The Truth About Jesus, The ONLY Messiah!

Questionable rabbinic interpretations of Scripture

messiahtruth — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 22:07:23 +0000

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/questionablerts.html

Questionable rabbinic

interpretations of Scripture
In this section we will look at some amazing rabbinic interpretations. Let me demonstrate to you some classical examples of anti-missionary double standards. They are willing to swallow whatever sources such as the Talmud teaches, even if the Talmudic conclusion is totally contrary to the conclusion of the Tenach. Even then the words of the Talmud are seen as a display of the brilliance and incredible wisdom of the Sages by the anti-missionaries. Now bear in mind that these are only interpretations that I am aware of! Interpretations that I have learned from anti-missionary sources, that have really startled me. Yet for much less the authors of the New Testament are allotted every imaginable certificate of incompetence and ignorance one can think of. Here are the examples.


Daniel 7 vs Zacharya 9


There are 2 places in scripture that are both understood by Rabbinic Jews as well as Messianic Jews to be Messianic texts about how Messiah will appear to his people. One being Daniel 7:13 and the other being Zecharya 9:9. The former says that Messiah will come with the clouds of heaven and the latter says he will come lowly and riding upon a donkey. Well, this posed some difficulties for the sages, because how will Moshiach come? He can’t come in both ways. So the Talmud comes with one conclusive answer: it merges the two and changes it into a conditional prophecy!

Namely: If we are worthy (meaning if we are righteous) he will come on the clouds of heaven and if we’re not worthy (meaning if we are sinful) he will come lowly riding on a donkey.

So, problem solved, right? Not exactly! For starters, there is no indication whatsoever that these prophecies have any relation to one another let alone are dependent to one another for their fulfilment. In saying so, using the same standards with which the anti-missionaries judge the New Testament authors and Yeshua, one of these prophets, be it Daniel or Zechariah, will be a false prophet, since they both proclaimed their prophecies in the Name of Yahweh and one will not come true!
Also, since there were Messianic expectations during the second Temple times and the Messiah didn’t come (according to rabbinic Judaism) the excuse is been made that because of our sins he (Messiah) didn’t come. This, however, is not what we are told by the Talmud in relation to Daniel 7:13 and Zechariah 9:9! According to the Talmudic reading Messiah would come on the clouds of heaven if we were righteous, and lowly on a donkey if we were sinful. He would not “stay away because of our sins”. So, since we were wicked and therefore “not worthy”, he should have come riding on a donkey per their own view and not just stay away! Yet if we say that the Messiah came on a donkey (Zech 9:9), died and rose from the dead (Is 53:9-10, 12), ascended to the right hand of God (Ps 110:1), will remain there for many days (Hos 3:4-5) and come with the clouds of heaven (Dan 7:13), then this is said not to be in conformity with the Tenach but merely a “Christian fabrication”. But because the rabbis say this there are no questions asked and the anti-missionaries take their statements to be the absolute truth. You go figure!


David and Uriah (2 Samuel 11-12)

How about the Talmudic element rabbi Singer was referring to in his “Sin and Atonement” lecture? Now when reading the account of David and Uriah in 2 Samuel 11 and 12 we will see that:

 God thinks David had no right to kill Uriah
 God thinks David had no right to take Batsheva
 David committed murder and adultery
 According to Torah, David had to die (compare Deut 22:22 – 2 Sam 12:13)
 There is nothing in the text that indicates that Uriah and Batsheva were either illegally married or divorced at that time.
 Uriah was loyal to David. (see the list of David’s heroes in 1 Chron 11:41. In a discussion with an anti-missionary on the Messiah Truth forum one guy actually basically told me that maybe the author of Chronicles erred by putting Uriah in this list! No one corrected him! So the Tenach is wrong but the Sages are correct!)

Yet despite these clear testimonies that the Tenach gives us, the anti-missionaries, based on the Talmudic reading, come to the exact opposite conclusion! Their position is:

 David had every right to kill Uriah
 David had every right to take Batsheva
 David committed no murder and adultery
 David had done nothing wrong except give people the wrong impression in his actions concerning Batsheva
 Uriah and Batsheva were illegally married at best, divorced at worst
 Uriah committed high treason


Isn’t this amazing? Now this is either entirely the Talmudic reading or the anti-missionary position based on the Talmudic reading. Whatever the case, it is obvious to what length the anti-missionaries go to accept an interpretation diametrically opposed to that of the Tenach and fail to be the least bit critical. Now I have to be honest and mention that of all the anti-missionaries on that forum there was only one person (who apparently wasn’t aware of the Talmudic reading) that tried to correct the others and said that it was obvious that the Tenach said something else than they were saying and even went so far to say that they were all acting “like the Christians” by avoiding the obvious. That coming from an anti-missionary says a lot!

The Talmud manages to acquit the guilty and accuse the innocent! How does the Talmud come to this conclusion? This is what I’ve been told on the Messiah Truth website by the moderators: (1) The Talmud claims that since Uriah was a Hittite and since Torah prohibits intermarriage, the marriage was to be considered illegal. (2) In the time of war, the men of war would give his wife a “get”, which was a letter of divorce in case the man had gone missing, which permitted the woman to remarry. (3) When David had ordered Uriah to go home to sleep with his wife and Uriah didn’t do that, he committed high treason (!), since he failed to follow a direct order of the king in time of war and was disloyal to David by calling Joab his lord instead of acknowledging David as his lord. (4) He was considered a threat to the king since he swore by the kings life that he would not go home and for this reason David had the right to kill him. (5) The fact that Uriah didn’t go home to sleep with his wife is to be considered evidence that they weren’t married. (6) since David, being a man of great responsibility, gave people the occasion to misunderstand his actions, he had to be punished harshly. I have even been told that it was actually Batsheva who seduced David!

Now, who would believe this story? But let’s look at the claims one by one:
(1) The Bible obviously doesn’t share the view that the marriage was illegal. When God rebukes David, He asks why David took Uriah’s wife (ishto – his wife) to be his own in verse 9 and calls Batsheva “eshet Uriah” (the wife of Uriah) in verse 10. Especially notice 2 Sam 11:26 where it says that “she made lamentation for her husband” (Heb. watispod al-ba’alah), clearly showing the obvious husband-wife relationship between the two. (the anti-missionary mod Sophiee1 actually accused me of not knowing any Hebrew and then refused to admit that the word “ishah” here means “wife”, but instead claimed that it meant “woman”, no mattter how elaborate my explanation of the Hebrew text was! Although that word can mean woman, in this context it doesn’t matter if we talk about “the wife of Uriah” or “the woman of Uriah”. The point is that she belonged to him and he was her “ba’al” – husband – and was therefore off limits for David.)

(2) Again, based on point no. 1, there is no reason whatsoever to either think that Uriah and Batsheva were either illegally married or divorced.

(3) The charge of high treason is absolutely ridiculous. High treason is to collaborate with the enemy in times of war or disloyalty towards a nation (or the head of the nation) to the point of endangering that nation. Did Uriah do these things? Not at all! His loyalty towards Israel was very profound as shown in 2 Samuel 11, when it says:
11 And Uriah said unto David: ‘The ark, and Israel, and Judah, abide in booths; and my lord Joab, and the servants of my lord, are encamped in the open field; shall I then go into my house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife? as thou livest, and as thy soul liveth, I will not do this thing.’
Does this sound like a traitor to you? He showed great loyalty towards the God of Israel (by mentioning the ark), Israel’s king and Israel’s army! Not going home to “get busy” with your wife when the king tells you to is not what one would call (high) treason. Especially when you clarify to the king why you didn’t go: because of the ark, because of Israel and Judah, because of his commander Joab and the his fellow soldiers serving in the Israeli army (if that isn’t loyalty, then what is?). Not because he didn’t acknowledge David as his lord by calling Joab his lord (which he was, he was the highest ranked officer!), but because of the obvious reasons given above.

(4) It was common in that day to swear by something or someone higher than yourself. David also did this in 2 Sam 12:5: “…‘As the LORD lives, the man that hath done this deserves to die;”. Here he swears by God’s life. Using the line of reasoning of the anti-missionaries, David sought God’s life. How are we to believe that?

(5) On the contrary: the fact that David sent Uriah home to go sleep with his wife should be considered conclusive evidence that they were legally married! Why would David even consider to send him to Batsheva if they weren’t married, especially when she was already carrying David’s child! What logic is that based on?

(6) An anti-missionary moderator called Sophiee1 on the Messiah Truth website told me that the word “la’asot” in 12:9 indicates that David “appeared” to have sinned, but didn’t really sin. His only sin was that he rushed into things instead of waiting for God to get rid of Uriah and to make Batsheva his wife. It should be mentioned that no one rebuked her for it! This desperate attempt to try to acquit David was easy to refute by pointing her to Gen 2:23 where the same word “la’asot” is used, saying that God created heaven and earth. Yet no one would even think of claiming that God didn’t actually create heaven and earth but only “appeared” to create it. So I asked her to provide one example where the word “la’asot” is used to describe an “appearance” of something rather than an actual act or event. Of course, I am still waiting for her to come up with it. (btw, she is also a mod at the forum “Kosher Judaism” where she also portrays herself as a great scholar on Judaism, but when you actually challenge her claims, she can’t substantiate them and you will end up being banned because of disrespectful behaviour, as happened to me twice on the Messiah Truth forum and once on the Kosher Judaism forum.)


So all these arguments are clearly nothing but desperate attempts to try to acquit David and pin it on his victims. But after having read the account in the Bible, what unbiased reader on the face of this earth would even consider to believe the story of the Talmud? There is not a stitch of evidence whatsoever to support any point the Talmud raises. Yet this is considered a display of great scholarship and wisdom in the eyes of rabbinic Jews! Imagine if the New Testament would come up with such a story? All rabbi Singer would do is “leave skid marks”, wouldn’t he? Or ask questions like “how dare they play with my Bible”? But because the rabbis say this there are no questions asked and the anti-missionaries take their statements to be the absolute truth.



Counting of the Omer:

Traditional Judaism teaches that the counting of the Omer must start the day after the Sabbath of Pesach, i.e. on the 16^th of Nisan, irrespective of what day of the week this is. And this is how our people have been taught for many centuries. But let’s see what the bible says about the start of the counting of the Omer:

You shall count for yourselves — from the day after the Shabbat, from the day when you bring the Omer of the waving — seven Shabbats, they shall be complete. Until the day after the seventh sabbath you shall count, fifty days… -Leviticus 23:15-16

So the rabbinic Jewish position says to start to counting from the 16^th and after seven full weeks we have Shavu’ot, irrespective of what day the week it is, right? However, the text above clearly says seven full weeks “Until the day after the seventh sabbath”! Which means that Shavu’ot is always preceded by a Yom Shabbat (Sabbath day). Which in turn means that this can only be the case if that Yom Shabbat would be the weekly Shabbat and therefore starting on the 16^th of Nisan (on any given day) is erroneous. For example: If you would start on a Tuesday, 16^th Nisan, you will and up on a Tuesday after seven full weeks. The day before that day is a Monday or Yom Sheni, which is not a Yom Shabbat, as the Bible requires. Yet if you start counting on Yom Echad (Sunday), taking the phrase “from the day after the Shabbat” to be referring to the day after the ordinary Shabbat in the Pesach week, you will automatically end up on Sunday after seven full weeks and, exactly as required, the day after the seventh Shabbat, the 50^th day! So obviously the rabbinic reading of this text is erroneous, since it fails to meet the requirements of the Torah and the counting of the Omer is to start on the day after the weekly Shabbat of the Pesach week and not on the 16^th of Nisan, irrespective of what day of the week. So they will build Scripture around the statements of the rabbis, instead of building their statements around Scripture. But because the rabbis say differently there are no questions asked and the anti-missionaries take their statements to be the absolute truth.



Isaiah 9:5-6

For more on these verses, see my essay on the Trinity. But the question raises: who does this refer to? An immediate response, and logical one, would be Messiah, because what we learn about him is that he will be given the throne of David and rule on it forever and to his kingdom will be no end, have peace throughout his reign and his works will be marvellous. Yet, instead of this obvious conclusion, the Talmud says that this is not about Messiah, but about Chizki’yahu (Hezekiah). Read the story about Hezekiah in 2 Kings 18-20 and honestly tell me how this prophecy is fulfilled. With statements like “God wanted to make Hezekiah Messiah but Hezekiah wasn’t worthy” (My paraphrase) the rabbis win the hearts of the anti-missionaries. But looking at the prophecy, we can safely conclude that this was nowhere near fulfilled by Hezekiah, since Hezekiah’s reign was not what we would call (increasingly) peaceful and his reign did end (the words “ein kets” has the meaning “which can hardly be counted”). He only reigned for 29 years, much shorter than a lot of kings. For example, his son Menashe ruled for 55 years and is regarded to be the most wicked king in Judah’s history. Furthermore, he was called none of the names listed in the verse either contemporarily or after and a couple of generations later Judah was carried off to exile! So considering all this, Hezekiah does not fit the bill at all and this prophecy remains unfulfilled! So either Isaiah is a false prophet and this prophecy was never fulfilled, or this prophecy is Messianic, as is the Messianic Jewish position, and therefore is yet to be fulfilled. An in-depth response to the rabbinic position can be found at the “Trinity” section. But because the rabbis say differently there are no questions asked and the anti-missionaries take their statements to be the absolute truth.



Pronunciation of Gods Name

This might be the most sensitive subject of all of the points I have raised in this section. And therefore I have done my best to choose my words carefully. The rabbis claim that it is forbidden to pronounce The Name (haShem) of God, even with the most sincere intentions. Pronunciation of the Name is therefore unthinkable for the religious Jew. The Divine Name can only be pronounced by the High Priest, once a year during Yom Kippur. Of course there is an upside to this interpretation of the rabbis, namely, that this keeps the Name from being used in vein. But on the other hand, this view is built on the assumption that people will go on and use the Name in vein. However, what does the Bible say? If you read the Bible, especially the Torah, God actually says the exact opposite that the Tradition says. Namely, that His Name is the only name among any and all other gods that we are allowed to utter. It is actually the name of other gods that are not to be found in our mouths. With this, God thinks of the good in man, particularly of his people and trusts that we will not use His Name in vein, as He warns us subsequently. But the overall testimony of the Bible is very different from that of rabbinic Judaism. While Rabbinic Judaism has problems to pronounce the Divine Name of the God of Israel, it has no problem pronouncing the names of other gods, it is unthinkable that they would say the Name of the Almighty, thereby doing and teaching the exact opposite of the Torah, Prophets and Writings. Although there is absolutely nothing wrong with calling God “HaShem”, “Adonai” or “Lord”, there is also no scriptural basis for the prohibition of calling God by His Name; YaHWeH. But because the rabbis say differently… you finish the sentence.

Importance of the oral law: 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.”


In my rebuttal on rabbi Tovia Singer on the oral law I referred to this verse and said that this verse, although being a clear declaration to the fact that the Written Torah is the entire basis for the Covenant on Mt Sinai, the Talmud manages to use this very verse as proof that God made His Covenant based on the oral law. Now the entire basis for this is the words that I’ve made red in the Hebrew text and the translation. The words “al pi” literally mean “on the mouth” but make no sense whatsoever when translated as such in this verse. The link is also made with the “Torah Sheba’al Peh” (Torah that is owned by mouth; oral law), which looks like this:



If we read the text, however, and we use the interpretation of the Talmud, the verse would say

Inscribe these words for yourself, for on the mouth of these words
I have formed a covenant with you and with Israel

How absurd this reading is! God is saying nothing else than that, according to these words Moses is told to write down, He has made a Covenant with Israel. This is all about the words Moses was to write down and how on earth should this be seen as solid proof that the oral law is the basis of the Covenant at Sinai. And, since rabbi Singer is strongly opposed to the New Testament not quoting entire verses and accused it of being deceitful for doing so, only half of this verse was quoted here, namely the part “for according to these words I have formed a covenant with you“. And by doing so, the Talmud tries to PROVE it’s point and is used to do so to support major doctrinal issues. Can you immagine rabbi Singer stumbling upon something like this in the New Testament? The words “skid marks” come to mind. Yet we have nothing of that about the Talmud, do we? Remember: double standards! Now this is THE verse in all of scripture that proves that there not only is an oral law, but that the oral law is the foundation of the covenant God made with Israel. And we find another astonishing statement in the Talmud:

“the Holy One, Blessed be He, did not make His covenant with Israel except by virtue of the Oral Law” (Gittin 60b)

Notice that there is NOTHING in the entire Tenach that supports this claim. In fact, every time the people mention the covenant that was made on Sinai they always refer to the BOOK of Moses. So we have here a word in Hebrew, al-pi, that means “in accordance” which is totally distorted to make it say that it refers to the oral law just to be able to endorse it. But the rabbis say it, so no ifs ands or buts, that’s what you do because it’s the absolute truth!

Nakdimon

Email me!

Back to the main page geovisit();

Posted in Christ, Christianity, Jesus, Messiah, Messiahtruth, Messianic, Messianic Jews, Nakdimon Tagged: Anti-Missionary, Anti-Missionary Rebuttal, Jesus, Messiah, Messiahtruth, Messianic Jew, Nakdimon, Tovia Singer

Tovia Singer Answers Questions

messiahtruth — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 22:01:18 +0000

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/rabbisingerquestionsrts.html

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

Email me!

Back to the main page

Who is the Messiah?

messiahtruth — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 21:57:40 +0000

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

Email me!

Back to the main page

geovisit();

The Holy Trinity

messiahtruth — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 21:53:16 +0000

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/trinitypt1rts.html

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();

Oral Law

messiahtruth — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 21:36:25 +0000

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/orallawpt1rts.html

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

messiahtruth — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 21:32:07 +0000

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

Email me!

Back to the main page