about
the things rabbi Tovia Singer left out of his lectures and didn’t tell his audience.

Psalm 110

Zechariah 12:10

Sin and Atonement

The Oral Law Part I The Oral Law Part II

The Trinity Part I The Trinity Part II

Who is the Messiah?

Rabbi Singer answers questions

Questionable rabbinic interpretations of Scripture

Email me

This blog is not operated by Nakdimon who is the original author of the articles. Just to promote his amazing scholarly work I am posting his articles.

To read the articles in Nakdimon’s original website please visit:

http://www.geocities.com/nakdimonspage/letsgetcritical.html

Shalom

Truth About The Real Messiah Jesus