Theological qeustions and answers


Theological questions



NOTE: All the FAQ below were taken from www.outreachjudaism.org of Rabbi Tovia Singer, the website includes also audio lectures.

NOTE: All the FAQ below are not meant to argue or to change your belief or opinion, but to give answers to those who've already decided that they want to convert to Judaism but still have some theological questions and doubts.


Who Was Jesus?
View Article

Who Was Jesus?


Question:

Dear Rabbi Singer,

Apparently, you guys have not read about the foolishness of the Sanhedrin 2,000 years ago. Or perhaps, God has hardened your hearts.

Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani?” I’m sure you understand this as clearly as the Sanhedrin 2000 years ago understood this. Do you really believe that a poor carpenter born in Bethlehem of the lineage of David would be able to set circumstances in motion such that the prophets could be made to be fools? I believe that God and His prophets are bigger than that.

In the end you are forced to believe one of three things: Jesus was crazy and empowered by Satan for his miracles, or Jesus intentionally led people away from God and wanted to do this so much that he died at the hands of the Romans and Sanhedrin to fulfill this purpose, or that Jesus is Messiah – and as Messiah, would save any – even those who had him slain. My question to you is: Which do you believe that Jesus was? I would not mind this question and answer posted if you so choose to do so.

Answer

As I sit here preparing to respond to your questions, it dawned on me that you are not asking anything in the first three paragraphs of your letter.

Your unsubtle sentiments in paragraphs one and three are familiar to the Jewish people. They are noticeably consistent with the long-held Christian notion that contemporary Jews bear the same loathsome characteristics as their first century forebears who were convicted by the New Testament for Jesus’ crucifixion. Do not think, however, that I have an unsympathetic ear either. I understand your position. The New Testament casts the Jews in the darkest colors imaginable to the Christian mind. Essentially, whatever it is that one considers detestable in a people, that is precisely how the Jews are portrayed in the Christian Scriptures. The nation of Israel paid a painful price for this age-old indictment.

In the collective consciousness of the Church, the Jews of subsequent generations retain the sinister character of the people who were said to have committed deicide, regardless of how far they are removed in time and place from the first century. From the moment Christianity was spawned, this notion was vigorously espoused by virtually all of the Church Fathers and Reformers as well as their countless eager followers.

The New Testament contains maliciously stories of the Sanhedrin, who they blame for condemning Jesus to death. These contrived anecdotes are filled with so many contradictions and inconsistencies – both within the Gospels and outside of the Christian canon that they betray themselves as self-serving, odious accusations, specifically designed to heap all of the blame for the crucifixion of Jesus squarely on the yarmulke of the Jew. This portrayal of the Jews in the Gospels, particularly in the Passion Narratives, has been devastating for European Jewry and is ultimately responsible for the unspeakable misery of untold millions of my people. The world’s oldest hatred is alive and well.

With regard to the verse, “Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani?,” attributed by the New Testament as Jesus’ last words on the cross, and the Church traditionally refers to this phrase as “The Word of Abandonment.” These crying words, however, are not speaking about the messiah, nor is it a prophecy of the future. Rather, this passage was lifted from the lips of King David, who was expressing his own dire predicament, and placed in the mouth of Jesus by the first two Gospel writers.1 Both Matthew and Mark render the words in Aramaic with a translation (originally in Greek) after it.

This passage appears in Psalm 22:1-22 where King David, who is its author and the one speaking throughout this chapter, is describing his own anguish and longing as he remained a fugitive from his enemies. It was from the very depths of David’s despair when he cries out his heartfelt supplication, “Eli, Eli, lamah azovtani...” In short, passionate words of despair and faith contained in the twenty second Psalm are not a prophecy about Jesus or any future figure. These celebrated passages do not peer into the future. Rather, all these prayers, without exception, were written in the first person by King David, painfully describe his own turbulent life, not the life of Jesus.

Furthermore, the words of this verse do not fit into Jesus’ mouth from a Trinitarian viewpoint. The opening verses of this Psalm read,

“My God, my God, why have You forsaken Me? Why are You so far from helping me, and from the words of my groaning? O my God, I cry in the daytime, but You do not hear; and in the night season, and am not silent.” (Psalm 2:1-2 – Psalm 2:2-3 in a Christian Bible)

Why would Jesus, the man/god of Christianity, be complaining that “God is so far from helping me?” How could God, the first Person of the Trinity, not hear the cries of God, the second Person of the Trinity? To whom is this supposed “God” complaining? The speaker here is moaning that God is not listening to him day and night. In the next few verses, he questions his feelings of abandonment, and enumerates the moments that God did listen and intervene for his ancestors. How can God not understand his own predicament? Applying the words of Psalm 22 to Jesus challenges even the most fertile imagination, and renders core Church teachings untenable.

Your first question essentially begins in your fourth paragraph. You ask how “a poor carpenter born in Bethlehem of the lineage of David would be able to set circumstances in motion such that the prophets could be made to be fools?” The prophets are never made fools into by the willful errors of mankind. Do you really think that people like Isaiah and Jeremiah were humiliated by the followers of deviant spiritual teachings and idolatry? Was it not these same men of God who pleaded without end that man should not turn away from the radical monotheism they vigorously proclaimed?

Moreover, your question could be asked of all the successful religions of the world. How is it that Joseph Smith was able to set into motion the fastest growing religion in North America? How is that Mohammed was able to successfully set into motion the fastest growing religion in the world? What about Hinduism with nearly a billion adherents worldwide? I am sure that the priests of Baal were very proud of what they had set into motion as well. The first Book of Kings chronicles their success among the Jewish people. I could just hear them saying, “Look at what we have set into motion! The entire nation of Israel, with the exception of 7,000 stubborn Jews, is following us. Let’s pray for these last 7,000 Jews that their hearts might not be hardened, that the scales over their eyes might be lifted, and they may worship Baal as do the rest of their brethren!”

Furthermore, from the Torah’s vantage point, membership in a large successful religion has little to do with truth. On the contrary, the Torah foretold that the Jewish people would remain few in number where they would live among the heathens (Deuteronomy 4:27). The Torah makes it clear that the intense love that the Almighty has for His people is not because we are the most numerous, for our population is among the tiniest of the nations:

“It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the Lord set his love upon you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples.” (Deuteronomy 7:7)

There were many great nations and religions set into motion that became very successful. Their success, however, has little to do with the purity and truth of their worship. In other words, if you belong to a religion that comprises more than a quarter of the world’s population, check your theology.

I am further puzzled by your reference to Jesus as being from “the lineage of David” when according to both Matthew and Luke, Jesus was born of a virgin and would therefore be unable to claim the rights to the Davidic line because tribal lineage is traced exclusively through a person’s father. This is clearly articulated the Torah:

And on the first day of the second month, they assembled the whole congregation together, who registered themselves by families, by fathers’ houses, according to the number of names from twenty years old and upward, head by head. (Numbers 1:18)

If you believe in the virgin birth – and I’m going to assume that you do – how do you proclaim that Jesus was from the line of David when according to your own doctrine Jesus was unrelated to Joseph, and lacked the human father with which to trace his lineage back to King David?

According to Christian teachings, Jesus had only a human Jewish mother. This human Jewish father would be essential for anyone to be a legitimate heir to the throne of David. The true messiah will be a patralineal descendant of King David and Solomon.

Your last question has been asked of me by many Christians. It is a well-worn argument popularized by C.S. Lewis, and it seeks to restrict a non-Christian into only three possible options regarding the identity of Jesus. These three options are: Was Jesus A) a liar B) a lunatic C) Lord? This line of questioning, however, is preposterous because there is a far more likely option that you had not offered me from which to choose: D) Jesus never claimed to be the messiah, but rather this was a claim placed in his mouth by others. In fact, option D is consistent with Jewish tradition regarding Jesus, which holds that Jesus never professed to be the messiah, although others would make this claim for him. It may be for this reason that Jesus almost3 never claims to be the messiah throughout the New Testament.

For the Jewish people, it is completely unimportant who Jesus or Hare Krishna really were. If they are not who Christianity or Hinduism says they are, then it matters little whether they were liars, lunatics, plumbers, or carpenters. Their veneration is to be avoided at all costs.

Yours truly,

Rabbi Tovia Singer

Footnotes:

1. Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34. In Luke 23:46, Jesus’ last statement is “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit,” and in John 19:30, it’s simply, “It is finished.”


2. In a Christian Bible this verse appears as Psalm 22:2-3.


3. Exceptions are: Matthew 16:15-17, John 4:26, and 17:3.

Who Killed Jesus?
View Article

Who Killed Jesus?


Question:

Dear Rabbi,

What can you answer to a “Christian” who claims that the Jews killed Jesus? I was too angry to think clearly of a good answer for that.

Thank you.

P.S. . . It’s hard to be a Jew in Hawaii sometimes!

Answer:

You shouldn’t get so angry at Christians who insist that the Jews killed Jesus. Your outrage may be directed in the wrong direction. It’s more likely that your accuser blindly embraced the dark depiction of the Jews as we were cast by the authors of the New Testament. The odious charge of deicide is clearly leveled against the Jewish people in the Christian Scriptures. From the narratives in the Gospels and letters of Paul, there can be no doubt that the Jews alone are responsible for Jesus’ death. In his earliest letter, Paul writes,

“...even as they have of the Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men, forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins always; for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost!” (I Thessalonians 2:14-16)

Moreover, not does the New Testament viciously condemn the Jews for the crime of deicide, but shockingly, the Romans are entirely exonerated in the Gospels. This selective vilification is not only directed toward those Jews who allegedly plotted and collaborated in Jesus’ crucifixion, but it places the responsibility for the death of Jesus on the Jewish people as a whole. Virtually all the Church Fathers regurgitate this devastating charge, casting the Jews as “Christ-killers.”

Accordingly, the Holy Friday liturgy of the Eastern Orthodox Church and Byzantine Catholics uses the expression “impious and transgressing people,”1 and the strongest expressions are in the Holy Thursday liturgy, which includes the same chant, after the eleventh Gospel reading, but also speaks of “the murderers of God, the lawless nation of the Jews,”2 and, referring to “the assembly of the Jews,” prays: “But give them, Lord, their reward, because they devised vain things against Thee.”3

Until the middle of the 20th century most Christian churches included references to deicide in their hymns and liturgy. The following, for example, is a verse from a hymn written in 1892 for use in the Church of England to call upon God to convert the Jews to Christianity:

Though the Blood betrayed and spilt,

On the race entailed a doom,

Let its virtue cleanse the guilt,

Melt the hardness, chase the gloom;

Lift the veil from off their heart,

Make them Israelites indeed,

Meet once more for lot and part

With Thy household’s genuine seed.4

The author of the first Gospel goes out of his way to portray Roman leaders at the time of the crucifixion as patsies of the Jews, wanting no part in Jesus’ death. Matthew casts Pontius Pilate, the Roman Governor of Iudaea Province (the Roman combination of Judea proper, Samaria and Idumea), as a reluctant accomplice to Jesus’ death, and he symbolically washes his hands of the gruesome affair.5

In spite of the numerous contradictions contained in the four Gospels of the Passion Narratives, the New Testament unanimously casts Pilate as a thoughtful Roman leader, hopelessly trying to reason with the lynch-mob mentality of the Jewish crowd, arguing for Jesus’ vindication. The Jews, on the other hand, are consistently portrayed as bloodthirsty, maniacal, and a debased rabble, demanding that Jesus is put to death. The benign caricature of Pontius Pilate in the Gospels, on the other hand, is one of a melancholy, weak leader who finally relents to the murderous demands of the Jews, and reluctantly hands Jesus over to be crucified.

Mark also depicts Jesus as innocent of committing any crime against Rome, and Pilate as extremely reluctant to execute Jesus, blaming the Jews for his death.6 In Matthew, Pilate washes his hands of Jesus’ execution and grudgingly sends him to his death.7

In Luke’s Gospel, Pilate not only agrees that Jesus did not conspire against Rome, but Herod Antipas, the tetrarch, admired Jesus as a saintly miracle worker,8 and finds nothing treasonous in Jesus’ actions.9 In the Book of John, shockingly, the warm, amiable feelings express between Pilate and Jesus are mutual, where Pilate finds no fault in Jesus,10 and Jesus finds no sin in Pilate.11

It could be said that Matthew, singlehandedly, is responsible for the first blood libel against the Jews. The first Gospel claims that after the Roman governor begged the frenzied crowd to spare Jesus’ life, the Jews answer him, “We take his blood upon ourselves and our children!” In these chilling verses, Matthew provides deep insight as to how the mind and soul of your acquaintance were poisoned by the slander conveyed against our people in the New Testament. Pilate said to the Jews:

“What then shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?” They all [the Jews] said to him, “Let Him be crucified!” Then the governor said, “Why, what evil has He done?” But they cried out all the more, saying, “Let Him be crucified!” When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, “I am innocent of the blood of this just Person. You see to it.” All the people answered and said, “His blood be on us and on our children.” (Matthew 27:22-25)

The Gospel of John has the dubious distinction of being both the most popular Gospel (widely considered the most “spiritual” of the canonical Gospels) and the most anti-Jewish. The term the “Jews” (Ἰουδαῖος – pronounced Ioudaios) in the Book of John functions as a hostile collective stereotype and is identified with “evil” and the “devil.”12 Like the Synoptics, the fourth Gospel also completely exonerates the Romans for the crucifixion of Jesus while holding the Jews entirely accountable for his execution.13 In a conversation between Jesus and Pilate, Jesus goes out of his way to comfort the Roman procurator of Judea assuring him that he has no power of his own, and therefore,

“the one who delivered me to you [the Jews] bear the greatest iniquity.” (John 19:11)

In fact, nowhere in the New Testament are the Romans ever condemned for the crucifixion of Jesus. This cannot be said about the Jews. For example, in the Book of Acts, the Jews alone are excoriated and vilified for crucifying Jesus. Notice how the Roman culpability is never mentioned anywhere in this odious text:

Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ. (Acts 2:36)

It is not difficult to understand why Pontius Pilate is venerated as a saint in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. According to Eastern Orthodox traditions, Pilate committed suicide out of remorse for having sentenced Jesus to death.14

In contrast to the gracious, benign caricature of Pontius Pilate conveyed in the Gospels, according to noted historians, including Philo and Josephus, the Roman Governor was renowned for “his violence, thefts, assaults, abusive behavior, endless executions, and savage ferocity”15 and as a “cruel despot who executed troublemakers without a trial and ordered his soldiers to randomly attack, beat, and kill scores of Jews.”16 Not surprisingly, this record of Pilate’s brutality is mentioned nowhere in the New Testament. A cruel tyrant such as Pilate would not have hesitated to execute any leader whose followers posed a potential threat to Roman rule. The notion that the Jews would or could demand of Pilate to crucify Jesus is preposterous.

If you stop and think about it, Christendom’s indictment against the Jews for crucifying Jesus is ludicrous. On the one hand, the New Testament insists that it was the most wonderful thing for mankind to have an atonement through Jesus’ death. On the other hand, the Jews are vilified by the same New Testament for killing him. If you take New Testament theology to its full logical conclusion, the Jews should have been praised in the New Testament for making this atonement possible, not condemned. Does all this make any sense?

With regard to your request for advice on how to answer the Christian who accuses the Jews of killing Jesus, remember that you are dealing with someone who is operating out of a venomous hate for the Chosen People, the nation Who God regards the “apple of His eye” (Zechariah 2:8). He is probably not interested in understanding why his charges are preposterous. Instead, remind him that his Bible says that the Almighty will bless those who bless Israel, and curse those curse Israel (Genesis 12:3). In short, Jew-hatred is a sin that damns the soul.

Bear in mind that although, as a result of this despicable charge of deicide, countless Christians have committed unspeakable atrocities against the Jewish people, many decent Christians condemn it. The reason for their condemnation, however, is often varied. There is no doubt that many Christians denounce anti-Semitism because of their genuine affection for the Jewish people. Unfortunately, many Christians who loudly declare their love for the Jewish people and condemn this charge of deicide have an ulterior motive: They do not want to be perceived by their potential Jewish converts to Christianity as being anti-Semitic or associated with Christendom and its long, dark history of hate.

Sincerely yours,

Rabbi Tovia Singer

Footnotes:

1. Ware, Metropolitan Kallistos and Mother Mary. The Lenten Triodion. St. Tikhon's Seminary Press, 2002, p. 612 (second stichos of Lord, I Have Cried at Vespers on Holy Friday)


2. Ware, Metropolitan Kallistos and Mother Mary. The Lenten Triodion. St. Tikhon's Seminary Press, 2002, p. 589 (third stichos of the Beatitudes at Matins on Holy Friday)


3. Ware, Metropolitan Kallistos and Mother Mary. The Lenten Triodion. St. Tikhon's Seminary Press, 2002, p. 586 (thirteenth antiphon at Matins on Holy Friday). The phrase “plotted in vain” is drawn from Psalm 2:1.


4. “Thou, the Christ Forever One,” words by William Bright, from Supplemental Hymns to Hymns Ancient and Modern, 1889)


5. Matthew 27:22-25


6. Mark 15:8-15


7. Matthew 27:13-25


8. Luke 23:8


9. Luke 23:3-23


10. John 18:38


11. John 19:11


12. John 8:44


13. John 19:11


14. “Pontius Pilate.” Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. 1913.


15. Philo, On The Embassy of Gauis. Book XXXVIII 299-305.


16. Josephus, Jewish War 2.9.2-4

Did Jesus Claim to be God?
View Article

Did Jesus Claim to be God?


Question:

I have heard Christian missionaries claim that Jesus deliberately screened or veiled his divine nature on earth, so when he is asked a question by one of his disciples about the time of the end he can honestly answer, that no man, not even the Son knows the time of the end, only the Father. Then, when he says elsewhere that he and the Father are One, he is speaking about his ontological identity with the Father. Please comment on this and post it on your web site.

Thank you.

Answer:

If the one God of the universe, Creator of the heavens and the earth, wanted to convey to His people that He alone was God and there was no other who shared this unique distinction with Him, what words would He use so that there would be no possibility for error? What phrase could He have selected so that there would be no chance of misunderstanding? If you or I wanted to describe the unique oneness of God in a way that could not be misinterpreted, how would we express this? Would we not have used the words that Moses reported God to have said in Deuteronomy 32:39,

“See now that I myself am He! There is no god besides Me . . .”

As a result of this and many other inspiring affirmations throughout the Jewish Scriptures,1 faithful Jews to this day will only worship the One life-giving God of Israel – alone.

No prophet in Tanach ever remained silent on this foundational teaching. As if with one voice, they pleaded with their often-wayward nation never to compromise their faith for anything other than the unwavering monotheism that they tirelessly preached. Over and over again, the Hebrew Bible declared with deliberate clarity in its most celebrated creeds that the Almighty alone is God, and there is no other. Nothing could ever be “screened” or “veiled” because the very survival of the Jewish people depended on it. The Torah intimately connects the faith in one indivisible God with the national experience of the Jewish people throughout their long history. Dreadful suffering was the consequence for any defection from the uncompromising monotheism that the Almighty demanded of His people.

Throughout the Jewish Scriptures, God never “screened or veiled his divine nature.” In fact, Isaiah unequivocally proclaimed that the Almighty did not reveal Himself in darkness or in a hidden or veiled fashion. The prophet, speaking in the Almighty’s name, declares that,

I have not spoken in secret, from somewhere in a land of darkness; I have not said to Jacob’s descendants, “Seek Me in vain.” I, the Lord, speak the truth; I declare what is right. (Isaiah 45:19)

Although the belief in the unity of God is taught and declared on virtually every page of the Jewish Scriptures, the doctrine of the Trinity is never mentioned anywhere throughout the entire corpus of the Hebrew Bible. Moreover, this doctrine is not to be found anywhere in the New Testament either because primitive Christianity, in its earliest stages, was still monotheistic. The authors of the New Testament were completely unaware that the Church they had fashioned would eventually embrace a pagan deification of a triune deity. Although the worship of a three-part godhead was well known and fervently venerated throughout the Roman Empire and beyond in religious systems such as Hinduism and Mithraism, it was quite distant from the Judaism from which Christianity emerged. However, when the Greek and Roman mind began to dominate the Church, it created a theological disaster from which Christendom has never recovered. By the end of the fourth century, the doctrine of the Trinity was firmly in place as a central tenet of the Church, and strict monotheism was formally rejected by Vatican councils in Nicea and Constantinople.2

When Christendom adopted a triune godhead from neighboring triune religious systems, it spawned a serious conundrum for post-Nicene Christian apologists. How would they harmonize this new veneration of Jesus as a being who is of the same substance as the Father with a New Testament that portrays Jesus as a separate entity, subordinate to the Father, and created by God? How would they now integrate the teaching of the Trinity with a New Testament that recognized the Father alone as God? In essence, how would Christian apologists merge a first century Christian Bible, which was monotheistic, with a fourth century Church which was not?

Did the authors of the New Testament believe in the Trinity? Click here.

This task was particularly difficult because throughout the Gospels and Paul’s letters Jesus never claims to be God. On the contrary, the New Testament makes it clear that he is not God, but rather an agent of God, entirely subordinate to the Father. For example, in John 14:28, the author of the fourth Gospel has Jesus declare,

“I go unto the Father, for my Father is greater than I.”

The example you mentioned illustrates this particularly well. In the Book of Mark, Jesus is asked by four of his disciples when the Tribulation period will occur. Jesus responds,

But of that day and that hour knows no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the son, but the Father. (Mark 13:32)

The problems this verse creates for Trinitarians are staggering. If Jesus were coequal with the Father, how could the Father have information that Jesus lacked? That is to say, if Jesus were God manifested in the flesh, as missionaries contend, how can God not know something? If somehow the second Person of the godhead didn’t know, how did the first Person find out? Moreover, if, as some Trinitarians persist, the son was limited by his human nature, why didn’t the Holy Spirit know?

Christians cannot simply explain away this verse by insisting that it was Jesus’ human or humble nature that did not know. This is because the doctrine of the Trinity does not hold that Jesus was half God and half man. Rather, Jesus was one hundred percent God and one hundred percent man. His substance as God was not diminished because of his human nature. As the ecclesiastical Athanasian Creed3 explicitly states:

The divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal. What quality the Father has, the Son has, and the Holy Spirit has.

Few statements defining the nature of the triune godhead have so plainly spelled out the nature of the doctrine of the Trinity as does this durable fourth century creed.

Some missionaries will argue, as you point out, that Jesus’ statement in John 10:30, “I and my Father are one,” demonstrates that Jesus considered himself God. The Greek word ἐν (hen), meaning “one,” however, does not imply being a part of the same substance. We see this clearly in John 17:11 and 17:21-22 where Jesus prays to God that the disciples may be one (ἐν) as are Jesus and God. Clearly, Jesus is requesting that the disciples be of one unified purpose, not of the same substance or part of the Trinity.

Moreover, John 10:30-34 is particularly revealing. The fourth Gospel describes how when the Jews heard Jesus proclaim, “I and my Father are one,” they immediately wanted to stone him. When Jesus asks them why they wanted to kill him, the Jews responded because “you claim to be God.” Upon hearing this, Jesus asked, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’?” This response is one of the most important statements in the Book of John, and should at least give Trinitarians pause.

The verse is found in Psalm 82:6 where the Bible refers to judges who teach God’s divine law as gods. This title was bestowed on them because they were teachers of the Almighty’s divine Law and sacred Oracles, not because they were actually God in any way. This usage is quite common in the Jewish Scriptures. For example, in Exodus 7:1 Moses is called a god because he was God’s representative to Pharaoh. In essence, Jesus’ reply is inconsistent the proposal that missionaries are seeking to advance. Jesus, as depicted by John, is explaining that his identification with God is comparable to that of a Jewish judge.

The fact remains that no author in the New Testament ever advanced the doctrine of the Trinity. Many years passed from the time the last Gospel was published for the Church to promote this alien creed.

Sincerely yours,

Rabbi Tovia Singer

Footnotes:

1. Click here for a list of texts.


2. The Council of Nicea and Constantinople were convened in 325 and 381 C.E., respectively. At the Council of Nicea the nature of Jesus was determined to be of the same substance (Gk. ομοούσιος – homousios) as the Father, and at the Council of Constantinople this doctrine was ratified and the doctrine of the Trinity was expressly declared to be a foundational Church teaching. (See Question and Answer entitled, Isaiah 53: Did Jesus have long life?)


3. While the authorship of the concise Athanasian Creed is widely speculated, it is a Post-Nicene, Church-sanctioned, litergacle declaration of the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation.

Could Jesus' Death Atone For Any Kind of Sin?
View Article

Could Jesus' Death Atone for Any Kind of Sin?


Question:

Dear Rabbi Singer,

A mutual friend of ours introduced me to your site. I work with Michael Flanigan of Palestine, TX. I am a gentile Christian who has many questions. I have found a lot of fascinating reading on your site. Michael and I have been discussing atonement and sacrifice as of late. Now bear in mind that I am by no means a biblical scholar, so I apologize if my questions seem silly. Would it not be possible for the death of Y’shua to apply as an unintentional sin sacrifice with His death applying when an individual asks Him into his/her life initially? Thereafter, sins would be forgiven as intentional sins through repentance. I hope you are able to make sense of my question. I am learning much through my conversations with Michael and listening to your tapes. I will continue to visit your website in the future.

Thank you for your time.

Answer:

There is nothing silly about your question. First, I will explain your question more clearly so that those unfamiliar with this subject will have a better grasp of what you are asking.

Missionaries claim that the blood sacrificial system is man’s only hope for atonement; they insist that there can be no forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood. They maintain that the Bible sets forth only blood atonement to expiate sin.

Evangelical Christians assert that for the past nineteen centuries, since the destruction of the second Temple in 70 C.E., the Jewish people lacked the essential and indispensable animal sacrificial system for atonement. Consequently, they maintain, God must have provided a blood atonement in place of the animal sacrifices of the past. This sacrifice, they insist, is the death of Jesus on the cross.

In support of their claim that atonement can only be achieved through the shedding of blood, missionaries cite the following verse:

This is because the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul. (Leviticus 17:11)

The Church appeals to this verse to prove that the blood of the cross is man’s only hope for salvation and the assurance that God will forgive his sins.

In response to this argument, I have explained that contrary to the missionary claim that blood sacrifice is the only method of atonement, the Bible clearly prescribes three methods of atonement: the sin sacrifice, repentance, and charity. Moreover, the sin sacrifice (called in the Jewish Scriptures as korban chatat) did not atone for all types of sin, but rather, only for man’s most insignificant iniquity: unintentional sins. The sin sacrifice was inadequate to atone for a transgression committed intentionally. The brazen sinner was barred from the sanctuary, and had to bear his own iniquity because of his rebellion against God. The Torah teaches this fundamental principle:

If a person sins unintentionally, then he shall offer a one-year-old female goat for a sin offering. The priest shall make atonement before the Lord for the person who goes astray when he sins unintentionally, making atonement for him that he may be forgiven ...The person who does anything defiantly, whether he is native or an alien, that one is blaspheming the Lord; and that person shall be cut off from among his people, because he has despised the word of the Lord and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt shall be on him. (Numbers 15:27-31)

Your question is excellent: “If the sin sacrifice was necessary in order to atone for unintentional sin, didn’t Jesus then have to die for those sins committed unwittingly?”

The answer to your question is simple. Jesus could not die for anyone’s sins, whether they were committed intentionally or accidentally. To begin with, the Jewish people were strictly prohibited from offering human sacrifices under any circumstances. There is not one place throughout the entire corpus of the Jewish Scriptures where human sacrifices are condoned. In fact, over and over again, the Bible warns the Jewish people that it is a grave sin to bring a human being as a sacrifice. In the Book of Leviticus, only distinct species of animals are permitted for use in blood sacrifices.

The ancient pagan religions promoted the same idea about atonement as Christendom continues to preach today (e.g. Molech). They would joyfully offer a child into the fires of their sacrificial offering in order to expiate their sins and appease the gods. Why would a child sacrifice be used in this pagan ritual rather than an adult? The reason is that a child is a moving portrait of one who is innocent of sin. A child, they reasoned, could not have committed iniquity and thus mirrored the animal sacrifice which also had to be unblemished. The Torah therefore condemned human sacrifices, and forewarned Jewish people of terrible consequences if this commandment were violated.

This message was conveyed at Mt. Moriah, where Abraham prepared to offer up his beloved son Isaac as a sacrifice. At that epic moment in history, as Abraham was ready to sacrifice Isaac, the Almighty admonished him that He did not desire human sacrifice, and directed Abraham to sacrifice the ram caught in the thicket instead. The Almighty’s directive – He only wanted animal sacrifices rather than human sacrifices – was immediately understood. This teaching has never departed from the mind and soul of the children of Israel.

Furthermore, the prophet Ezekiel warned the Jewish nation that a righteous man could not atone for the wins of the wicked. Wouldn’t we consider a father cruel if he punished an obedient child for the misdeeds of another? Only an unjust society would pardon its criminals while imprisoning the innocent. The prophet therefore warns that no innocent person can die for the sins of the wicked!

The soul that sins, it shall die! The son shall not bear for the sin of the father, nor the father bear for the sin of the son. The righteousness of the righteous person shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked person shall be upon him. 21As for the wicked man, if he should turn away from all his sins which he did, and safeguard all My decrees, and do justice and righteousness; he shall surely live. He will not die. 22All his transgressions which he committed will not be remembered against him. For the righteousness which he did, he shall live. 23Do I desire at all the death of the wicked man — the words of my Lord, God — is it not rather his return from his ways, that he might live? (Ezekiel 18:20-23)

Moreover, if missionaries want to use Leviticus 17:11 to bolster their claim that blood sacrifices are indispensable for procuring an atonement, they must use all of the verse, not just a part of it. Leviticus 17:11 specifically says that the blood of the sacrifice must be placed “upon the altar to make atonement for your souls.” That is to say, Leviticus 17:11 explicitly declares that blood can only effect atonement if it is placed on the altar. Jesus’ blood, however, was never placed on the altar. If the Church is going to take the “blood” part of the verse literally, they must also take the “altar” part literally as well. Jesus’ blood was never sprinkled on the altar, and therefore his death could not provide atonement for anyone.

Finally, the prophets loudly declared to theJewish people that the contrite prayer of the penitent sinner replaces the sacrificial system. Therefore, atonement for unintentional sins today is expiated through devotional supplication to God, the Merciful One.

In fact, in the third chapter of Hosea, the prophet foretold with divine exactness that the nation of Israel would not have a sacrificial system during the last segment of Jewish history until the messianic age. Hosea declares,

...for the children of Israel shall abide many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred pillar, without ephod or teraphim. Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek the Lord their God and David their king. They shall fear the Lord and His goodness in the latter days. (Hosea 3:4-5)

In the words of the Bible, this period of time would last for many days. Yet, despite the repeated proclamations of the Church that the crucifixion of Jesus serves as a sin sacrifice today, the words of Hosea were meticulously fulfilled, and we remain without an animal sacrificial until this day.

Given the spiritual magnitude of this remarkable prophecy, Hosea was compelled to reveal how the ecclesiastical Temple functions were it to be replaced. In essence, if the prophet is testifying that the nation of Israel will indeed be without a sacrificial system during their long exile until the messianic age, what are we to use instead? How are the Jewish people to atone for unintentional sin without a blood sacrifice during their bitter exile? What about all the animal sacrifices prescribed in the Book of Leviticus? Can the Jewish people get along without animal offerings? Missionaries claim they cannot.

The Bible disagrees.

For this reason, the teaching highlighted in Hosea 14:2-3 is crucial. In these two verses, Hosea reveals to his nation how they are to replace the sacrificial system during their protracted exile. The prophet declares that the Almighty wants us to “render for bulls the offering of our lips.” Prayer is to replace the sacrificial system. Hosea states,

Take words with you, and return to the Lord. Say to Him, “Take away all iniquity; receive us graciously, for we will render for bulls the offering of our lips.” (Hosea 14:2-3)

The prophets never instruct the Jews to worship any crucified messiah or demigod; nor does Scripture suggest that an innocent man could die as an atonement for the sins of the wicked. Such a message is utterly antithetical to the teachings of the Jewish Scriptures. Rather, it is the prayers of the sinner that would become as bulls of the sin offerings.

King Solomon echoes this sentiment as well.

In I Kings 8:46-50, King Solomon delivers a startling prophetic message as he inaugurates the newly constructed first Temple. In his inauguration sermon, King Solomon forewarns that one day the Jewish people would be driven out of the land of Israel, and banished to the land of their enemies, near and far. During their exile, many would fervently desire to repent of their sins. King Solomon then declares that they are to face Jerusalem from their diaspora, confess their sins, “and God will hear their prayers in heaven, and forgive them for all their transgressions.”

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. And they shall bethink themselves 47in 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.’ 48And 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 You have chosen, and the house which I have built for Your name. 49And You shall hear their prayer and their supplication in heaven, in Your dwelling place, and maintain their cause. 50And forgive Your people for what they have sinned against You, and all their transgressions that they have transgressed against You... (I Kings 8:46-50)

There was no mention of a cross or a dead messiah in King Solomon’s prophetic message. Only the contrite and repentant prayer of the remorseful sinner can bring about a complete atonement. Although King Solomon’s timeless message stands out as a theological impossibility in Christian terms, it remains the warm, centerpiece of the God’s system of atonement throughout his long and bitter exile.

Best wishes for a happy Passover.

Sincerely yours,

Rabbi Tovia Singer

Did Jesus Rise From the Dead? What is the Evidence?
View Article

Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?
What is the Evidence for the Resurrection?


Question:

Dear Rabbi Singer:

I'm doing a project on missionary and counter-missionary groups. There is a very large section in my project that deals with theology. I have read your site as well as the Jews for Jesus site, and I must say that the information is both deep and extensive. I must commend you. Your site offers many good counter arguments to the validity of Jesus being the messiah. I have, however hit a stumbling block.

I checked your Q&A section on the web pages, but found very little dealing with "Jewish" explanations of the resurrection. I found that quite odd, as any Christian will tell you that Jesus' resurrection is the foundation of the Christian religion. I assume that we as Jews do not believe in Christ's resurrection, so how do we explain the resurrection? Did a bunch of crazy people decide to create a story about a resurrection? This story was passed on to the time when the Gospels were written, so how inaccurate can they be? The memory of someone 40 years ago isn't considered faulty today, so accounts from 40 years may have been altered, but all adhere to a resurrection story. What is the Jewish take on the resurrection?

Answer:

You certainly did not overstate the centrality of the Christian claim that Jesus resurrected from the dead. As Paul concedes,

"If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins."
(I Corinthians15:17)

In essence, the validity of Christianity stands or falls on this astounding claim. Because of the importance of this topic, I have dedicated an entire segment on the audio recording, Confused Texts and Testimonies, to this subject.

Bear in mind that Christianity is not the only religion to have declared that its savior or demigod was resurrected from the grave. The story of a deity who defeated the grip of death is one of the most common themes embedded in the plethora of religions that have emerged since time immemorial. Your question, therefore, should be expanded even more widely because the claim of a divine savior who is born of a virgin, suffers a brutal death, and ascends to heaven was widespread among pagan and Gnostic religions during the first century (this was especially true for the regions around Tarsus, Paul's hometown). Mythologies throughout the Roman Empire and beyond contained popular beliefs that notable mortals and god-men were born of virgins and returned from the dead. See accounts of Romulus, Apollonius of Tyana, Drusilla, Claudius, Dionysus-Bacchus, Tammuz, Mithra, Osiris, Krishna, and Buddha.

The question for the Jewish people is simple. Should we accept the numerous claims made by widespread religions of miraculous resurrections from the dead simply because their zealous defenders promoted them? Claims of biased followers need to be particularly scrutinized, especially if they are the only claims that exist.

Since the belief in Jesus' resurrection is the foundation of Christianity, we should certainly examine the credibility of this story. What is the evidence for the belief that Jesus rose from the grave? Aside from the accounts in the New Testament, there is no independent supportive documentation, nor is there any circumstantial evidence. There is not even one contemporaneous historian who mentions one word about Jesus' resurrection. The entire claim hangs exclusively on the New Testament texts. Moreover, it was the creators and defenders of Christianity who promoted the stories of the resurrection. Their biased testimony must therefore be examined more carefully. Is this testimony reliable? As a seeker of truth, you are the judge.

Obviously, a judge must be impartial, and objectively weigh all of the relevant evidence. Realize this is not a routine case; your relationship with God is at stake. As an individual examining the case for the resurrection, you should not be swayed by conjecture or hearsay, but demand clear proof.

If you were the judge presiding over a murder case, you would want to be absolutely certain before convicting the defendant. If the prosecutor called his key witnesses, but each told a different story, his case would be very shaky. The defense attorney would argue for the acquittal of his client by demonstrating the weakness of the prosecutor's case. He would impeach the state's witnesses by showing how their accounts are contradictory.

The resurrection narratives in the Gospels may be convincing testimony for people who have not read them very carefully. As a responsible judge, though, you can't be satisfied with just a casual examination of the evidence, especially if biased witnesses gave the testimony. The stories told in the New Testament, and the passion narratives in particular, are so inconsistent, that the resurrection story collapses under careful scrutiny. The conflicting testimonies of the evangelists are so unreliable, that they would not stand up to critical cross-examination in any court of law. In fact, there is virtually not one detail of the crucifixion and resurrection narratives upon which all four Gospel authors agree. Yet, it is upon this story that the entire Christian religion stands or falls.

I have prepared the following three-part study to help you critically evaluate the case of the alleged resurrection of Jesus. This analysis consists of the crucial date of the crucifixion and the events that allegedly followed the resurrection.

Study the CRUCIFIXION/RESURRECTION CHART, which maps out the vast number of widespread inconsistencies in the Passion Narratives throughout the four Gospels and the letters of Paul. Let's begin this examination of the resurrection stories by studying the date of the crucifixion as told by the four Gospels.


The Crucifixion Date:
On Which Day Was
Jesus Crucified?

W hen examining the four crucifixion accounts as they are presented in the New Testament, it is difficult to identify a single event upon which all four Gospel writers agree. Even the date of the crucifixion is an issue of contention among the four Gospels.

A perfunctory examination of New Testament texts reveals that the Books of Matthew1 Mark2 and Luke3 all agree that the Last Supper was actually a Passover Seder. Bearing in mind that Jesus was crucified on the very next day following the Last Supper, that would mean that according to all three synoptic4 Gospels, Jesus was crucified on the first day of Passover, or the 15 day of the first th Jewish month of Nissan (for example, if tonight were a Passover Seder, tomorrow would then be the first day of Passover).5

The author of the Book of John, however, completely contradicts this crucial element of the crucifixion story as they are presented in the first three Gospels. The author of the fourth Gospel maintains that Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover, or the 14th day of Nissan. The Book of John identifies the date of the crucifixion in the following manner:

"Now it was the day of preparation for the Passover... Then he handed him over to them to be crucified."

(John 19:14-16)

The implications of this stunning contradiction cannot be overstated. Both claims cannot possibly have occurred. These conflicting claims cannot be explained away with the well-worn assertion that each Gospel writer expressed his own unique perspective. Jesus was either crucified on the eve of Passover, which is the 14th day of Nissan, as John contends, or on the first day of Passover, which is the 15th day of Nissan, as the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke maintain. Jesus could not have been crucified on both days.

Was the first Good Friday the first day of Passover? According to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, it was; according to John it was not.

As a result of the Gospel conflict over the crucifixion date, numerous other aspects of John's Passion Narrative differ radically from that of the synoptic Gospels. Therefore, the details in John's description of what transpired during the Last Supper had to be entirely different from the accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

For example, John could not include a Passover Seder in his version of the Last Supper because according to his reckoning of the date of the crucifixion, the night of the Last Supper fell on the night of the 13th day of Nissan, which means Passover had not yet begun. Accordingly, no aspect of the Seder ceremony occurs in John's Last Supper. In fact, in John's Gospel, no Communion takes place during the Last Supper (John chapter 13) – no eating of the matzo or drinking of the wine occurs. Because according to his version of the story the festival of Passover began Friday evening, the night of the crucifixion. Therefore, John's account of the Last Supper contains no ceremonial holiday supper at all; he only describes Jesus' washing the feet of the disciples.

Moreover, the opening words of John's 13 th chapter begins, "Now before the festival th of the Passover..." This is a striking introduction to John's Last Supper narrative because it contradicts Matthew, Mark, and Luke's account, which all claim that the momentous night wasn't "before the festival of Passover." Rather, according to the synoptic Gospels, it was the first night of the holiday of Passover.

What is more, according to John, when Judas Iscariot mysteriously leaves the Last Supper with the moneybag, the disciples immediately assume that he is taking money to purchase food for the "festive meal" (13:29). Why would the disciples presume that Judas is going to purchase food for the holiday feast if, according to the first three Gospels, they had just eaten the festive meal?

Furthermore, John's story describes how, when the Jews were handing Jesus over to Pontius Pilate to be crucified on the morning of the crucifixion, "They [the Jews] themselves did not enter the headquarters, so as to avoid ritual defilement and to be able to eat the Passover."6 (John 18:28) Why were these Jews concerned about not being able to eat the Passover? According to Matthew, Mark, and Luke they had already consumed the lamb the night before because the Passover Seder took place the previous evening. This is not a problem for John because the fourth Gospel states that Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover, so that this statement is only consistent with his story. In contrast, the synoptic Gospels never mention in their accounts the fear the Jews had of entering the home of Pilate. Such concern would be preposterous because in Matthew, Mark, and Luke's crucifixion story, the Jews had already eaten the Passover lamb the previous night.

The first question that immediately comes to mind is why would John change the crucifixion date from the 15th day of Nissan to the 14 thday? Why did the author of the fourth Gospel feel compelled to have Jesus crucified on the eve of Passover rather than the first day of Passover, as the synoptic Gospels claim?

The answer emerges when the message John's Gospel sought to convey is understood.

Because the Book of John was the last of the four Gospels to be written, the author was trying to appeal to a Church that had quickly become predominantly gentile. The author of the fourth Gospel had the task of appealing to and thoroughly satisfying the pagan mind of the Greco-Roman world. This was accomplished by carefully integrating heathen practices with elements of the Jewish faith.

The notion that an animal was to be revered and sacrificed as a god was well known and widely practiced throughout the Roman Empire,7 in Mystery Religions such as Mithraism, which flourished during the time that the Book of John was written.

John was keenly aware of this rapid transformation, and seamlessly fused the Mithraic sacrifice of the redeeming bull with the Jewish sacrifice of the Paschal lamb.

For this reason, John the Baptist proclaims of Jesus, "Behold, the Lamb of God!" (1:29, 36) only in John's Gospel. Of the four Gospels, only John equates Jesus with the Passover lamb. If Matthew, Mark, and Luke agreed with the fourth Gospel that the Passover lamb represented Jesus, why in the synoptic Gospels' Last Supper does Jesus raise the matzo saying, "This is my body"? Instead, according to Jewish tradition, he should have raised the Paschal lamb. At Communion, priests should be feeding their parishioners lamb chops rather than a wafer!

In addition, the story told in the Book of John of the Roman soldiers who pierced the side of Jesus rather than break his legs on the cross (John 19:31-37) is not mentioned anywhere else in the New Testament. This brief narrative is only consistent with the theological story line of the fourth Gospel. Only the author of the Book of John was eager not to have Jesus' bones broken so as not to violate the Torah's prohibition of breaking the bones of the Paschal lamb (Exodus 12:46).

Therefore, John places the crucifixion on the 14th day rather than the 15th, because the Torah commands Israel to slaughter the Paschal lamb on the eve of Passover or on the 14th day of Nissan (Exodus 12:6), John's Jesus was also "slaughtered" (i.e. crucified) on the eve of Passover or the 14thday of Nissan.

CLICK HERE FOR THE CRUCIFIXION/RESURRECTION CHART


Both of these Conflicting Resurrection
Stories Could Not have Occurred
Matthew 28:1-10 John 20:1-18
After the Sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. 2.And suddenly there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord, descending from heaven, came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. 4 For fear of him the guards shook and became like dead men. 5 But the angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid; I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here; for he has been raised, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples, ‘He has been raised from the dead, and indeed he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him.' This is my message for you." 8So they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9 Suddenly Jesus met them and said, "Greetings!" And they came to him, took hold of his feet, and worshiped him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me." Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb. 2. So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him." 3 Then Peter and the other disciple set out and went toward the tomb. 4 The two were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5 He bent down to look in and saw the linen wrappings lying there, but he did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen wrappings lying there, 7 and the cloth that had been on Jesus' head, not lying with the linen wrappings but rolled up in a place by itself. 8 Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; 9 for as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead. 10 Then the disciples returned to their homes. 11 But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb; 12 and she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had been lying, one at the head and the other at the feet. 13 They said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping?" She said to them, "They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him." 14 When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not know that it was Jesus. 15 Jesus said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping? For whom are you looking?" Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away." 16 Jesus said to her, "Mary!" She turned and said to him in Hebrew, "Rabbouni!" which means Teacher. 17 Jesus said to her, "Do not hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, "I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'" 18 Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, "I have seen the Lord"; and she told them that he had said these things to her.

Why are Matthew and John's passion narratives incompatible? If read independently, the resurrection accounts presented by either Gospel appears fancifully viable, if all the other New Testament stories are ignored. When read side by side, however, the varsity of these two narratives becomes indefeasible because it would have been chronologically impossible for both accounts to have occurred. In fact, the crucial elements of the crucifixion story presented in these two Gospel narratives are so manifestly contradictory that even liberal Christians, who allow for the occasional mistakes that appear in the New Testament, should become alarmed by these conflicting stories.

This brief study will probe several unreconcilable contradictions of the resurrection chronology, as they are conveyed by Matthew and John. The following discrepancies have been selected because they cannot be harmonized or explained by tired arguments such as "each Gospel writer is giving us his own personal perspective." Such a defense is untenable because the these Gospel conflicting narratives are so utterly irreconcilable that no explanation can account for the stark differences between them.

Matthew presents us with a post-resurrection story where an angel who had just rolled away the stone from the tomb's entrance greets Mary Madeline and "the other Mary." After revealing to both women the empty place where Jesus' body once laid, the angel informs them that Jesus had already risen from the dead. The angel then instructs both Marys that they are to tell the disciples that Jesus had gone before them to the Galilee to meet them.

After the Sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. And suddenly there was a great earthquake; for 2 an angel of the Lord, descending from heaven, came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. 4 For fear of him the guards shook and became like dead men. 5 But the angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid; I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here; for he has been raised, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples, 'He has been raised from the dead, and indeed he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him.' This is my message for you."

(Matthew 28:1-7)

If that encounter wasn't convincing enough for the two women, Matthew claims that after leaving the tomb, both Marys unexpectedly encounter the resurrected Jesus himself, whom they both worship. Jesus then essentially repeats the angel's instructions, and sends both women to inform the disciples that they are to go to the Galilee to meet Jesus.

So they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9Suddenly Jesus met them and said, "Greetings!" And they came to him, took hold of his feet, and worshiped him. 10Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me."

(Matthew 28:8-10)

Like Matthew's account, John's resurrection narrative also contains the story of an empty tomb. That is, however, where the similarities between the first and fourth Gospel come to an end. In John's version of the first Easter morning, when Mary Magdalene arrives alone at Jesus' tomb, there is no angel to greet her with information about Jesus' whereabouts, or instructions about a rendezvous in the Galilee, as we find in Matthew's account (Matthew 28:5-7). On the contrary, in John's story, after Mary finds the empty tomb, she concludes that someone had removed the body from the grave. Mary certainly had no reason to believe otherwise. She therefore quickly runs back to the disciples and reports,

"They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him!"

(John 20:2)

This account in the Book of John could not have occurred in Matthew's post-resurrection narrative. How could Mary have not known that Jesus' body was not laid anywhere? In Matthew's story, the angel had already revealed to her that Jesus rose from the dead and had gone to the Galilee. It would have been preposterous for her to think that someone had moved the body when the angels had already informed her that Jesus' resurrection had occurred.

Moreover, if the angel's instructions to her were not convincing enough, Matthew claims that Mary also met the resurrected Jesus himself immediately after leaving the tomb (Matthew 28:9) – and all this transpires before Mary ever sees the disciples! Why then in John's Gospel is Mary clueless as to where Jesus' body was moved, when according to Matthew, the angel at the tomb and Jesus himself had already informed Mary that Jesus rose from the dead?

Further contradicting Matthew's post-resurrection account, John's story lacks the Roman guards whom Matthew places at the tomb to prevent anyone from removing Jesus' body. How could John's Mary have thought that someone removed the body, when according to Matthew, Roman soldiers were placed at the tomb for the specific purpose of preventing just such an occurrence? Obviously, the author of the fourth Gospel has no need for Roman guards at the tomb, so in John's crucifixion account they simply do not exist.

This Gospel problem of the missing Roman soldiers in the Book of John raises another important issue. Missionaries often contend that it would have been impossible for anyone to have surreptitiously removed Jesus' corpse from the tomb because there were guards posted at the tomb who would have prevented such an occurrence. Therefore, they argue, without any possibility for the body to have been quietly whisked away, the only other logical conclusion is that Jesus must have truly arisen from the dead.

The argument completely collapses in John's account because according to the fourth Gospel, this is precisely what Mary thought had occured. Mary clearly didn't feel as though the scenario of Jesus' body being removed was unlikely. In fact, according to John, that was her only logical conclusion. Clearly, Matthew's guards didn't dissuade John's Mary from concluding that someone had taken Jesus' body because Roman guards do not exist in John's story.

To further compound the problem of the conflicting resurrection accounts, John's Gospel continues to unfold with Mary returning to the tomb a second time, only to find two angels sitting inside the tomb. Mary is still unaware of any resurrection as she complains to the angels that someone had removed Jesus' corps. As far as John's Mary is concerned, the only explanation for the missing body was that someone must have removed it, and she was determined to locate it.

But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb; and she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had been lying12 , one at the head and the other at the feet. 13They said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping?" She said to them, "They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him."

(John 20:11-13)

Although in Matthew's account the angel emphatically tells Mary about the resurrection (Matthew 28:5-7), in John's Gospel the angels do not mention that anyone rose from the dead. The angels only ask Mary, "Woman, why are you weeping?" Mary responds by inquiring whether the angels removed Jesus' body. Then, Mary turns and sees Jesus standing before her, but mistakes him for the gardener. Mary is still completely unaware of any resurrection, and therefore asks the "gardener" if he was the one who carried away Jesus' body. It is only then that Mary realizes that she was speaking to the resurrected Jesus.

When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not know that it was Jesus. 15 Jesus said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping? For whom are you looking?" Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away." 16 Jesus said to her, "Mary!" She turned and said to him in Hebrew, "Rabbouni!" which means Teacher.

(John 20:14-16)

It is at this final juncture of the narrative that the accounts of Matthew and John become hopelessly irreconcilable. The question every missionary must answer is the following: When Mary met Jesus for the first time after the resurrection, had the angel(s) already informed her that Jesus had arisen from the dead? According to Matthew, the angels did inform Mary of the resurrection, but in John's account they did not. As we survey the divergent New Testament accounts of the resurrection, we are not just looking at contradictory versions, we are simply gazing at two entirely different stories.

Christian apologists frequently argue that the inconsistent resurrection accounts are analogous to a traffic accident viewed by four different witnesses – each who sees it conveys a distinct perspective. This might be a tenable idea if the evangelists were actually on the scene and watched the story unfold as the women approached the tomb. Yet, this was not the case. Not only were the Gospel writers not eyewitnesses, they didn't even write their accounts of the story until at least 40-70 years after it allegedly took place. Moreover, inconsistencies in the resurrection narratives, e.g. date, time, and place cannot be dismissed as differences in perspective.

Philo of Alexandria (20 B.C.E.-50 C.E.), a renowned philosopher and a contemporary of Jesus, wrote extensively about his time. Yet, nowhere in his entire corpus of works does Philo mention a word about Jesus or his alleged resurrection. Josephus' silence on this matter is deafening as well. Consequently, the only information we have of this 2,000-year-old tale is the New Testament. However, the moment our finger begins to navigate its verses, we are confronted and appalled by the plethora of glaring irreconcilable inconsistencies. Every element of the resurrection narrative is recklessly contradicted by another.

There is, however, a more significant issue here – the source. When a number of people in different places and at different times write a description of an event that occurred in the significant past – whether a year ago, a decade ago, or a half a century ago – we expect many contradictions. Why would we anticipate conflicting accounts? Because humans are fallible, and are therefore likely to make all sorts of errors for a variety of reasons. Accordingly, when we read descriptions of what transpired during a historical event, such as the assassination of JFK, disparities will inevitably exist among the accounts. Therefore, when various individuals witness a traffic accident and then attempt to clearly transmit the information they saw, errors will be made. This is what we expect from imperfect humans!

The Church, however, does not make this claim. Its authors and those who promoted the Christian religion claim that its content was divinely inspired, i.e. every word is from God! Christendom insists that the authors of the Christian Bible were inspired by the Holy Ghost. With this assertion, we must hold the Gospels to an entirely different standard of accuracy – that of perfection. Well over a half century passed from the time that Paul wrote his first letters until the last words of the Book of Revelations were penned. Moreover, these books were written from one end of the Roman Empire to the other. Thus, if we are to assume they were written by mere mortals, without Heavenly inspiration, mistakes and inconsistencies are expected. God, however, is inerrant.

There is another significant difference between conflicting accounts of a traffic accident and contradictory stories of the resurrection narratives. The testimonies of a traffic accident are believable because they are likely to have occurred, and make sense in our world. The resurrection story, on the other hand, is a biological and scientific impossibility. Thus, the only reason for believing the numerous fantastic claims of miraculous occurrences in the New Testament – defying all natural laws – is the believer's total reliance on the credibility of the divine author. Since the stunning contradictions clearly establish the human origins of the resurrection stories, we can no more accept their testimony than we can that of the Book of Mormon. Moreover, the resurrection story is a self-serving rationalization to account for a messianic failure.

I know that many frantic attempts have been made to explain away some of the countless inconsistencies that exist in the four canonical Gospels. These answers, however, are so plainly contrived that even a perfunctory examination of these rationalizations cast serious doubt on the claim that they were divinely inspired. God doesn't suffer from human fallibility and certainly wouldn't present such a garbled account of what Christians consider the most crucial event in world history.

Best regards for a happy Passover.

Very truly yours,

Rabbi Tovia Singer

CLICK HERE FOR THE CRUCIFIXION/RESURRECTION CHART


Footnotes:

Matthew 26:20-30.


Mark 14:17-25.


Luke 22:14-23.


The synoptic Gospels are those of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The word synoptic comes from two Greek words that mean "the same view." Matthew, Mark, and Luke are referred to as the synoptic Gospels because these three Gospels tell a similar story, and there is a strong literary relationship among them.


Suggesting that the Last Supper might have been the second Passover Seder would not hold true in the land of Israel, but only in the Diaspora where it is customary to hold two Seders. Secondly, a second Seder would create a 48-hour problem instead of a 24-hour problem.


Kohanim, priests, avoided entering the homes of gentiles because it was a common practice for non-Jews to bury their dead in their homes.


This is particularly true of the pagan god Mithras. Belief in this deity flourished throughout the Roman Empire during the second and third centuries C.E. Similar to Christianity, Mithra was called the "Mediator" (see I Timothy 2:5), and one Mithraic hymn begins, "Thou hast redeemed us too by shedding the eternal blood."


Who is the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53? What do the Rabbinic Commentators Really Say?
The Haftorah and Isaiah 53:Are the Jews Hiding Something?
Mary's Genealogy
Sin and Atonement
Isaiah 53: Did Jesus Have Long Life?
Is there an accurate translation of the Jewish scriptures?
The Trinity in the Shema?
How Do Missionaries Paint the Virgin Birth Into the Mouth of Rashi?
Did the Passover Lamb Foreshadow Jesus?
Who Is Satan?
A Christian Defends Matthew by Insisting That the Author of the First Gospel Used the Septuagint in His Quote of Isaiah to Support the Virgin Birth
"The Lord Said to My Lord . . . ." To Whom Was the Lord Speaking in Psalm 110:1 ?
Has God Divorced Israel? What is the Meaning of the 'New Covenant' Promised in Jeremiah?
Does the Hebrew Word Alma Really Mean "Virgin"?
Did Somebody Find the Trinity in the First Chapter of the Bible? To Whom Was God Speaking to When He Said, "Let Us Make Man in Our Image"?
Did Somebody Find the Trinity in the Name of God?
Does Judaism Believe in Original Sin? What Does the Bible Really Say?
Why Doesn't Judaism Have a King? Where is Our Messiah?
Jewish Genealogy
Coping With Christmas
When a Pastor Demands Charity
The Gentiles are Coming!
Monotheism and Idolatry
The Year 2000

Question :
Why is there so much emphasis by the Christians for the year 2000 as being a redemption year?  I have heard that there is a belief that all Jews must be converted to Christianity by the year 2000.  This will probably mean steeped up efforts by the Jews-for-Jesus and similar missionary groups.  What can we really expect to happen by the year 2000?

Answer :
There is a definite preoccupation in some parts of the Christian world that Jesus will make his second coming in approximately 750 days from now -- by the year 2000.  This anticipation relates to the church's fascination with the subject of eschatology, or the study of the End Times.  These Christians are consumed by the prophecies surrounding the end of days.  How will this take place?  To which nations did the prophet Ezekiel refer when he described how apocalyptic nations would come up against Jerusalem immediately before the coming of the messiah (Ezekiel 38-39)?  If you happen to venture into a Christian bookstore, you will find entire sections set aside on this apocalyptic subject.

How does the church's fascination with the subject of eschatology relate to your question?  At the end of the first gospel, Matthew's Jesus makes a very important statement.  In Matthew 23:39 Jesus says, "I will not return until you say, 'Blessed is he that comes in the name of the Lord.' " Because he was speaking to a Jewish audience throughout this chapter, Christians often have understood this statement to mean Jesus will not make his second coming until a mass of Jews are converted to Christianity.  In essence, the Jews are holding up the show.  Because many fundamentalist Christians believe that Jesus is going to make his second coming in or about the year 2000, there is an imperative in the minds of many evangelicals that the Jews must be converted before then, en masse, in order to enable Jesus to return.

It is not difficult to understand why Christians are fascinated with the year 2000.  Although this unit of time of a thousand years plays an insignificant role in the Jewish scriptures, it comes up quite prominently in the New Testament.  This is particularly true in the Book of Revelation -- especially with regards to eschatology.  In the 20th chapter of Revelation, the millennium is the unit of time Jesus is to reign while Satan is bound and thrown into a bottomless pit.

This is not the first time that the church has had its eye on a date for the second coming.  Many Christians anticipated that Jesus was going to make his second coming by the year 1000.  There was therefore a great push to convert Jews before the end of the first
millennium.  When the year 1000 passed and Jesus didn't show, the church concluded that the Jews were responsible.  Unspeakable persecution against our people resulted.  Understandably, there is some concern today about a possible backlash against the Jewish people on Monday, January 1, 2001.  May the real messiah come quickly, in our time.

Yours,

Rabbi Tovia Singer 

 

 

Why Did the Chief Rabbi of Rome Convert to Catholicism?
What is a Former Christian Minister to Do, Convert?

Question :
Shalom my friend,

I am an ordained minister who has been studying the Hebrew roots of Christianity for around 10 years. Over time I have been forced to "unlearn" much of what I inherited and learned at higher levels of education. The bottom line is that much of Christianity is a false faith which detracts from the true faith given to all mankind at Sinai: Biblical Judaism.

I am questioning converting. It seems to me that as a god-fearer I have the best of both worlds. Let me explain. Understanding the Laws of Noah, and then going on to choose those things that please Hashem and taking hold of His covenant in Isaiah 56 by acquiring other mitzvoth and incorporating them into my life....is this not a better position for me to be in than full conversion where I would then be obligated to fulfill all the 613? You see where I live there is not a Jewish community close which could support me. Buying foods and meats killed in a kosher manner, observing regulations of travel on the Sabbath, etc....these seem to be so difficult living in a Gentile society today which is blind to Torah. Can you advise for I value your comments very much. Blessing on you and your family I pray. Shalom.

Answer :
You are raising an important question which is asked of me almost daily. What should a former Christian do when he discovers that the Almighty's salvation program has never changed, and the path to express His eternal truth is still uniquely realized within the Jewish faith? This is a dilemma which confronts so many seeking souls who have emerged from the church and have embarked on the very same spiritual journey you have.

Remember that you were created in the image of God and should walk in the path of the righteous gentile. This journey is realized by your commitment to observe the seven laws of Noah. There are thousands of men and women with your religious background who have come to proudly identify as a Noachide, or B'nai Noah (children of Noah). They diligently remain on this sacred path of observance of the seven Noachide laws, which will ultimately bring each of them into the presence of God for all eternity.

Be mindful that as you observe these seven mitzvoth, do not say in your heart, "I am performing these commandments because they make sense to my intellect and understanding." Rather, proclaim that you are fulfilling them because the God of Israel commanded you to keep them.

The seven Noachide commandments are: 
The prohibition of idolatry
The prohibition of blasphemy
The prohibition of murder
The prohibition of theft
The prohibition of immoral sexual relations
The prohibition of eating the limb of a living animal
The commandment to establish courts of law enforcing the above commandments

It is a mistake to suppose that since the children of Israel have 613 commandments and the children of Noah have seven commandments, that the ratio of spiritual worth of a gentile to a Jew is proportionally seven to 613.

In reality, the seven Noachide laws are general categories of commandments, each containing many components and details, whereas the 613 commandments of the Torah are precise, each relating to one basic detail of the law of the Torah. Therefore, the numerical disparity in no way reflects the relative spiritual worth of the two systems of commandments.

Because of their profound spiritual connection to the nation of Israel, many righteous gentiles symbolically commemorate some of the Jewish festivals. For example, it is not uncommon for B'nai Noah to in some way celebrate the holiday of Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year and Day of Judgment. This festival is of particular interest to the righteous gentile because God judges all of mankind on that day - the Jew as well as the gentile. Rosh Hashanah also is the day Adam, the first man, was created by God, and all mankind is descended from Adam just as we are all descendants from Noah.

The holiday of Shevuoth (the Festival of Weeks) is also of unique interest to the Noachide because the descendants of Noah received their commandments at that time as well. When the evening of Shevuoth arrives, righteous gentiles often spend the entire night contemplating the momentous occasion of the giving of the Torah to the children of Israel at Mt. Sinai. In essence, the affinity that the truly righteous gentile feels for the Jewish people ignites within his soul a fervent desire to cling to the God of Israel and His people.

Bear in mind though, that whatever observances B'nai Noah choose to keep, they must not keep the Shabbat according to Jewish Law, for the observance of the Shabbat was set aside for the Jewish people alone (Exodus 31:16-17).

There are gentiles, however, whose experience with the children of Israel runs much deeper than a feeling of profound affection for the Jew and his Torah. These individuals throughout their lives have often felt a longing and desire to be a part of the Jewish people. In fact, one middle aged woman recently confided in me that she inexplicably knew she was Jewish for as long as she could remember. This is not an uncommon phenomenon. Because the vast majority of B'nai Noah were brought up within the Christian religion, their attachment to the nation of Israel has always been more than just a passing interest or fascination.

Since in its most primitive beginnings Christianity began as a heresy of Judaism, "Jews" play a more than incidental role in the church. This role is most often not a flattering one, yet the mere mention of the Jew is enough to ignite a fervid and inquisitive spark within the soul of the destined convert. The discussion about the nation of Israel may have occurred at home, or even taken place in church or Sunday school. Nevertheless, this simple discussion generates an almost unbridled enchantment with the Jewish people. These are the gentiles who experience an irresistible calling to convert to Judaism.

Ironically, there are some gentiles who have this undeniable yearning to somehow connect to the Jewish people and mistakenly get caught up in the Messianic movement. When at first they hear about Christians who worship using Jewish symbols and liturgy, they become very excited. They imagine that this is precisely what they were looking for. They believe that they can finally express their desire to associate with Judaism by attending Messianic congregations. Once they get involved, however, they quickly realize that a Messianic "synagogue" is nothing more than an evangelical church deceptively designed to appear as a synagogue in order to lure those Jews who might otherwise resist the Christian trappings of a church. They finally grasp that the Messianic movement exists in order to generate the very opposite effect that they wish to be a part of. They realize that this modern movement seeks to make Jews into Christians, using nefarious means. In essence, they conclude quite correctly that the Messianic movement is thoroughly Christian, and look elsewhere for authentic expressions of Judaism.

The decision to convert to the Jewish faith is quite different than the commitment to continue as a B'nai Noah. For whereas the Noachide has embraced the faith of the Jewish people alone, the righteous convert, on the other hand, has, in every manner become part of the Jewish people - sharing in full their Torah, as well as their wondrous history and eternal destiny.

The distinction between the righteous convert to Judaism and the Noachide is often difficult for Christians to comprehend. For whereas Christianity and Islam are both religions of creed alone, Judaism comprises both a faith and a distinct peoplehood. For example, if a Christian declares that he does not believe in Jesus, is he still a Christian? Or if a Moslem confesses that he does not trust in the prophet Mohammed, is he still a Moslem? Certainly not. On the other hand, if a Jew declares that he doesn't believe in God, or he has embraced the alien deities of surrounding peoples such as Hare Krishna or Jesus, is he still a Jew? Yes, although a sinner who is called by the prophets to repent. Paradoxically, the word religion appears nowhere throughout the Bible. The Jewish people are referred to as an am, a nation.

There is a Jewish tradition amongst the children of Israel that many of those unique individuals who genuinely convert to Judaism are those gentiles who somehow possess a Jewish soul that tirelessly cries out for truth and clarity.

The request of a gentile to convert to Judaism is never taken lightly by a rabbi. On the contrary, this petition is considered with the utmost concern and apprehension. The rabbi or scholar who is asked to perform a conversion will in almost all situations repeatedly attempt to dissuade the petitioner from going on with his conversion and send the potential convert away. This effort of dissuasion will continue throughout the conversion process. For once a gentile has converted to Judaism, there is no going back. There can be no undoing of this eternal decision. Once the conversion has occurred, the convert is forever a Jew.

Bear in mind that there is no sin for a gentile to eat pork or violate the Sabbath. Once the conversion ceremony is completed, however, the Jew by choice is required to observe all 613 commandments as any other Jew. If a convert backslides and returns to his former heathen ways, the conversion that he has endured has now become his spiritual affliction. In a sense, he would have been far better off had he not converted, for before his conversion these iniquitous acts were not sinful, and now they are. Rabbis are extremely sensitive to this and carefully screen a potential convert.

We see this principle in the Bible as well. When Ruth entreated her mother in law Naomi to return with her to the land of Israel and join the Jewish people, Naomi made three attempts to dissuade her daughter in law. Only after Naomi realized that Ruth was unshakable in her commitment to return did Naomi relent and bring her to her home in Bethlehem (Ruth 1:8-18). Ruth went on to become one of the most extraordinary women in Jewish history, and was the grandmother of King David.

May the Merciful One guide you on your own sacred path.


Sincerely yours,
Rabbi Tovia Singer

 

A Contrite Minister Apologizes for the Church's Long History of Hate
Will God Only Save the Jews?

Question :

Dear Rabbi,
I would agree with most of what you said in the above noted commentary ["Has God Divorced Israel? What Is the Meaning of the 'New Covenant' Promised in Jeremiah?"], except your broad sense of rejection of when the Lord did or did not establish the new covenant. My overriding concern and question for you to consider is this. Will God only save the Jews? You never ever show any salvation path for gentiles. It is here where your arguments hit the deepest rooted question. Were the Jews chosen by God as the only people to be saved? Surely this cannot be so. I would further add, your concern only for the Jews is understandable from a human perspective, but shows a rather hard hearted and unspiritual approach to God who has done so much for all of us.

Finally, your reference to the Christian commentary was rather limited as the author is only saying that the Jew does not have to abandon Judaism to believe in Jesus. It is in fact that Jesus, as you have heard and rejected, was the fulfillment of the Law so that God would bring us to a new covenant of Grace through His Son and place His Spirit in the hearts of all mankind who believe in Jesus.... The Law has NOT been set aside but has been fulfilled by the only one who could keep the Law. For surely neither you nor I nor any man is righteous enough to keep God's law in full...and one cannot stand in the judgement if he has violated any of the Law. So these issues need to be addressed in your heart and between you and God. I have come to my own deep and personal resolution with our Creator. I wish you all the rich blessings of God, especially His salvation which I feel is intended for all mankind.

Answer :
After reading your question carefully, it became abundantly clear that you have a skewed understanding of the Jewish people and our faith. You charge Judaism with holding out salvation to the Jew alone, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Quite the contrary, it is the church which has no room in heaven for those who do not believe in Jesus, and instead of spending eternity in a lush paradise, non-Christians are relegated by the New Testament and its church to an eternal lake of hell-fire. (2 Thessalonians 1:8) Such narrow teachings, however, are alien and utterly abhorrent to the Jewish people. The faith of Israel proclaims that the merciful Redeemer holds out a distinct salvation program both for the Jew and the gentile. The faith of the children of Israel does not condemn the masses of non-Jewish humanity to everlasting separation from God, as your question suggests. Rather, our people hold out the path of righteousness to all of humanity - both Jew and gentile. I have written an article which addresses this subject in much greater detail entitled, "What is a Former Christian Minister to Do, Convert?"

Are the Jewish people proud? Yes, but we want all men to be proud. Were we chosen? Yes, but for what purpose? For power, happiness, for rest and security in our possessions? No. Rather to be a light to the nations - to show all nations an example of a people who are not afraid to stand upright on the earth. To regard no man as God, and to be the protectors and teachers of the divine oracles of the Torah. This is why we are the chosen people of God.

With respect to my comment regarding the anti-dispensationalist author Arthur W. Pink, you are being overly charitable when you defend his supersessionist position. I am going to assume that your defense of this Calvinist writer is born out of a lack of familiarity with his Christology. Bear in mind that Pink's quote1 from his An Exposition of Hebrews appears in chapter 102 which is entitled, "The Passing of Judaism." This title is quite revealing. Other section names in his book are equally telling as well. Some of his unsubtle chapter titles include "The Inferiority of Judaism" and "The Superiority of Christianity." To further illustrate this point, in his chapter, "The Passing of Judaism," Pink applauds the Bible commentator and advocate of replacement theology Matthew Henry (17-18th century) when he writes,

 
"We believe that Matthew Henry was on the right track when he said, 'It is by the Gospel from heaven that God shook to pieces the civil and ecclesiastical state of the Jewish nation, and introduced a new state of the church, that cannot be removed, shall never be changed for any other on earth, but shall remain till it be made perfect in heaven.' The apostle [Paul] is still supplying proof that the Hebrew believers were no longer connected with Judaism, but were to come to the antitypical Zion."2

Finally, your letter defiantly proclaims that man is unable and unfit to keep the Torah. The readers of this letter can rest assure that you did not derive this cynical teaching from the Jewish scriptures, for such an idea is unknown to the timeless message of Tanach. The Hebrew scriptures are filled with testimonials proudly describing the towering character of godly men like Abraham whom God tenderly called "My friend."3 Calev and Josiah, to name a few, knew righteousness throughout their faithful lives.4 Your statement, "neither you nor I nor any man is righteous enough to keep God's law in full" could only have been derived from the Greek letters of Paul, not the Hebrew letters of the Jewish prophets.

The fundamentalist church blindly labels the human condition as depraved, utterly incapable of meriting salvation by their own action. But shall we call ourselves wretchedly sinful? Were we not created in the image of God? Is it not an insult to God to call ourselves spiritually defective and utterly sinful? Self-criticism is good, but what is the purpose of humility and self-criticism? Is it not to learn from one's errors and do better in the future? But if we carry humility to such a point that one says that I am utterly lost and no action of mine can ever be good, then the incentive to improvement has been abolished, and excessive humility becomes an excuse for lack of effort. This is the ultimate consequence of grim Christian doctrines such as Total Depravity.

You proclaim that "Jesus was the fulfillment of the Law," but what does that really mean? Are we to understand that statement as a declaration that a Jew need not observe the life-giving commandments of the Torah? What do you mean when you assert that the Jew does not have to abandon Judaism to believe in Jesus? When you refer to "Judaism" you most certainly do not mean Jewish culture or customs such as eating bagels and lox and donning a yarmulke. We all know that Christianity has no doctrine or opinion on such matters. In fact, there have been a number of popes who have been known to put on a yarmulke every now and then and, if my sources are correct, bagels and lox are becoming a pretty big hit amongst Protestants. Clearly, when you refer to the Jew and his Judaism, you must therefore be saying that the Jew is to continue to dedicatedly observe the mitzvot of the Torah just as he was commanded. What does Jesus' alleged fulfillment of the Torah have to do with the nation who were charged to keep the Torah for ever and ever? When you reassure the Jew that he need not abandon his Jewishness, does this mean that the converted Jew is to keep the mitzvot with devotion, or can he abandon his Jewishness because "Jesus fulfilled the Law"? You can't have it both ways. This is a crucial question because a meaningful message must be attached to the statement that the Jew doesn't have to "abandon Judaism to believe in Jesus." Well, which is it? Are we to continue to observe the Torah or has Jesus somehow fulfilled the commandments so we no longer have to keep them?

I ask these questions in order to give you some insight into the spiritual schizophrenia that Christianity displays as it grapples with Jews and Judaism. And this sort of playing both sides of the fence manifests itself repeatedly when Jews are converted to Christianity. I have seen many pastors squirm in discomfort as they are confronted with this unsettling question.

I am unsure whether this letter has opened your eyes, or perhaps given you some insight into the Jew and his faith. If you ever wondered why or how the faithful remnant of Israel so stubbornly refuse to worship any man as God or abandon the precious commandments of the Torah, remember what we saw and heard more than 3,300 years ago. Before his death our teacher Moses stood at the border of the Promised Land and looked at Joshua in front of the entire nation of Israel and said, "Be strong and of good courage."

Very sincerely yours,

Rabbi Tovia Singer

Footnotes :

1"It is exceedingly difficult, if not quite impossible, for us to form any adequate conception of the serious obstacles presented to the mind of a pious Jew, when any one sought to persuade him that Judaism had been set aside by God and that he must turn his own back upon it." (Pink, Arthur W., An Exposition of Hebrews, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI; 1984: pp. 1065.)

2Ibid., p. 1069-1070.

3Isaiah 41:8

4Numbers 14:24; II Kings 22:2

 

But Look How Believing in Jesus Has Changed My Life!
Why Didn't The Red Ribbon on the Head of the Scapegoat Turn White in 30 C.E.?
Conflicting Crucifixion Stories in the Gospels.
A Lutheran Doesn’t Understand Why Rabbi Singer Doesn’t Believe in Jesus: A Closer Look at the “Crucifixion Psalm”
‘Dual Prophecy’ and the Virgin Birth