Fire, Offerings and Passover
There is no Hebrew counter-part for the English word: “sacrifice”. The terms that the Bible uses to describe the sacrifices in the Temple are: “olah” – a word that represents the burning of the offering with an emphasis of the smoke that rises from the fire; “zevach” – a word that denotes the slaughtering of the offering and its subsequent consumption by the worshipers; “mincha” – a gift; and the word: “korban” – which also means “gift”, with the additional connotation of closeness. The underlying concept of the Biblical offering seems to be the offering of something to God.
It is actually impossible to “give” anything to God. In the Psalms (50:12) God declares: “If I were hungry I would not tell you for mine is the world and all that fills it”. When preparing the materials for the construction of the Temple, David acknowledged: “O Lord, our God, all this vast amount that we have prepared to build a Temple for your holy name is from your own hand, for everything is yours” (1Chronicles 29:16). The created cannot give anything to the Creator of all. Yet God allows His creations to bring offerings to Him and He demonstrates His acceptance of these gifts by sending a miraculous fire from heaven to consume the offerings that were presented to Him (Leviticus 9:24; 2Chronicles 7:1). It is God’s sign of His love for His creations that he accepts their offerings. Not because He needs them, but because He loves us.
In order to give the offering an appearance of “giving” something to God, we need to have a designated place that represents God’s presence. Since the entire world is God’s place (Isaiah 6:3), moving something from here to there will not bring the item any closer to God.
Throughout Scripture we find several methods that are used to create an impression of bringing something closer to God. A fire is one of these methods. Since we perceive God as dwelling in heaven and since the fire sends the offering skyward in a pillar of smoke, the fire symbolizes offering something to God. An altar is another method that is used to create this impression. An altar is a structure that is built with the deliberate and conscious intention of designation to God’s service. By placing an offering on an altar that is consecrated to God, we arrive at the impression of having offered something to God. Yet another method of creating the impression of “giving” to God is the Temple or the Tabernacle. These are buildings were built by God’s express command and were consecrated with miraculous signs. God tied His identity to these edifices, and He allowed them to be called “The House of God”. By bringing something to “God’s house” we have the impression of “giving” to God. Generally, all three methods were used to create the impression of bringing an offering to God. Most offerings were brought on an altar in the Temple and were consumed by a fire on this altar. Thus all three methods were used to create the impression of having “given” something to God.
The Passover offering in Egypt is unusual. It is the only offering where not one of these three methods were used to create the impression of “bringing” something to God. There was no altar, there was no Temple and nothing was put in a fire to be consumed and sent heavenward in a pillar of smoke. How then was that Passover considered an “offering” to God?
It seems that we have overlooked another method that God uses to create the impression of having “given” to God. The Torah teaches us that various parts of certain offerings were to be eaten by the priests (Leviticus 6:19, 7:6). The priests were people who were consecrated for the service of God. When they would eat from the offerings, it would be considered that the members of God’s household had eaten these foods. The same concept appears in relation to the tithes that were brought to the Temple to be eaten by the Levites. God commands the people to: “Bring all the tithes into the storehouse so that there may be food in My house…” (Malachi 3:10). When people who are consecrated for the service of God eat the offerings, it is as if we have brought the offering to God.
The entire purpose of the exodus was to create a nation for God. By redeeming Israel from Egypt, God made them a kingdom of priests (Exodus 19:6) and a people who are designated for the service of God (Exodus 4:23; Leviticus 25:55). From the time of the exodus onward, the Jewish home became a place that is consecrated for the service of God (Deuteronomy 6:9; 11:20). By placing the blood of the Passover on the doorposts of God’s servants and by having God’s children partake of the meat of the lamb, the Passover offering was “given” to God.
If you found this article helpful please consider making a donation to Judaism Resources by clicking on the link below.
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FEAQ55Y7MR3E6
Judaism Resources is a recognized 501(c) 3 public charity and your donation is tax exempt.
Thank You
Yisroel C. Blumenthal
1000 Verses - a project of Judaism Resources 
Reblogged this on 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources.
R’B, I’ll be the first to agree Christans regreetably don’t make such distinctions and the word sacrifice is defined narrowly. Yet even they fall prey to thinking the importance lies in the method and thing sacrificed. Granted we all are to follow Hashem’s instructions, except for no other reason than this is what Hashem said and we trust HIM. Still, after familiarity with commanded customs sets in do you think due to the human condition we start focusing on the ritual rather than the why?
It has been said we can give nothing to God. Physically speaking this is true. But wouldnt you agree there are a few things we can give, and they are even things Hashem desires? For example we can give our love and the more love in wild abandonment to HIM the better! What about our trust? Wouldn’t agree trust is sweeter aroma than the smoke of a burning animal? And what greater thing can we give to God than our own will? However, it is perceived a a sacrifice, when it is really a trade. For when we sacrifice our will to HIM, he gives us HIS will. Don’t you think we are getting the better end of that deal?
I find it utterly foundational that our father Abraham made a Blood Covenant with Hashem. It is written that Hashem passed through the blood to ratify the Covenant. Later Hashem gave Abraham circumcision; a ring of blood through which every descendent must pass through prior to conception. The first born of a woman brings the most blood and Hashem declares every first born as belonging to HIM.
Under the terms of such a Covenant Hashem could and did rightfully call for the life of Issac; the first through a circumsised Abraham and the first from the womb of Sarah; the first child of the Blood Covenant and Abraham’s most treasured possession. Abraham did not refuse nor did he break the Covenant, and Hashem provided a ram as a substitute.
Is it any wonder that Hashem calls for lambs blood to be smeared on the door posts? The lamb calling to remembrance the faithfulness of father Abraham to the Covenant; to their Covenant and the loving faithfulness of Hashem in providing a ram as a substitute. And if that isn’t enough; the blood smeared all around the door posts is symbolic of Hashem conceiving and birthing HIS first born as then walked through the doorway ringed in blood. 50 days later they ar sprinkled with blood as they agree to the terms of a New Covenant.
Christians want to make the Passover Lamb a sin offering when the Passover Lamb has always pointed back to the faithful loving compassion of Hashem who honors the faithfulness of Abrahams and his descendants to the Covenant. Yeshua did die on Passover, resurrect on first fruits and the promised Spirit given on Shavuot 40 years before thousand plus year exile from the land. In the light of history it would be foolish not to apply some measure of understanding to these events. Yeshua and the destruction of the Temple just may have been the catalyst to return to the teachings of Hillel and to keep the Jewish people from being assimilated during the long exile. It can be argued that had they not faced persecution the chances of gradual assimilation would exponentially grow.
I see much good has been accomplished through Yeshua, Torah spread among the Nations, a worldwide turn from polytheism, bringing lost sheep back to Torah, even the perversion of Yeshua׳s teachings and evil done claiming his name have helped solidify Jewish people and protected them assimilation through giving them a common enemy. And who but Protestant Christians have been on the forefront of support for modern Israel.
Yeshua irrelevant? Ha! He is Israel and like it or not, believe it or not, has been and is intertwined to this present day with Israel. Yeah, I’d say he can be called a Passover lamb; he sacrificed himself in obedience to Hashem to save his people and HIS first born.
“Is it any wonder that Hashem calls for lambs blood to be smeared on the door posts? The lamb calling to remembrance the faithfulness of father Abraham to the Covenant; to their Covenant and the loving faithfulness of Hashem in providing a ram as a substitute.”
Its much simpler than that. Hebrew sacrifices were forbidden in Egypt under penalty of death. That is what the entire Exodus story was about. The lamb or goats blood was a sign of both trust in HaShem for his protection and a sign of absolute defiance toward Pharaoh. If God did not deliver the Israelites, the Egyptians would surely had put them to the sword for such an outrage.
Your argument of a “type” pointing to Jesus is well-worn Christian apologetics.
These arguments were made up by the church as talking points in the 1st centuries after Jesus died. The Israelites did not EVER see this as a “type” pointing to a Messiah who would be killed and his blood delivering everyone from sin because repentance was not acceptable and God is not able to forgive, nor were they EVER taught such a thing. You have not a single text in Tanakh stating such a theory.
Think clearly here. How is it that the most important doctrines concerning the salvation of mankind were completely absent for two millenia from God’s chosen people, while the doctrines Christians put forth as the most important for the salvation of mankind ( the trinity, virgin birth, man-god, human sacrifice) ALL came out of paganism?
Christians I have debated on this have claimed that these pagan doctrines are “universal truths”, and that pagan religion with its trinities, human sacrifices, man-gods and virgin births also “pointed to Jesus”. Do you agree with them?
Eleazar,
“Christians I have debated on this have claimed that these pagan doctrines are “universal truths”, and that pagan religion with its trinities, human sacrifices, man-gods and virgin births also “pointed to Jesus”. Do you agree with them?”
I didn’t mention the Rabbinic teaching on the lamb being a Egyptian god because; 1) I assumed you were already aware of it and 2) the topic I was discussing was the Blood Covenant of Abraham which precedes the Mosaic Covenant which confirms and adds to the previous Covenant.
Yes I agree the lamb was a sacrifice of allegiance. So was Yeshua; do you side with the actions of Beit Shammai or Beit Hillel?
What is it you are wanting to debate? “trinities, human sacrifices, man-gods and virgin births”?
1) trinities – No one and I mean NO ONE, no mere human knows Hashem well enough to argue for or against. All we have to go on is what Hashem told us. HE said HE is One, anything more is speculation, systematic theology or ancient Rabbinic drash.
2) human sacrifices – not as clear cut as one may think. Hashem did ask Abraham to sacrifice Isaac and he would of if not for the ram in the bushes. Also a sacrifice is not limited to something tied to an altar. Many people have sacrificed their lives in the service of others. And there is the sacrifice of a completed Tzadik which makes atonement.
3) man-gods – if you knew of the ben elohim, the Watchers and the fallen ones you would not be so quick to dismiss such a concept as fantasy. Admittedly it is probably the meaning you pour into the term which causes you to dismiss, in which case we are in agreement. Although I’d still be careful to avoid projecting my own view of Hashem on what HE can and cannot do.
4) virgin birth – IMHO rather meaningless, in that it can have a multitude of meanings poured into it and even if one meaning of a virgin birth was decided on, the only one who would know if it was indeed “virgin” is the mother, what kind of sign to the world is that?
“Yes I agree the lamb was a sacrifice of allegiance. So was Yeshua; do you side with the actions of Beit Shammai or Beit Hillel?”
I know nothing about the two sects other than what you have posted here, and you know almost nothing about what happened or you would have been better able to respond to the proselytizing/condemning point. Jesus insulted and condemned the same group who were proselytizing. You said that the Shammai group did not believe in proselytizing, but at the same time said Jesus only insulted and condemned Shammai. If you are willing to take something from a website or a video and make it a mountain to die on without critical analysis, then that is your problem.
I don’t see Jesus as a “sacrifice” of any kind. But you have deflected in trying to tie a person dying for their country or for some other reason to pagan human blood sacrifices that are seen by Christians as “universal truths” that point specifically to Jesus and to nobody else.
“Hashem did ask Abraham to sacrifice Isaac and he would of if not for the ram in the bushes.”
Avraham’s experience with Isaac proves just the opposite of what you are saying, and I noticed you were very careful with your words. Avraham said “God will provide a lamb”. You said rather generically, “a ram stuck in the bushes” as though it were there by chance coincidence. Do you not think God provided this, knowing that Avraham was only being tested, and that God never intended a human sacrifice? Or do you believe that the ram was mere coincidence, as your words seem to imply?
God’s request flummoxed Avraham, but he obeyed anyway. God called off the test and provided an animal, just as Avraham had faith He would do. If God wanted this experience to “point to Jesus” then the “only begotten son” would have been sacrificed, not replaced with an animal.
Eleazar,
You amaze me. You didn’t address any of my points except one, which you declare I know nothing about because I didn’t answer it. Well I did answer it, you just didn’t like the answer. You are as guilty of stereotyping as Christians are reading the text in this way. We don’t know “which” Pharisees Yeshua was addressing, they were probably Beit Hillel otherwise he wouldn’t of called them “hypocritics”. People need to realize Yeshua is dealing with INDIVIDUALS who happen to be Pharisees. Scribes, Sadduces or whatever – what they are doesn’t matter unless you believe Yeshua is stereotyping. As for websites etc.. Yes I am combing the Internet for more information on this. I just ordered Rabbi Falk’s book, should be here next week.
As for the rest of your comment, who are you disagreeing with? I share my views which you ignore in favor of arguing against the Chrstian traditional interpretation of the Passover Lamb saying that you somehow know this is what I must be ‘implying’.
Forgive me if I think your conditioned bias is getting in the way. There is in Judaism the substitutionary atonement of a completed Tzadik. However you want to put the words “substitutionary forgiveness” into my mouth, in effect building a straw man argument. If Yeshua’s actions have made even one lost son or daughter of Israel again At One Ment with Hashem then he can by pure definition be called an atoning sacrifice.
You’re right, I did not respond to every point. I rarely do. I would rather give a more exhaustive response to a point or two than post either a one-liner or write a novel. If you want me to respond to every point, then post fewer points.
Conditioned bias? Me? LOL! Were that true I would be defending Jesus, the trinity and the virgin birth. I was raised Christian, stayed that way for almost 40 years, was a pastor, seminar speaker, Bible teacher and wrote articles and books on Christian theology and apologetics. What you are getting from me is intellectual honesty., not “conditioned bias”
“If Yeshua’s actions have made even one lost son or daughter of Israel again At One Ment with Hashem then he can by pure definition be called an atoning sacrifice.”
Gosh, maybe you really are a liberal with your “If it saves only one life” argument. You seem to be saying that the very few Jews turned back to Torah outweigh the untold thousands destroyed physically or spiritually by Jesus by way of the church. But even accepting your reasoning, the question is whether it was his “power in the blood” , not his fictional fame as spread by the church, that turned “even one”. I’m not so dumb as to not see the word game you are playing here. So i’ll go along for the moment. Are you then saying that the many Jewish lives lost that have resulted in many Jewish people and Gentiles turning to Torah are no different than Jesus’s sacrifice? How about the lives of Jews who turned back to Torah because of Hitler or Muhammad? If not, then what would be the difference in your mind?
Eleazar, you write;
“What you are getting from me is intellectual honesty., not “conditioned bias”
— I mean offense, but don’t know how else to answer. If this were the truth then I’d be hearing more of your thoughts rather than the parroting of Judaism’s anti-missionary lines. For example;
“You seem to be saying that the very few Jews turned back to Torah outweigh the untold thousands destroyed physically or spiritually by Jesus by way of the church.”
This is the classic ‘Have you stopped beating your wife?’ line. I do not condone the actions of the church, nor do I belong to a church, nor do I believe in the Jesus they have systematically derived apart from Jewish understanding. What difference is there between rejecting Yeshua by making up a new gentile Jesus and rejecting the Yeshua based on the interpretations and actions of those who made up a new gentile Jesus?
Fifty percent of the anti-missionary argument against Yeshua is non-sequitur because it has nothing to do with him other than people putting a Jesus sticker on what ever they want to justify; on closer inspection it is not the Yeshua of the Gospels nor of Torah. What the anti-missionaries do is easily break down the false Jesus with the use of Torah. Fair enough, bravo, and rightly done. However the err is; when the person finds themselves empty handed with nothing to hold on to, they are offered another religion which they quickly grasp, never stopping to think of a real Yeshua other than what Christians teach and the Jews deny.
I’m of the persuasion there is always potential atonement in the unrighteous death of the righteous. Yeshua, even more so because of his relationship to Hashem, what he taught, the Sanhedrin’s involvement and the timing of his death right before the longest exile the Jews have ever known. Even the Talmud and Josephus record strange omens in the Temple in the 40 years between his death and the destruction of the Temple. The red ribbon no longer turned white, the eastern gate would open by itself, the eternal flame wouldn’t stay lit and the red heifer led to be sacrificed gave birth to a lamb.
This is intellectual honesty.
CP,
You are not going to get orthodox Jews and Noahides to make Jesus their rebbe and spiritual conduit to Hashem. Rabbi Falk didn’t write his book to get either Jews or Gentiles to believe in Jesus and accept Jesus as their rebbe and spiritual conduit. When you get the book you’ll see why he wrote it – to get Christians off Jews’ backs and to make Jews less susceptible to converting to Christianity by bringing Jesus down to earth and writing him off as just another messianic Jewish teacher of his time that came and went. Jesus was as irrelevant to Rabbi Falk’s observance of the Torah as he is to every faithful orthodox Jew’s and Noahide’s. You’re not going to get us to fall in love with your Beit Hillel Pharisee Jesus. Can you accept that this is not going to happen?
Alan;
“You’re not going to get us to fall in love with your Beit Hillel Pharisee Jesus. Can you accept that this is not going to happen?”
Yes, I can accept that. But it would be nice to attend shul without feeling like a closet homosexual. In other words; I don’t ask you to fall in love with Yeshua, but don’t view me view me as a traitor or the enemy just because I honor Yeshua as my Rabbe and think he was the first advent of Messiah.
To paraphrase Yeshua; why would I try to push a doctor on you if you’re not sick?
CP,
“Yes, I can accept that.”
That is music to my ears and to the ears of faithful Jews and Noahides everywhere!!!! Mazal tov, this is a tremendous level!!!!
“But it would be nice to attend shul without feeling like a closet homosexual. In other words; I don’t ask you to fall in love with Yeshua, but don’t view me view me as a traitor or the enemy just because I honor Yeshua as my Rabbe and think he was the first advent of Messiah.”
CP, if the most important thing for you is to be nice to people, to get people to learn Torah and keep the commandments, to keep the Noahide laws, then when you are in shul you have to refrain from speaking about your rebbe. This is common courtesy. Common courtesy comes before all the commandments! Did you know that the Jewish sages said that?
“To paraphrase Yeshua; why would I try to push a doctor on you if you’re not sick?”.”
Ah, now you’re getting dicey again. Even if a Jew or Noahide IS sick, don’t try to medicate them with Yeshua. As I wrote above, if the most important thing to you is Yeshua’s teachings (that are in line with Torah Judaism) then encourage them to keep these teachings without mentioning Jesus. If you feel that Jesus HIMSELF is more important or equally important as his teachings, then you will have to use more COURTESY and keep his name to yourself when you are around Jews and Noahides. If you don’t you they will think you are “off” or not a mensch and all you will have accomplished is given Jesus a bad name.
Let’s say an orthodox Jew had a mission to get other orthodox Jews to believe in his rebbe and to accept his rebbe as their main teacher and conduit to Hashem. They would think he was unbalanced to say the least. I’m not even talking about Jesus. Let’s say a Chabad chassid went around handing out pamphlets and telling Jews on the street that his rebbe is the greatest rebbe, he’s the biggest tzaddik and he can connect you to the blessings of Hashem, a mentally balanced Jew would think this guy was “off” and they would just ignore him. Do you know why Jews react this way? The reason is because we put our emphasis on Hashem not on a man and until Moshiach comes we believe there is no such thing as one greatest teacher that all Jews must submit themselves to. We especially think this is crazy if the rabbi already died. How much infinitely more is it futile for a person to push Yeshua on faithful Jews.
Alan;
“Let’s say a Chabad chassid went around handing out pamphlets and telling Jews on the street that his rebbe is the greatest rebbe, he’s the biggest tzaddik and he can connect you to the blessings of Hashem, a mentally balanced Jew would think this guy was “off” and they would just ignore him”
I agree, but if you had Rabbi you thought was an exceptional good Rabbi, you’d talk about him, mention him to others and repeat and discuss his teachings. However a Jewish believer is not afforded this simple courtesy of sharing this part of their life.
CP,
“I agree, but if you had Rabbi you thought was an exceptional good Rabbi, you’d talk about him, mention him to others and repeat and discuss his teachings. However a Jewish believer is not afforded this simple courtesy of sharing this part of their life.”
Use some common courtesy and common sense. If you are in a non-messianic shul, the people there do not want to hear about Yeshua. If you doubt me, do an experiment, try talking about Yeshua in different shuls and see how many of them ask you to cut it out or leave. Do you think a non-Jew should be allowed to sit in a kosher restaurant during Passover eating his pizza that he brought with him? What about people going to any restaurant bring their own food from home instead of eating the restaurant’s food? The people at the restaurant don’t want this. You are not being courteous if you do this. You are not bringing peace to the world by doing this.
“Do you think a non-Jew should be allowed to sit in a kosher restaurant during Passover eating his pizza that he brought with him? ”
A non-Jew or a Jew.
CP,
What if I, an orthodox Jew, went to a Reform shul and wanted to talk to the people there about the Shulchan Aruch (one of the most popular codes of Jewish Law). I wanted to tell everyone how awesome and important this book is, and how awesome Rav Yosef Karo is. Would this be appropriate and courteous? Would the people there want me to be there? Would I be reflecting well on orthodox Judaism and on my rebbe Rav Karo?
Or what if an Ashkenazi Jew went to a Sefardic shul and asked to be the prayer leader and instead of singing the prayers according to the Sefardic custom he starts doing it according to the Ashkenazi custom. Or vice versa, a Sefardi doing this an an Ashkenazi shul. It’s insensitive and not peace-loving. It’s not showing respect for those who have a different custom.
Or a follower of Rav Shach (a strong ideological opponent of the Lubavitcher Rebbe) going into a Chabad shul wanting to try to convince the people there why they should like Rav Shach and learn his teachings. Or vice-versa. Would this be a normal and nice thing to do? A person who would do this needs to see a psychiatrist, psychologist and also a social coach.
CP,
I highly recommend taking some cultural awareness training. Here’s an example of a company that does this training – http://cultureresourcecentre.com.au/
You are a teacher. What might happen if you had an orthodox Jewish student and you decided you wanted to let him know about your rebbe? I don’t think you would risk doing this, because the student might report you and this is grounds for getting sued and losing your job.
“— I mean offense, but don’t know how else to answer. If this were the truth then I’d be hearing more of your thoughts rather than the parroting of Judaism’s anti-missionary lines. For example;
“You seem to be saying that the very few Jews turned back to Torah outweigh the untold thousands destroyed physically or spiritually by Jesus by way of the church.”
That is my own response to your point. No doubt that point has been made before and my response is also likely a predictable one. Such is the nature of common sense. I also came up with the same 3 chord progression as “LaGrange” for my garage band two years before ZZ Top put the song out. Sometimes things just make sense.
Eleazar,
“I also came up with the same 3 chord progression as “LaGrange” for my garage band two years before ZZ Top put the song out.”
That’s awesome!
Give those guys black coats and hats and they’d look Hasidic!
Eleazer, “I also came up with the same 3 chord progression as “LaGrange” for my garage band two years before ZZ Top put the song out.”
Nice! : )
CP, pointing out to you the unjust deaths of thousands of Jews in Jesus’ name is not an anti missionary party line, it didturbs me that you say this.
Its simply the truth of what Jews actually experienced for centuries at the hands of the only community that accepted Jesus as the messiah.
You often mention Rabbi Yaacov Emden and how he wrote positively about the Nazarene. You point out that rabbis have hence unwisely chosen to ignore Jesus’ Judaism.
Do you find it at all odd that Emden’s view is essentially the view of the modern Jesus seminar? Does it resonate that he held this view in the 1700s when NOBODY ELSE GAVE A CRAP ABOUT JESUS THE JEW?
Consider that it took the western academic world until 1970 to actually let Emden’s views even be heard as a historically plausible option concerning Jesus.
The religious Christian world still sees this view of Jesus as a heresy, even in spite of Nostra Atate.
To give you an idea.
Scholarship in the early 1900s was more willing to accept a myther hypothesis of Jesus’ movement than it was to consider Jesus as a religious Jew. That was how deeply ingrained Christian Bias against Jews was.
Religious Judaism is not the problem in this equation, not by damn sight!
Non Jewish pride and arrogance is the problem, (and I say this as a non Jew.)
Nachmanides said to the king in Aragon during the disputation:
“we gave you an idea about sins, but not a proper understanding of how to deal with it.”
When asked by the clergy directly if Ramban hated Jesus, he said, (in front of Christiani and all the clergy.)
“I believe the Church has perverted Jesus’ teachings into idolatry. Christianity is a heresy of Judaism.”
After that debate Ramban had to flee for his life so the Church (and their mobs of laity) wouldnt murder him! DOES THAT SOUND LIKE PARTY LINE?
THAT DEBATE WAS IN 1263 CE
You are missing the writing on the wall if you think the rabbis are the problem as to your model of Jesus not being accepted.
The issue remains that you still see Jesus the man as THE ISSUE seperating Jews and Christians.
You feel persecuted because rabbis wont accept your opinion of your Tzaddik in Shul. Here is a secret.
If Jesus is a true tzaddik, let your life in the light of his teaching be the memorial you give his life. What’s in a name?
Stop demanding acceptance of this name that you know is assiciated with Jewish pain. A name you acknowledge is mired in idolatry.
Jews accept the light of the Sun’s rays to grow their crop, but they do not pay the sun the undue honor that many nations did. This didnt make Jews stern, hard of heart, or foolish.
Jews could say “I can honor the gift of the sun’s rays without payin lip service to the sun.”
Jews love Torah. That this love is insufficient recognition to you is not a Jewish problem.
I dont mean to sound indelicate, but honestly CP. Do I like some of Jesus’ views? Sure. Would I demand a Jew let me talk about him in Shul? HELL NO!
Concerned Reader,
I don’t have the time right now to properly address all your points and the elephant in the room. But have just enough time for two if I hurry.
“CP, pointing out to you the unjust deaths of thousands of Jews in Jesus’ name is not an anti missionary party line, it didturbs me that you say this.”
Perhaps it would be best if I clarify; it is rightly an anti-missionary party line, however it is injustly used as an anti-Yeshua line – and I mean unjustly!
“I dont mean to sound indelicate, but honestly CP. Do I like some of Jesus’ views? Sure. Would I demand a Jew let me talk about him in Shul? HELL NO!”
No worries; I’m not much for delicacies for delicacies sake, I’m for as much or little it takes to get the job done. May I point out an observation here; You are obviously an intelligent person, able to intellectually separate the Jewish Yeshua from Christianity. However your “HELL NO” betrays the inability to separate Yeshua from Christianity emotionally. I suspect when the name Yeshua is mentioned, you hear “Christianity”.
Gotta go – talk about the elephant later ; )
CP, you cant separate Jesus from Christianity in the sense that Jesus is still the one who is given devotion, whether one directs that devotion to him because of replacement theology, or gives that devotion to him based on his Torah insights. His insights seem so interesting to many people throughout history because he rests them on his own words, IE his personality drives the force of his view of the law.
Think about the majority of the Rebbe’s followers for a contrast. Chabadniks who do not consider the Rebbe to be the messiah (because he died,) have stated such in writing and avoided Messianic fervor like plague. They have distanced themselves from any messianic leanings in order to preserve the teaching of the Rebbe as he initially gave it, just as a good human rabbi, no more important than other rabbis.
A rebbe’s teachings are more important than his person.
Jesus by contrast, (as Jesus portrays himself) is defined by his messianic identity claim, not chiefly by his Torah. It is his force of personality that drives his Torah.
Jesus is a man who says, “I am the Christ and this is my Torah. If you don’t believe that I am he, you do not have the life of G-d in you.”
You have illustrated the problem of an inability to separate from him for yourself. You are currently attending a Shul, but you can’t differentiate acceptance or tolerance of Jesus’ personality and messianic claim from a respect for his Torah insights. It doesn’t seem to be enough for you for someone to respect and live in Jesus’ teaching for the Torah’s sake, but you seem to feel pulled to accepting him, for him.
I can see some good in Jesus’ views of the mitzvot, without being attracted to his person or claims of messiaship, that is where we are different. I am content to view Jesus the way Peter did on the 1st day they met. He is a teacher. That’s it.
My hell no is not based on an inability to divest myself of emotionalism, but is based on a respect for Jews who question, and a sensitivity to what horrors Jews have gone through because of words of Jesus.
The disciple who begged Jesus to be allowed to bury his father illustrates the real issue with Jesus. This man was telling Yeshua “I have a Torah obligation to my family.” Jesus said, “nope. Follow me.”
Concerned Reader,
This gave me a lot of nachas too! Thank you so much!
“The disciple who begged Jesus to be allowed to bury his father illustrates the real issue with Jesus. This man was telling Yeshua “I have a Torah obligation to my family.” Jesus said, “nope. Follow me.””
I am not familiar with this one. Where can I find this in the NT?
“The disciple who begged Jesus to be allowed to bury his father illustrates the real issue with Jesus. This man was telling Yeshua “I have a Torah obligation to my family.” Jesus said, “nope. Follow me.””
!FOUL! Mistranslation based on an out of historic cultural context in favor of a 21st century context.
CP Do you have a degree in Ancient Greek? All translation agree on what the text said, but you must has “Special” Knowledge that only you know!
New International Version
Another disciple said to him, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.”
New Living Translation
Another of his disciples said, “Lord, first let me return home and bury my father.”
English Standard Version
Another of the disciples said to him, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father.”
Berean Study Bible
Another of His disciples requested, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.”
Berean Literal Bible
And another of His disciples said to Him, “Lord, allow me first to go and to bury my father.”
New American Standard Bible
Another of the disciples said to Him, “Lord, permit me first to go and bury my father.”
King James Bible
And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
Lord,” another of His disciples said, “first let me go bury my father.”
International Standard Version
Then another of his disciples told him, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.”
NET Bible
Another of the disciples said to him, “Lord, let me first go and bury my father.”
New Heart English Bible
And another of the disciples said to him, “Lord, allow me first to go and bury my father.”
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
But another of his disciples said to him, “My Lord, allow me to first go bury my Father.”
GOD’S WORD® Translation
Another disciple said to him, “Sir, first let me go to bury my father.”
New American Standard 1977
And another of the disciples said to Him, “Lord, permit me first to go and bury my father.”
Jubilee Bible 2000
And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.
King James 2000 Bible
And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, allow me first to go and bury my father.
American King James Version
And another of his disciples said to him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.
American Standard Version
And another of the disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.
Douay-Rheims Bible
And another of his disciples said to him: Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.
Darby Bible Translation
But another of his disciples said to him, Lord, suffer me first to go away and bury my father.
English Revised Version
And another of the disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.
Webster’s Bible Translation
And another of his disciples said to him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.
Weymouth New Testament
Another of the disciples said to Him, “Sir, allow me first to go and bury my father.”
World English Bible
Another of his disciples said to him, “Lord, allow me first to go and bury my father.”
Young’s Literal Translation
And another of his disciples said to him, ‘Sir, permit me first to depart and to bury my father;’
RT,
Where is this in the NT. Thank you for pasting all of these versions!
Alan,
You can find the verses under discussion at Matthew 8:21-22 and Luke 9:59-62.
Jim
Thank you Jim! I want to let you know that I literally felt a mild nausea when I read it in Matthew and Luke. It is really so so sickening. How different is the Tanach in the story of Elisha following Elijah –
1 Kings 19:19-21 –
19 So he [Elijah] departed thence, and found Elisha the son of Shaphat, who was plowing, with twelve yoke of oxen before him, and he with the twelfth; and Elijah passed over unto him, and cast his mantle upon him. 20 And he left the oxen, and ran after Elijah, and said: ‘Let me, I pray thee, kiss my father and my mother, and then I will follow thee.’ And he said unto him: ‘Go back; for what have I done to thee?’ 21 And he returned from following him, and took the yoke of oxen, and slew them, and boiled their flesh with the instruments of the oxen, and gave unto the people, and they did eat. Then he arose, and went after Elijah, and ministered unto him.
Commentators usually say that the father is not dead yet and the son has to wait until he die to inherit. That’s probably where CP stands. First, there is no proof whatsoever in the text to support that claim. Jesus would be really cruel and it would contradict the Tanakh to ask him not to burry his dead father; thus that explanation. CP rather follow that explanation rather than having a messiah who’s asking to break the law. This is generally an acceptable explanation from Bible Studies and commentators. There’s always an explanation to shut the mouth of the doubters like us…, and CP likes to accept them.
RT,
Thank you!
“Commentators usually say that the father is not dead yet and the son has to wait until he die to inherit.”
Such bogosity!!!
“Let the dead bury the dead” – It’s an ancient Jewish figure of speech to call the wicked “dead” or “spiritually dead”. I am sure this is what Jesus is saying to this student – “Forget about your wicked parents and family who refuse to follow me. If you refuse to follow me you will also be spiritually dead and wicked. Let the rest of your wicked family bury your father.” What a religion! Barfariffic!
Is that your nice Interpretation CP. Are we dead because we do not follow the “living” torah?
So we can conclude that the father was dead and his family, as per Jesus, was wicked and spiritually dead:
Let the (spiritually)” dead burry your dead father….
Does that make sense?
Alan,
I believe that the story in Matthew and Luke is supposed to echo the story of Elisha and Elijah. Obviously it does not. In trying to show Jesus to be superior to Elijah, it actually shows him to be far inferior. I can understand why it would make you blanche.
By the way, I would like to say that you have been a welcome addition to these conversations. Your writings reflect gentleness, humility, and knowledge. I am grateful to read your work.
Jim
Jim,
That’s very nice of you to let me know. I feel very fortunate to be in the company of the amazing people on this blog. I never would have come here were it not for the terrible experience I had over the past 6 months which, I didn’t tell you, just came to an ugly head only a week ago (when he sent me antisemitic Christian material and an anti-Israel video). Rabbi Skobac was the one who referred me to Rab B. and this blog. The terrible experience I went through was worth it because it was the cause that led me to find you guys.
Alan
Alan,
Welcome home.
Jim
CP, if its not too much. Would you mind not accusing me of violating the context, when all I did was mention what happened?
Even if the man’s father is not yet dead, how much more should you be with your parent when they are near the end of life, arguably the most traumatic time of life?
The general context (with the reading you advocate) shows that the man had a unique opportunity (that many people dont get,) to know that his father was near death, to be there to comfort him.
Even Esau was sad when Issac died, I’m sure.
In the truest sense, your parent, or even grandparent is your 1st rabbi ever.
They taught you to walk, introduced you to life, and to G-d, and guarded your very existence.
If you are Jewish, it seems to me they fulfill your 1st mitzvah also, in terms of the brit millah.
Jesus discounts that. Jesus also discounted Peter’s care for him (when Peter wished Jesus not to die.)
Concerned Reader;
“Chabadniks who do not consider the Rebbe to be the messiah (because he died,) have stated such in writing and avoided Messianic fervor like plague.”
—They have the luxury of learning from history: (what the Gentiles did with Yeshua’s teachings). In light of this history I’d expect no less.
“horrors Jews have gone through because of words of Jesus.”
— Umm, still the wrong Jesus. If I take what you write here on this blog, misinterpreting and twisting your writings to justify harming others, does that make you a jerk?
Concerned Reader,
You may have been surprised to read CP’s comments to you this morning, his lecturing you on the historical Jesus. He tells you that you are unable to separate Jesus from Christianity. This implies, of course, that he does not have this problem. Others, including you, have already addressed the bad methodology he employs in attempting to find the ‘historical Jesus,’ so I will not discuss that here. But you must have been amazed as I was that he would claim that he adheres to the ‘historical Jesus,’ inasmuch as much of what he writes has nothing to do with the historical Jesus but is mere speculation. This appeal to a “historical Jesus” as opposed to the Christian Jesus is a pretense of objectivity unjustified by his theology or his writing.
In the past, CP has called Jesus a king. Historically speaking, Jesus had neither crown, nor scepter, nor throne. According to CP’s source of the ‘historical Jesus’ (i.e. the gospels), Jesus was not even qualified to be king by bloodline. He never ruled, not from Jerusalem and not from anywhere else. Jesus was only a king in the imagination of the Church, but he certainly was not a king historically.
CP calls Jesus, “the Son of Man”. First, CP shows a misunderstanding of Daniel 7. It does not refer to a “Son of Man” but “one LIKE a Son of Man.” “Son of Man” is not a title in Daniel 7, however Jesus may have employed it. Second, Jesus has none of the qualities of the figure in Daniel, by which one could identify him with that figure. He has not been given an everlasting dominion. Indeed, he does not reign at all, except in the imagination of the Church. CP shows again that he is the one unable to separate the historical Jesus from the Christian Jesus.
Of course, he might say that Jesus will be a king in the future. Likewise, he might say that in the future Jesus will establish an everlasting kingdom, that God will give him dominion over the whole earth. But speculations regarding the future are not historical readings.
As far as I know, he holds that Jesus was superlatively wise and good. However, one can identify several acts of wrongdoing on his part (including urging a man to neglect his dead or dying father in order to follow Jesus). Moreover, it can be seen from the gospels that Jesus was not noticeably wise and good, as I wrote here: https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2016/08/18/invisible-perfect-by-jim/ . The historical Jesus was not perfect; it is only in the imagination of Christians that Jesus is perfect.
CP also holds that Jesus brought the world Torah. This is not so. The Jesus of the gospels did not carry his message to the world. After his death, Paul, who never met Jesus, spread a message to the gentiles—a message at considerable variance with the Torah. The historical Jesus had nothing to do with this. These are projections, actions attributed to the man after he was gone from this earth. This is not a reading of the historical Jesus. It is the narrative of the Church.
Considering these facts, you have been remarkably constrained—heroically even—in your response to him. The absurdity of claiming that he was more objective in his considerations of Jesus cannot be overstated. Much of his reading of Jesus is extra-historical. They are projections on his part. Jesus was never a king. He was not given eternal dominion. He was not even the morally superior figure that CP would like him to be. The ‘historical Jesus’ of CP is infused with Church doctrine. There is nothing objective about his reading.
Jim
Jim, im not worried. I have been learning about the Christian texts (and those texts of various other religions) for a while now, thats what comparitive religion is all about.
He can question my qualifications all he wants. My degrees/qualifications, are on paper hanging on my wall, just as I’m sure his degree is on his wall.
I tried to get a teaching credential, but it was extremely competitive, so I commend CP in his work as an educator.
I dont hold this fervor against him, because he has an attachment that is hugely difficult to get away from.
My only point to him has been that he (like you said,) is still attached to Jesus’ personality. He doesnt want to see Jesus as maybe in error, maybe just a preacher. I understand that sentiment.
Concerned Reader,
In light of Yours and Jim’s conversation concerning me, I would like to express my appreciation for staying unbiased and fair in your judgment. I apologize if I come across as lecturing, I don’t mean to, I just like to get to the point asap. Although we differ on some things, I value and respect everything I’ve read from you.
However I still think this whole Jesus schism is more emotionally driven than fact driven ; )
CP The wisest thing you have written on this blog so far > “this whole Jesus schism is more emotionally driven than fact driven” Please look in the mirror
1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources wrote: >
“….in humility receive the word implanted, which is able to save your souls.
But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves
For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror; for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was.
But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does.”
James 1:21-25
R’B,
‘Looking in the mirror’ is exactly what I’m doing – and enacting changes. However as I peer intently, I’m being asked by those who are looking elsewhere to deny the reality of what I see.
CP,
Nobody here told you that you are going to burn in hell and that G-d hates you for believing what you believe. I think what you can take away is that even though the people here are not able to tell you everything you want to hear, they care enough about you to work through these issues with you for weeks and months. We are not rejecting you. It’s just some of your beliefs, not you, that we can’t validate. We just want you to understand that you can’t expect most Jews, especially orthodox Jews, and Noahides to be interested in following the historical Yeshua. Not even Rabbi Yaakov Emden, Shmuley Botach and Harvey Falk followed Yeshua. Maybe they can validate some of your beliefs, but not all of them. But those teachings of Yeshua that are in line with Torah Judaism, I think the Jews at your shul would be happy to learn about them from you as long as you say they are Torah teachings instead of Yeshua’s teachings. They won’t be able to hear it if you give the teachings over in Yeshua’s name. Give the teachings over in the name of the Torah or in the name of “the Beit Hillel Pharisees”. You wouldn’t be lying. The teachings are more important than the name of the person who taught them. You have to meet people where they’re at if you want to help them.
The front of my shul faces south. When everyone stands up to pray, we all face south. But there is one guy who faces to the left (east) – a full 90 degrees to the left of how everyone else is facing. He stands directly in front of me about 10 feet away. So when I’m davening I see the side of his face instead of his back. Nobody talks to him about it. We just leave him alone about it. And he doesn’t try to get us to face his direction either. He has to keep his own way to himself and do what he feels is right even though not even one other person in shul is interested in doing it his way. He tolerates us even though he probably thinks we’re not doing it the 100% correct way. He’s a sociable and kind person and people like him. This is just one example of hundreds of how individual Jews have to keep their own ways to themselves and go it alone many times for the sake of the greater good and shalom of the community.
“Nobody here told you that you are going to burn in hell and that G-d hates you for believing what you believe.”
I would not even say that for Christians who genuinely believe in Jesus. G-d knows the heart… He knows your heart CP, even if we do not agree, I think you are following the Hebrew Bible (As you don’t follow most of the tenets of Christianity)
Alan & RT,
Thank you, you’ve been very kind, I feel blessed to be able to discuss things with you. I understand and agree with your most recent comments, although there are some details I need to work through. I do have a question for you; Where do you see explicit teachings of Yeshua in direct contradiction with Torah? Not to argue, just curious.
Btw ✨HAPPY🎉NEW🎊YEAR💥‼️
🔥☁️⚡️(Exodus 12:1-2)⚡️☁️🔥
CP,
Chodesh tov (a good month), I suppose it’s technically ok to say happy new year today but you’re the first person I’ve ever heard say it on rosh chodesh Nissan. There are 4 “new years” and rosh chodesh Nissan is one of them (see Mishnah Rosh Hashanah chapter 1).
Ok, here’s an example. But I don’t think anything good will come of this.
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to
marry. 11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. 12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
Alan,
I’m not up on all the proper names, but yes, new year of trees, livestock, Creation and the month Hashem said should be the first month of the year.
Lol, you had to pick the only teaching where Yeshua sides with Beit Shammai over Beit Hillel. Interesting.
“He saith unto them, Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, suffered you to put away your wives”
Jesus is saying that divorce is a concession of Moses to the people rather than a command of Hashem that Moses taught to the people.
“and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery”
Where does the Torah say that a man who marries a divorcee commits adultery?
“His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to
marry…and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”
It is a negative commandment of the Torah to castrate oneself or others – Leviticus 22:24.
It is a positive commandment of the Torah to have procreate – Genesis 1:28
“Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives”
Didn’t Moses divorce Zipporah?
The Rabbis sought to elicit the nature of the parting between Moses and Zipporah from the wording “after she had been sent home [shiluheha].” According to one opinion, Moses divorced her, with a writ of divorce, since shilu’ah also appears in Deut. 24:3–4, which speaks of a “bill of divorce.” Another view maintains that he separated from her orally (and therefore this was not a formal act of divorce) (Mehilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, Masekhta de-Amalek, Yitro 1).
Malachi 2:16 is also wrongly translated … If you hate [her], send [her] away, says the Lord God of Israel.
Sorry, I am at work, I don’t have time to check for more reason right now CP.
RT,
Thanks, I’m at work also (lunch). I think Yeshua is rightfully describing the “ideal” behavior Hashem desires from us, however HE knows we are only dust and as such are not held to perfection, but neither are the standards of perfection altered.
CP,
The ideal behavior is to try to fulfill the commandment to procreate. It is a sin to make oneself into a eunuch; and for one to say he is doing it for the kingdom of heaven’s sake is to rebel against the commandment of Hashem.
Yes, I agree that is the Ideal behavior. But look at what Jesus said. “and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery”. He did not say “we should avoid as much as possible to divorce”.
Look at that verse: “And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.”
I am not saying that it was supposed to be literal, but look at what Yeshua said. The “look at a women with lust” or “divorce” is in his opinion as bad as committing adultery and deserves the same condemnation. He actually is saying that G-d will punish the divorced man who marries again as an adulterer and that the same kind of punishment will befall on him.
What happens to Deuteronomy 4:2? You may argue on some passages, but this is a clear “addition” to the Torah.
Torah said: You can divorce
Jesus said: You will be thrown in hell if you divorce and remarry.
RT,
According to the Torah, not only is it not the ideal behavior, it is a sin. The ideal behavior is to marry and have children for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.
Yes Alan, G-d’s first commandment to Adam and Eve. I was talking about divorce, not being ideal, but still needed for some cases. I have seen Christians being abused and unable to divorce their husband because they did not want displease Jesus…
RT, I apologize.
Alan & RT;
Aside from the fact we are reading writings translated from oral Aramic to Konie Greek to English 2000 years removed from its cultural context, let’s work with what we have:
Matthew 19 is probably best attests to what was said. On the subject of divorce; if you notice Yeshua says in verse 8 “Moses permitted……but from the beginning it has not been this way”. In other words, the Sinia Covenant relaxed Hashem’s ideal because of the weakness of humanity. Yeshua points back to the original ideal.
As for the eunuch/castration passage; I am sorely tempted to pull the ‘redaction card’ on this for a number of reasons I won’t go into here. However if we note verse 11, it explicitly states this is “only to those to whom it has been given”. In other words this is Not calling men to castrate themselves in violation of the command to procreate, but those who are already in this state.
Point for redaction: notice verse 12; “there are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.”
Ummm…. Yeshua speaking here in past tense? I’d say it’s a little early in the game for this kind of thing to be happening. Unless there were some Jewish sect already doing this?
CP,
I really don’t know why we’re doing this but where does the Torah say that a man who marries a divorcee commits adultery?
“I really don’t know why we’re doing this”
Alan, I’m not trying to convince you of anything. We have differing views and think it can be fruitful to test and explore them. You seem like a great guy, you’ve been a perfect gentleman, I have no desire to argue or even debate you, however your honesty in discussion is refreshing.
“but where does the Torah say that a man who marries a divorcee commits adultery?”
I know of nowhere it is explicitly stated, but think Deuteronomy 24:4 implies it by using the word “defiled”.
” ….since she has been defiled “
Ok, so you agree with me on this one that there is no explicit command in the Torah that one of the forms of adultery is to marry a divorcee. Remember we’re trying to find hints to this command. We are looking for a clear command like the other forms of adultery are clearly stated in the Torah. Also, the Torah doesn’t say that after he divorces her she is not allowed to marry another man. The Torah actually says she did marry another man and it uses the word for marry “yikach” not a word for adultery like “niuf”.
So do you believe that according to the Torah a divorcee is never allowed to remarry and if someone does remarry her they are both liable to the death penalty for adultery?
Oops – “remember we are NOT trying to find hints to this command”
Correction – the Torah does not say the second man “took” her which is the usual word for “to marry”. It just says “and she becomes another man’s”.
Ah hah! The second man lawfully wed her – the verse says “and the latter husband hateth her, and writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house;”
If they weren’t lawfully married he would not need or even be allowed to give her a bill of divorce, because they wouldn’t have been married in the first place.
There you go. So who do we believe – the Torah or Jesus when they contradict each other?
Alan,
Please allow me to share something I often forget that would cause us not to communicate clearly. I read your posts as you worked through this mentally and had to chuckle, but not because of you, but because almost a year ago after spending 3 hours on the phone with R’ Skobac I learned for the first time that Judaism is a legal system. And I see this it in how you approach it.
Sure we could wrangle back and forth, with my next point asking why Deut 24 considers the divorced and again legally married person – “defiled”? But this isn’t where the rub comes in because all four major sects of Judaism have their own version of Oral Torah. (the Sadducees Oral Torah was there wasn’t one). The point is that Yeshua had his version of an Oral Torah also, which did not contradict the Written Torah any more than the others.
“So do you believe that according to the Torah a divorcee is never allowed to remarry and if someone does remarry her they are both liable to the death penalty for adultery?”
This is what I believe according to my Rebbe’s teachings on Torah:
Hashem’s ideal is no divorce, but because of our weakness it is allowed, but discouraged. If divorce has occurred, Hashem’s ideal then is reconciliation. To divorce and remarry another is considered adultery against Hashem’s ideal.
However that said, Hashem desires mercy;
“….. a merciful and gracious God, slow to anger, and abundant in lovingkindness and truth, keeping lovingkindness for thousands, forgiving iniquity and disobedience and sin…..”
IMHO:
1) Yes, against the ideal its adultery
2) No, not liable for the death penalty according to Written Torah.
For I desire mercy, and not sacrifice; And the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. – Hosea 6
In summary; I don’t see this as a contradiction to Written Torah, but rather a teaching on Written Torah, no different than other Jewish sects who had teachings. You may choose to think this is an explict addition or contradiction to the Written Torah, but I’m not really seeing it because if it was then huge chinks of Talmud would also have to be dismissed on the same grounds.
CP,
I’m starting to get what you’re saying but please let me ask again. Verse 9 says:
” Now I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another commits adultery.”
Is this a good translation? It’s from the NET bible. “…and marries another commits adultery” – who commits adultery? – her first husband, the divorcee or her second husband?
Alan,
Yes, the NET Bible is one of the better translations. NASB & NKJV are considered the most literal translations based on two different source Texts. The NET is more of an eclectic translation.
This verse is explicitly saying it is the one who is initiating the divorce and remarrying another is the one who commits adultery and the one who marries this person. The verse doesn’t explicitly address the one being divorced.
The Talmud discusses divorcing a wife for burning dinner. From this it seems perhaps marriage was being disrespected and changing wives whenever you wanted was becoming socially acceptable and easy to do. But often times for the wife, especially an older wife without a source of income this would be a very serious matter for her, not to mention if young children are involved. If you ask me; this is what Yeshua is addressing. He is not adding to Torah but calling attention to Hashem’s ideal, reminding those who miss this mark are missing Hashem’s ideal and the one using legal loop holes to swap wives are in fact committing adultery.
CP,
Just to make sure I have this straight –
Her first husband that divorces her (for any reason except for her committing adultery) commits adultery if he marries another woman.
And her second husband commits adultery for marrying her.
But SHE is not guilty of committing adultery if she remarries, it’s just her second husband who commits adultery by marrying her.
Is this what you’re saying?
Alan
“Is this what you’re saying?”
I’m not making any pronouncements. I’m only doing my best on one hand to convey a simple literal meaning of the text without adding to it. On the other hand to convey a simple meaning beyond the literal which is; Hashem doesn’t approve of legal wife swapping. But to answer your question, the text is silent on if the one who did not initiate the divore is guilty of adultery if they remarry. I have my opinion as well as other people, but I wouldn’t judge them right or wrong because the text is silent on this detail.
Ok, then who is guilty of adultery – both the first and second husbands?
CP,
I reviewed your comments and I see you answered my question already –
“This verse is explicitly saying it is the one who is initiating the divorce and remarrying another is the one who commits adultery and the one who marries this person.”
You hold that according to the opinion of Yeshua, 2 men would be guilty of adultery –
1. Her first husband who divorced her would be guilty of adultery upon marrying another woman.
— As far as I know, there is not even a hint of this halacha in the Torah. And as far as I know, neither Beit Hillel or Beit Shammai holds this opinion (Rav B. would have to confirm this since I’m not sure.) If I am correct, this would mean that Yeshua added this halacha to the Torah, teaching that something is adultery (one of the worst transgressions) that is not adultery.
2. Her second husband would be guilty of adultery upon marrying her.
— Perhaps according to Beit Shammai this is true but again I would need Rav B. to confirm this.
CP,
I did some more research and found that according to both Beit Hillel AND Beit Shammai the husband who divorces his wife for ANY reason (not just for immoral behavior) does not transgress any prohibition at all upon marrying another woman let alone the severe sin of adultery; moreover, there is not even a hint in the Torah that this is any kind of transgression at all. So you must say that either Yeshua unlawfully added a very severe law to the Torah or you have to pull the “radaction card” again. If I am mistaken with any of this, I would be grateful if Rav B. would correct me.
CP, if Yeshua added those commandment to Torah without any doubts, what would be your conclusion on the authenticity of his messiahship claim
Alan,
One thing to note with CP’s redactions is that they contradict the principle he has articulated that the NT contains no incorrect doctrine. His peculiar definition of infallibility of scripture allows for minor errors that do not introduce any incorrect doctrine. He writes:
“However, the Bible is Infallible. The Bible is given by God, Inspired by God and protected by God as His word to us. There is nothing written in the Bible to lead us in the wrong direction; no false doctrines, no erroneous teachings.” (See here:https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2016/09/19/matthew-admits-that-jesus-was-never-resurrected-by-jim/#comment-32896 .)
If you follow the link, you will see that he says that the Bible has numerous minor errors, things like number counts. And then comes the portion quoted that there are no false doctrines or teachings in the Bible.
This is clearly false, when applied to the New Testament. Many of the passages he supposes to be redactions are redacted precisely because they contradict Torah. For example, he proclaims it a redaction when Jesus makes his own words superior to those of HaShem in Matthew 5.
He also employs an unsound method when declaring redactions. First he assumes the conclusion, and then he asserts his premises. For example, he assumes that Jesus could not be a false prophet. So, when Matthew has Jesus promise to the pharisees the “sign of Jonah,” CP declares this to be a redaction. Why? Because Jesus never fulfilled the sign. And since Jesus is not a false prophet, he could not have given this sign. The significance of the passage is obvious, or else he would not need declare it a redaction.
How does CP know when something is a redaction then? When it disagrees with his understanding. When he does not like the teaching. When it contradicts his understanding of Jesus. But this is unsound. One can understand why he would try to reconcile these passages to his understanding. One can empathize with this need. But one also can see that it is not a path to truth.
Jim
Jim,
Thank you very much. I read the link. I really don’t know how these discussions are helping him in his search for truth as you mentioned at the end of your comment. Socially, I think there is what for him to get from his being here – orthodox Jews and Noahides who are relatively nice to him 🙂 I think he already believes he has found the truth and he’s happy with it. so why should he need or want to look further. But since I have no idea what’s going on inside his head and heart, who I am to say that he’s totally and forever closed to what we’re saying?
Oh Jim,
If you would like to have pleasurable productive discussion, please follow Alan’s lead of making every effort to have Honest discussion.
No, I NEVER said the sign to the Pharisees was a redaction – and went to great length to explain the sign wasn’t a promised apperance specifically to them.
I’ve explained numerous times without great detail the my most basic red flag for a possible redaction is a perceived contradiction with Torah. I touched on another point for a possible redaction in conversation with Alan above.
Jim, generally speaking the NT is an oral Aramaic tradition written in Greek with a probable Hellenized Gentile Roman Church influence. With just this tidbit of information possible redactions jump off the page. however you want to turn my method of spotting redactions into something malicious and dishonest.
“I’ve explained numerous times without great detail the my most basic red flag for a possible redaction is a perceived contradiction with Torah. I touched on another point for a possible redaction in conversation with Alan above.”
CP, if all your red flag is when there is a contradiction from Torah, then you can remove all inconsistencies and errors from Jesus or any of the new testament. So no amount of proofs will show you that Jesus was not the messiah, as you will put that proof as Redaction mistake from further scribes instead of showing that Jesus saying was wrong. Do I make myself clear? Will you consider the sayings of Matthew 5 as “red flag” from now. How many red flags do you need to reconsider your stand point?
“RT says:
March 29, 2017 at 12:57 pm
CP, if Yeshua added those commandment to Torah without any doubts, what would be your conclusion on the authenticity of his messiahship claim”
Let’s say this was actually the case. We would then have to look at the various Rabbinical positions addressing the extent of Messiah’s authority as it pertains to the Law. You may be surprised at some of these Rabbinical positions.
Good thinking… anybody would have that?
CP,
“We would then have to look at the various Rabbinical positions addressing the extent of Messiah’s authority as it pertains to the Law. ”
What do you do when Yeshua doesn’t follow either Beit Hillel or Beit Shammai? What rabbis do you check if Beit Hillel or Beit Shammai doesn’t match with Yeshua’s opinion?
RT & Alan;
RT, As previously stated; I haven’t gone in to great detail of spotting redactions or more precisely; textual criticism methods. It’s not as simple as spotting contradictions with Torah. An added layer is; if it is also something practiced by the early Gentile church. Don’t think tis is the extent of textual criticism there are many layers and methods; more than I can go into detail here without writing a class on the subject of which I am not qualified to do. But I bet Concerned Reader is qualified to fully explain textual criticism in detail.
Alan, I think you misunderstood my meaning. My meaning is; There is not a consensuses among Rabbis if Messiah will have the authority to modify/change the Law or not.
CP,
“Alan, I think you misunderstood my meaning. My meaning is; There is not a consensuses among Rabbis if Messiah will have the authority to modify/change the Law or not.”
I seem to remember there are rabbinic discussions of whether there might be changes in laws (including additions and subtractions) after the messianic age has begun, i.e. only after the complete redemption, when Temple has been rebuilt and there is shalom in the land of Israel. I am almost certain that before that time, it is unanimous that there can be no additions or subtractions allowed such as giving something the status of adultery that was never adultery before. When Jesus said this new halacha, there is no rabbi that would agree that Jesus was living after the final redemption. Even Christians would agree that it was before the final redemption (the Cross).
“There is not a consensuses among Rabbis if Messiah will have the authority to modify/change the Law or not”
Loophole for you to ignore everything we are saying as Jim previously mentioned?
You wrote: ““only to those to whom it has been given”
I think it actually says “only to those who ACCEPT it [upon themselves]”.
Alan,
That is in a different part of the sentence, refering to “accept this statement” about marriage and singleness, not accept castration as a new commandment.
” Not all men except this statement, but those to whom it has been given”
What statement?
Answer; The statement of the Talmudim in verse 10:
” The disciples say to him if the relationship of the man with his wife is like this it is better not to marry”
In other words; all that is being said is; some men are better off not to marry due to circumstances; some as listed here.
CP,
I don’t see what you see in this passage.
CP, the simplest meaning of the Torah is that divorce is permitted, and casteation is not. Whatever the nuance of Yeshua’s view, it clashes with the plainest most straightforward meaning.
If every word of Jesus has to be disected to a great degree to discover his plain intent, he is not being a good teacher.
The Torah has mitzvot that are plainly stated (because as the Bible says,) the text was read to all the people. It is meant to be a book that everyone can understand, regardless of education.
Your understanding of your reconstruction of the historical Jesus is not simple, nor easy for others to grasp.
-Being celibate
– chastizing followers for expressing concern about Jesus dying.
-Castration for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.
-Leaving his parents at 12 years old to go to the temple without asking.
All of these things are in the plainest sense violations of the clearly stated things in Torah.
If you believe Jesus to be a man, you should be able to acknowledge that he erred. Moses erred, and was still good. David did too. Why is it so scary to think Jesus may have sinned a few times?
Even the gospel of the ebionites admits Jesus has sinned.
Concerned Reader,
“Why is it so scary to think Jesus may have sinned a few times?
– You know the answer to that! But I’m willing to entertain the idea in order to put it to the test.
Even the gospel of the ebionites admits Jesus has sinned.
– I had not heard this, Ill see if I can find it.
Interesting, the gospel of the ebionites say that John the Baptist ate cake… Who in the world would only eat locust and honey anyway?
Regardless, why can’t you put in doubt the story of the virgin birth anyway? I mean, the whole Isaiah 7 is known to be non-sense. Then you would not have to believe Jesus was sinless, especially that you don’t believe that he was a sin atonement four our redemption…
CP, if you applied textual criticism to the gospels, you could not come to any meaningful conclusion about Jesus as a messiah, because the different books present a nuanced and different view Jesus.
The Johanine Jesus for example is a divine man who goes around reading the thoughts, intentiins, and inclinations of people he interacts with. In John, Jesus is never out of control of what is happening to him in the narrative, and the people (good and bad) are like puppets in a grand play with Jesus as puppeteer.
The Markan Jesus by contrast is just a wilderness preacher in the vein of Elijah and Elisha, and is clearly seen as a human who is chosen to be Christ at his baptism.
An entirely different, not very theological Jesus. You have “the messianic secret” in Mark, and the son of man who wanders with no place to rest.
In the vein of the Elijah stories, Jesus eats with strangers and gives them lessons, and some Pharisees even save him from Herod in Luke’s elaborations and enendations to Markan material. (As Elijah was defended by strangers.)
The relevant quote is from the Gospel of the Nazarenes, not the Ebionite fragments, my mistake.
Here is the relevant portion
(Jerome, De viris inlustribus 3)
“Behold, the mother of the Lord and his brethren said to him: John the Baptist baptizes unto the remission of sins, let us go and be baptized by him. But he said to them: Wherein have I sinned that I should go and be baptized by him? Unless what I have said is ignorance (a sin of ignorance).”
Jesus (in this gospel) admits that what he said may have been an unintentional sin. Why could this be important? Because the sacrificial offering in Isaiah is an Asham. The Asham is an offering that a person brings if they have inadvertently broken the law.
The point CP is this. Jesus made mistakes. He had good intentions, but it is not written in the Torah that divorce is forbidden. Jesus actually claims that that law came from Moses as a concession, and did not come from G-d.
He compounds the problem with his interpretation by later saying that in Olam Haba none are married or given in marriage, “for they will be like the angels of G-d.” If this is true, then to punish people who divorce with adultery would be fundamentally unjust.
Many women have abusive husbands. These women still may not commit fornication in that situation, so in Jesus’ ideal there is no reason for a divorce to be granted in that case.
Jesus places being celibate as an ideal, (we have seen the fruits of that with scandals in the Church.)
Jesus says good things, but not everything he says is good. If he is a man, this shouldn’t be hard for you to hear.
And that would explain why Jesus got immersed in the first place. Why would he be if he had not chance of unintentional sin. What does “to fulfill all righteousness” means anyway?
“Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.”
Concerned Reader,
Yes I was aware of that passage, but didnt interpret it as Yeshua sinning. Quite frankly the idea of Yeshua sinning is a rabbit trail I haven’t studied out yet, so I’ll have to decline to comment until I do.
Alan, RT,
The Rabbis and Sages have said “Messiah will strengthen the Torah”. In our discussions on adultery we all agree Yeshua did in fact strengthen the Torah. However ya’ll then say this is proof he could not be Messiah.
For the sake of honest discussion, please allow me to remind; I only advocate Yeshua as the first advent of Messiah preparing the world for the second advent of Messiah. A position not totally dissimilar to Maimonides.
CP,
It’s against the rules of the Torah for one rabbi to strengthen the Torah by changing a law of Hashem where it is unanimous among the other sages that the law cannot be changed in such a way. So this doesn’t strengthen the Torah, it actually destroys it. Our example here is that all of the other rabbis since the days of Moses agree that it is not adultery for a man to marry another woman even if the divorce from his first wife wasn’t valid. Jesus comes along and says it’s adultery. This is completely against the rules of how laws are legislated. This would actually make Jesus into a Zaken Mamre (a rebellious elder (Deuteronomy 17:11-12).
Alan,
“It’s against the rules of the Torah for one rabbi to strengthen……”
Okay, but what about Messiah? Is he held to the same conditions as a rabbi?
Also: it seems to me Talmudic rabbis and sages have done the same kind of thing and it is generally accepted.
CP,
Alan,
“It’s against the rules of the Torah for one rabbi to strengthen……”
“Okay, but what about Messiah? Is he held to the same conditions as a rabbi?”
I’m sorry CP. I really am, because I know this is very painful for you and it’s not what you want to hear. I know it’s not. The messiah is held to the same conditions as other rabbis when it comes to legislating halacha, He has to go through the Sanhedrin to legislate halacha.
“Also: it seems to me Talmudic rabbis and sages have done the same kind of thing and it is generally accepted.”
I am very sorry CP. This is a misconception. When there is a Sanhedrin, legislation especially when it comes to capital crimes such as adultery must only go through the Sanhedrin. If any rabbi including Moshiach tried to do it on his own and went against the ruling of the Sanhedrin, he is liable to the death penalty unless he repents.
Alan
Does this agree with what your saying?
http://www.aish.com/jl/m/pm/48932007.html
Larry,
Yes it does.
Do you have any specific questions about what I wrote vs. what this article says?
Alan,
from above linked website:
“Moreover, it was impossible to include every possible case in the Oral Torah. It would also be impossible for the Sanhedrin to decide in every possible case. Therefore, God gave each qualified Torah scholar the right to decide questions of Torah law. Then, even if laws were forgotten, they could be restored through the halachic process.
It is a positive commandment for a duly qualified Torah scholar to render decisions in questions of Torah law when asked. It is thus written, “You shall teach the children of Israel all the decrees which God told them through Moses” (Leviticus 10:11)…”
CP,
Do you think these isolated words mean that a qualified rabbi can decide that lettuce is not kosher just like pig is not kosher? Because that’s what we’re talking about in this case of divorce and adultery. I think this is what you are saying. But the article if you read the whole thing is not saying this at all.
It’s more on the side of “what is considered work on Shabbat?” rather than “slaughtering pork on a pagan idol temple is now acceptable because I said so”…
Is it within the rules of halacha for a qualified rabbi to decide that although it’s permitted to slaughter cows and goats for food, it’s murder to slaughter a lamb 8 months old and younger? Now all of this rabbi’s followers believe that according to the Torah if they slaughter an 8-month old lamb they would be murderers in Hashem’s eyes?
Alan
No questions. I’m not trying to resurrect the messiah like CP is. Just wanted to post something that would go along with what your saying for the outside readers.
Alan,
After skimming over our conversation on Yeshua’s adultery teaching the source of our differences became clear. To explain:
Yeshua said;
“Don’t think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn’t come to destroy, but to fulfill.
For most assuredly, I tell you, until heaven and eretz pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished.
Whoever, therefore, shall break one of these least mitzvot, and teach others to do so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whoever shall do and teach them shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.”
I am claiming Yeshua did not change the WRITTEN Torah.
While you are claiming he changed the ORAL Torah.
CP,
“I am claiming Yeshua did not change the WRITTEN Torah.
While you are claiming he changed the ORAL Torah.”
I think he unlawfully changed both the written torah and the oral torah –
1. The written Torah – He said that a certain relationship is adultery even though the written torah doesn’t say it is adultery.
2. The oral Torah – a. This opinion of his was against every opinion of every Sanhedrin throughout the generations since the Sanhedrin of Moses and b. He proclaimed a law of adultery publicly on his own without bringing it to a vote in the Sanhedrin.
CP, if it was written in the gospels (it’s not) that Jesus decreed that first cousins who marry are committing adultery, what would you say or believe about this?
Alan,
Not to side step your question on marrying cousins, but to answer in a different way;
The Written and Oral Torah both agree the Sabbath is to be observed. The Oral Torah goes into much more detail on what is considered observing and what is breaking (binding & loosening). But it never contradicts the command to observe the Sabbath.
In the same way the Written Torah, Oral Torah and Yeshua’s Oral Torah all agree adultery is missing the mark. Yeshua’s Oral Torah goes into more detail on the adultery issue while drawing from the Torah Text. Yet he never once contradicted the command against adultery.
With 100% respect intended; if this is the worst you have against Yeshua, it doesn’t seem like very much especially when one factors in we are discussing fine wording of a text written in a culture, three languages and 2000 apart from us.
CP,
“Alan,
Not to side step your question on marrying cousins, but to answer in a different way;”
Could you answer my question please?
“The Written and Oral Torah both agree the Sabbath is to be observed. The Oral Torah goes into much more detail on what is considered observing and what is breaking (binding & loosening). But it never contradicts the command to observe the Sabbath.
In the same way the Written Torah, Oral Torah and Yeshua’s Oral Torah all agree adultery is missing the mark. Yeshua’s Oral Torah goes into more detail on the adultery issue while drawing from the Torah Text. Yet he never once contradicted the command against adultery.”
Because the laws of the sabbath, adultery and everything else had to go after the majority vote in the Sanhedrin. Jesus doesn’t do that. You can’t concoct. This is one of the things that keeps the Torah mesorah in check and reliable.
“With 100% respect intended; if this is the worst you have against Yeshua, it doesn’t seem like very much especially when one factors in we are discussing fine wording of a text written in a culture, three languages and 2000 apart from us.”
Oh, I have much much worse, much worse. But I don’t have the strength to go into it. I think it’s already all been discussed on this blog especially in Rav B’s essays. You asked me for one example of where I see Jesus going against the Torah and I thought this would be an interesting case.
Alan,
“CP, if it was written in the gospels (it’s not) that Jesus decreed that first cousins who marry are committing adultery, what would you say or believe about this?”
Although “close relative” could be argued as ambigious, the problem with having Yeshua say such a thing it would be convicting MANY of our ancestors listed in the Tanach of adultery. This begs the question as to our discussion; Are there many or any approved marriages recorded in the Tanach of divorcees remarrying?
CP,
“Although “close relative” could be argued as ambigious, the problem with having Yeshua say such a thing it would be convicting MANY of our ancestors listed in the Tanach of adultery.”
Are you ok with Yeshua convicting many of our ancestors and living relatives of adultery for marrying a divorced woman? Are you ok with this?
“This begs the question as to our discussion; Are there many or any approved marriages recorded in the Tanach of divorcees remarrying?”
I don’t know if there are any. But please don’t let this get in the way of my question. Please suppose there are no cases in Tanach of first cousins marrying. How would you answer the question now?
CP,
And are you ok with Jesus convicting many of our ancestors and living Jews of adultery for marrying a second wife after divorcing the first one? Are you ok with this?
CP,
Here’s an example of divorce and remarriage being permitted in the Torah –
Deuteronomy 24:3 – “and the latter husband hateth her, and writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, who took her to be his wife;”
Alan,
You know you are leading me away from reality, there are MANY cousin marriages and Yeshua said nothing about it. I can’t think of one divorcee remarriage recorded in Tanach, and Yeshua did address this.
However I’ll go with your flow.
“Are you ok with Yeshua convicting many of our ancestors and living relatives of adultery for marrying a divorced woman? Are you ok with this?”
— It would depend on if the Tanach recorded it as approved. If it was silent as to judgement, there may have been extenuating circumstances, before Sinai, or simply wrong – who knows.
“Please suppose there are no cases in Tanach of first cousins marrying. How would you answer the question now?”
— I would say ‘if’ Yeshua taught such a thing under the circumstances you listed above; That Yeshua’s Oral teaching would be defining the prohibition of marriage of a “close relative” as to include cousins.
CP,
“— It would depend on if the Tanach recorded it as approved. If it was silent as to judgement, there may have been extenuating circumstances, before Sinai, or simply wrong – who knows.”
Deuteronomy 24 records it as permitted. Jesus records it as forbidden.
“Please suppose there are no cases in Tanach of first cousins marrying. How would you answer the question now?”
— I would say ‘if’ Yeshua taught such a thing under the circumstances you listed above; That Yeshua’s Oral teaching would be defining the prohibition of marriage of a “close relative” as to include cousins.”
Even if Yeshua’s opinion contradicted every single sage and Sanhedrin of Israel starting with Moses? This is kosher, according to the rules of halacha as established by the Beit Hillel Pharisees? (of which you say Jesus was one)
Alan,
“Deuteronomy 24 records it as permitted.”
Honestly, it doesn’t “record” it as permitted. The topic of adultery is not even mentioned. An implied meaning is being derived from these verses silent on what constitutes adultery.
If this manner of exegesis is acceptable to you, then perhaps we should revisit Isaiah 7:14 and the “virgin” birth, hehehe
CP,
“Alan,
“Deuteronomy 24 records it as permitted.”
Honestly, it doesn’t “record” it as permitted. The topic of adultery is not even mentioned. An implied meaning is being derived from these verses silent on what constitutes adultery.
If this manner of exegesis is acceptable to you, then perhaps we should revisit Isaiah 7:14 and the “virgin” birth, hehehe”
CP, you misunderstood why I brought Deutreonomy 24. You asked if anywhere in the Tanach, it is permitted to marry a divorced woman. This is where the Torah permits marrying a divorced woman. Do you see that?
Alan,
“CP, you misunderstood why I brought Deutreonomy 24. You asked if anywhere in the Tanach, it is permitted to marry a divorced woman. This is where the Torah permits marrying a divorced woman. Do you see that?”
Yes, I see that, but there is a requirement of the wife being “indecent” just as Yeshua excepted “marital unfaithfulness” – both would put the parties involved outside the charge of adultery in the case of remarriage.
“Yes, I see that, but there is a requirement of the wife being “indecent” just as Yeshua excepted “marital unfaithfulness” – both would put the parties involved outside the charge of adultery in the case of remarriage.”
I am so impressed that you see that. That is wonderful!!! But in Matthew 5 Jesus says that whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Doesn’t he say this? Doesn’t this contradict what you see in Deuteronomy 24?
Alan,
No, this is not what Yeshua said. He addressed a stipulation just as Deut 24 does. I’ve [bracketed] them below.
Mat 5:32
but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, [except for the reason of unchastity], makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Deut 24:1
“When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens [fn]that she finds no favor in his eyes because [he has found some indecency in her], and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house,
CP,
I’d like to try this again if you don’t mind.
In Matthew 5 Jesus decrees that whoever marries a divorced woman (if it wasn’t a valid divorce she wouldn’t be divorced) commits adultery. But in Deuteronomy 23:3 we see that a second man married (a valid marriage) a divorced woman (she had a valid divorce).
Do you see this contradiction?
Alan,
I’m sorry, but there is no mention of what constitutes adultery in Deut 24. However I do admit it is implied, therefore see no explicit contradiction especially when it is explicitly exempted by Yeshua.
Alan, the bottom line is; if the adultery portion is read in the context of the rest of Matt 5,6,7 it is apparent Yeshua is not writing new Halacha, he is spiritualizing and internalizing existing Halacha.
CP,
“I’m sorry, but there is no mention of what constitutes adultery in Deut 24.”
I agree, I agree! I was just showing you from Deut 24:2-3 that it is permitted to marry a divorced woman. I thought you said you saw that. I guess we’ll drop it.
Alan,
I agree it us permitted in Deut 24 to marry a divorced woman in whom indecency was found.
But I good to drop this also – have things to do.
CP,
“I agree it us permitted in Deut 24 to marry a divorced woman in whom indecency was found.”
In Matthew 5, Jesus gives a blanket statement, “whoever married a divorced woman is guilty of adultery.” Do you not take this statement at face value? Do you have a different interpretation of what this means? Do you think Jesus meant whoever marries a divorced woman WHO IS NOT REALLY DIVORCED only such a man commits adultery?
Alan,
I’m no expert in Koine Greek and don’t want to say you are lifting a sentence out of context, but the way I read it is Yeshua is teaching whoever marries the woman (divorced for other than martial unfaithfulness) commits adultery.
Matthew 5:32
“but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of martial unfaithfulness, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”
“and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”
Jesus should have said “and whoever marries that woman commits adultery.” He said it in a way that is very misleading, and I’m sure many have been misled by this (I think Concerned Reader mentioned this.)
Problem #2 is much greater than this one though.
One real practical problem that arose in the Church when applying Jesus’ views on questions of adultery and divorce is that women had very little recourse in cases of spousal abuse, rape, etc. If a family had money or political stakes in a marriage, it was even worse. So CP, we have practical examples of the negative impacts of Jesus’ halachic stringency which is a stringency he added to the plain meaning
Concerned Reader,
Honestly, this can be played from both sides. In a patriarchal society where it is socially and religiously acceptable to divorce your wife for burning dinner (read – divorce your wife because you were tired of her or wanted a new one) a woman if she didn’t have relatives to take her in would be a destitute homeless beggar or even have to turn to prostitution.
CR,
There are kosher ways of adding prohibitions to the Torah (called protective fences) and non-kosher ways of adding them such what have in the gospels. When a protective fence is added it is introduced to the people not as a commandment from Hashem (i.e. a Torah-level commandment) but as a rabbinic enactment which the sages hope will be helpful to the people and which they can live with; if the rabbis see that the people are not able to accept the enactment for the long term, then the enactment becomes nullified. A Torah-level law however can never become nullified. In Jesus’ time there was a Sanhedrin so any rabbinic enactments had to be discussed and voted on by the Sanhedrin with the final ruling going after the majority. But Jesus was not proposing these prohibitions to the people as protective fences or mere stringencies; he was stating what he believed was the correct way to understand Torah-level law, his understanding of the law of the Torah was against every opinion of every Sanhedrin throughout the generations since the Sanhedrin of Moses and he also proclaimed the law publicly on his own without bringing it to a vote in the Sanhedrin. Besides, the Sanhedrin wouldn’t have even voted on it because it was never in question.
You probably know this already, but who was the first person(s) in Tanach that added a prohibition that Hashem didn’t command? And do you know what adding this prohibition led to?
Dear Alan ,
Thank you and to the other commenters out there for putting forth this discussion. The topic of divorce is one of the more pressing issues facing the Catholic church today. Its interesting to read the views on this teaching from Jewish lenses.
I’m currently reading “The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus ” by Amy-Jill Levine , an orthodox Jew . She states that the so-called Antitheses on the Sermon of the Mount (Matthew chapter 5 ) , which this teaching is a part of , as examples of fence building (page 46).
You have stated that the teaching on divorce ,rather than to build protective fences , was actually “against every opinion of every Sanhedrin throughout the generations “.
My question- what about the other teachings in Matthew Chapter 5 ,example on anger and adultery ? These teachings goes to the source i.e the root cause of adultery and murder by prohibiting anger/lustful thoughts that leads to these acts in the first place . These are noble teachings and are difficult to follow. What is the Jewish view on this?
Hi Sharon,
“I’m currently reading “The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus ” by Amy-Jill Levine , an orthodox Jew . She states that the so-called Antitheses on the Sermon of the Mount (Matthew chapter 5 ) , which this teaching is a part of , as examples of fence building (page 46).”
I just reviewed Matthew ch. 5 and I think that most of it can be interpreted as moral/ethical teachings not as new legal fences. But I think that some people might interpret them as actual Torah laws or a new protective legal fences which would be against the Torah. But I think we can say that most of it is ethical/moral and not legal. But the following comes across as legal – verse 32 – “whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery”. This sounds legal and if so it is against the written and oral Torah.
“You have stated that the teaching on divorce ,rather than to build protective fences , was actually “against every opinion of every Sanhedrin throughout the generations “.
My question- what about the other teachings in Matthew Chapter 5 ,example on anger and adultery ? These teachings goes to the source i.e the root cause of adultery and murder by prohibiting anger/lustful thoughts that leads to these acts in the first place . These are noble teachings and are difficult to follow. What is the Jewish view on this?”
As I said above, I think these are mostly ethical/moral exhortations not laws. If they are looked at that way, and I think they can be, I don’t think they are heretical or against the Torah. I actually think some of them are in line with the Torah’s ethical teachings. Meaning, that it might be a good to strive for these “duties of the heart” but if one falls short, one shouldn’t think he transgressed any commandments. On the other hand, if a person takes these statements as law, then they will very often feel like a failure and a sinner which pushes them to need Jesus as an atonement because they know they can’t do it just with the help of G-d.
I think it is clear that the teaching of Jesus was considered as law, maybe not on this world, but on the world to come. The whole purpose of Matthew 5, 6 and 7 is to say that even if you kept the law perfectly without ever braking it, you are still as guilty (of hell) in the eye of G-d, thus the need to accept Jesus. The whole chapter does not teach to not look at a women with lust, it teaches that we all did it and we need Jesus. The moral is there, but the message is different, you need to accept Jesus to be able to be forgiven and do those things…
RT,
I agree Matthew 5,6,7 “teaches that we all did it…” But I see no mention of “…you need to accept Jesus to be able to be forgiven and do those things…”. Granted this is the message of Christianity but I see the Yeshua’s message here as being not to rely on ritualistic observance of Torah because actions apart from the heart are meaningless. Admittedly the Christian Church as erred in the opposite direction of the heart (read faith) apart from actions is what saves.
This ‘either or’ thing is a source of much evil and blindness among Christians and Jews. I’m not sure why people cannot see actions AND faith, or simply said; ‘actions from the heart’ is what Hashem desires.
CP,
“This ‘either or’ thing is a source of much evil and blindness among Christians and Jews. I’m not sure why people cannot see actions AND faith, or simply said; ‘actions from the heart’ is what Hashem desires.”
I think you know that Tanach and the Talmud teach that both are required, that Hashem wants both.
It is consistent with the other books of the New Testament:
New International Version
“I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.
25If we live by the Spirit, by the Spirit let us also walk.
Remember also what Matthew said in chapter 8. Let the dead burry the dead. The dead are those who do not follow him…
RT,
Thanks. When a mentally balanced Jew who knows what it means to be a Jew reads these statements he wants to run away as fast as he can.
Alan,
Yes, I agree. But although the Tanach, Talmud and if I may add the oral instructions of Yeshua all teach both, it is people who teach one or the other.
The more I study and the deeper I dig it becomes more and more obvious the differences of Jews and Christians are not based on Yeshua, but on derived doctrines of men about Yeshua.
RT, Alan,
““I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.”
“Mentally balanced”?
Ummm…..Gentlemen, three verses above – “I am the true vine and my Father is the gardener”
So what do you think is being said?
hint – Who historically has always been the vine?
“So what do you think is being said?
hint – Who historically has always been the vine?”
I think what is being said is what he said “you can’t do a thing in life unless you throw away your brain and have blind faith in everything I say.”
I believe that the vine is the nation of Israel.
Alan,
Yeshua is representative of true Israel. Look unbiasedly at his teachings divorced from Christianity. If Israel would of been doing these mitzvot from the heart there would of been no exile.
CP,
“Alan,
Yeshua is representative of true Israel. Look unbiasedly at his teachings divorced from Christianity. If Israel would of been doing these mitzvot from the heart there would of been no exile.”
The statement that I’m running away from like fire is to paraphrase what Jesus said here “if you don’t have blind faith in everything I say, you are kaput.:”
Alan,
“if you don’t have blind faith in everything I say, you are kaput.:”
I agree, but everyone has to start somewhere and that somewhere for a gentile is usually very dark. But Yeshua wasn’t preaching in complete darkness, be preached among those who knew Torah. No blind faith needed.
CP,
“Alan,
“if you don’t have blind faith in everything I say, you are kaput.:”
I agree, but everyone has to start somewhere and that somewhere for a gentile is usually very dark. But Yeshua wasn’t preaching in complete darkness, be preached among those who knew Torah. No blind faith needed.”
I really don’t understand what you’re saying. But that’s ok. I’d like to drop this if that’s ok with you.
Alan,
I’ve things to do also, blessings to you today and tomorrow, Good Shabbat.
CP,
Shabbat shalom to you too.
Moses divorced Zipporah (Exodus 18:2: .So Moses’ father in law, Jethro, took Zipporah, Moses’ wife, after she had been sent awayב.וַיִּקַּח יִתְרוֹ חֹתֵן משֶׁה אֶת צִפֹּרָה אֵשֶׁת משֶׁה אַחַר שִׁלּוּחֶיהָ:) and remarried another woman in Numbers 12: Miriam and Aaron began to talk against Moses because of his Cushite wife, for he had married a Cushite.
As per Jesus, Moses committed adultery…
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9940#showrashi=true
RT,
I think according to the Midrash, Tziporrah and the Cushite wife were one and the same. I think Rashi says that in the link.
RT,
The way I read Exodus 18 is Moses sent his wife and sons to his father in-law for safe keeping during his time dealing with Pharaoh. Then Jethro brought them back to Moses after the exdous from Egypt.
CP,
What you’re saying is definitely this simple and plain way of understanding it.
Hi Alan,
A correction to my earlier comment :
“I’m currently reading “The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus ” by Amy-Jill Levine , an orthodox Jew . She states that the so-called Antitheses on the Sermon of the Mount (Matthew chapter 5 ) , which this teaching is a part of , as examples of fence building (page 46). ”
Correction: The author argues that examples of fence building appear in Matthew (5:21-47) – in the teachings of murder and adultery -not for all teachings .
Thank you for providing a Jewish response to the other teachings in Matthew Chapter 5.
I agree with you that these teachings are difficult to follow .Yet , God gives us opportunities to repent and the grace to put these teachings into practice .Most people (Non Jews including me) do not know Torah ,but by following these teachings , we are living out some of the commands in the Torah (I say this because you’ve mentioned that some of them are in line with the Torah’s ethical teachings).
If I’m not mistaken , one of your scholars, Maimonides stated that the ideas of Torah and commandments have spread to faraway islands and nations ,thanks to Islam and Christianity, although he considered both religions to be heretics.
Sharon S, Maiminides wrote what he did in the sense that the existence of Christianity and Islam would not prevent G-d’s will from reaching non Jews. IE Maiminides was not saying that Christianity or Islam spread the Torah, but that “his ways are not our ways,” so, in spite of Christianity, a senblance of bible knowledge got through.
Think about it this way. To a Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox viewpoint, Protestantism is a net negative, and doesnt guarantee anything. This does not mean that G-d is incapable of making himself known to a protestant.
Hi Sharon,
When there is a Sanhedrin, Jesus or any rabbi, is not allowed to decree a fence (precautionary rabbinic law) that is binding on the nation. It is simply against the Torah’s halachic system to do so. It has to be debated and voted on by the Sanhedrin.
Matthew 5:22 – “whoever says ‘fool’ will be sent to fiery hell” – Jewish people just don’t speak like this, at not a real Jewish Torah scholar. It is way way too extreme. Besides, in reading the NT, I have found a few times where Jesus called people fools.
5:29 -” If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away! It is better to lose one of your members than to have your whole body thrown into hell. 30 If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away! It is better to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go into hell.” – This is also something that a real Jewish Torah teacher wouldn’t say. It is way too extreme. Judaism is not about mortifying oneself either physically or emotionally if one does have bad thoughts or even when one carries out the sin. Judaism teaches TO DWELL on bad thoughts – either angry or lewd thoughts – is against Hashem’s will. If they just happen we work on pushing them away or better just to ignore them. It is a great mitzvah to ignore them. But if it happens it is not a sin. The sin is to dwell on them. Carrying them out is much worse. But even if someone slips and dwells on them or carries them out, Hashem says that sincere teshuva (the process of return) does the trick to restore the relationship with Hashem. We all can do what Hashem wants and He has provided all we need to carry it out as well as the tools needed to fix things that we break. Needing a messiah to fulfill Hashem’s commandments for us and to atone for us with his death is completely foreign to and overturns everything the Jewish people have been taught way before Jesus came on the scene.
There are Jewish books on ethics and character refinement that contain all of the fragments of good that appear in Matthew 5 but without the extremism and without driving people into despair that they are terrible sinners.
Maimonides does not write that Torah and commandments have been spread to the nations thanks to Christianity and Islam. He actually writes that there is no greater stumbling block than what these religions have created because they have taught people that Hashem’s commandments have been nullified. What he did write is that the one point of good that came from Christianity and Islam is that the knowledge of the concept of a messiah and the messianic age has spread all over the world so that when the true messiah finally comes the nations will realize that their fathers inherited vanity and they will recognize and accept the true messiah. I am not saying that I agree or disagree with what Maimonides wrote. I’m just telling you what he actually wrote in his magnum opus the Mishneh Torah.
Hi Sharon,
I reviewed what Maimonides wrote in the Mishneh Torah and realized I didn’t give it over to you as well as I thought I did. So I would like to quote it word for word now –
Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings and Wars, ch. 11: 4 –
“Yeshua the Nazarene who imagined he would be moshiach and was killed in court, Daniel already prophesied about him, as it is said: ‘and the children of the law-breakers of your people shall lift themselves up to establish a vision and shall stumble’. Is there any stumbling block greater than this, that all of the prophets spoke that moshiach redeems Israel and saves them, gathers in their outcasts and strengthens their commandments, and this one caused Israel to be destroyed by the sword and to disperse their remnant and to push them down, to exchange the Torah and to mislead most of the world to serve a god besides Hashem? But the thoughts of the Creator of the world – a human does not have the power to reach them, for our ways are not His ways and our thoughts are not His thoughts; and all of these matters of Yeshua the Nazarene and of this Ishmaelite who arose after him, were only in order to straighten a path for the King Moshiach and to rectify the whole world to serve Hashem together as it is said, “For then will I turn to the peoples a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of Hashem, to serve Him with one consent.’ How does this work? The whole world is already filled with the concepts of moshiach, and the concepts of the Torah and the commandments, and these things have spread to distant islands and in many peoples of uncircumcised hearts, and they debate these things and the commandments of the Torah; some say ‘these commandments were once true but they have already been nullified at this time and they were not in effect for all generations’, and some say there are hidden meanings in them [in the commandments] and they are not to be understood in their plain sense and moshiach has already come and revealed their hidden meanings. And when the King Moshiach truly arises and he will succeed, be uplifted and raised up high, immediately they will all return and know that their fathers inherited falsehood and that their prophets and their fathers misled them.”
“will be sent to fiery hell” – Jewish people just don’t speak like this,”
“Then they will be led away to the fiery abyss and to the torture and to the prison where they will be confined forever….”
(1 Enoch 10-11)
The book of Enoch was rejected by the Sanhedrin and by the Jewish people. Whoever wrote it, it is not considered as a part of the authentic Torah tradition. My point was that a true Torah scholar and teacher would not tell people “if you call someone a fool you will be sent to fiery hell”. They do teach however, that it is a sin to hurt people with words. And one who HABITUALLY shames another in public has no share in the world to come, unless they do teshuva. Jesus himself in the gospels called others fools a few times.
Hi Alan & Concerned Reader,
Thank you very much for a detailed explanation below. It is truly enlightening to learn the Jewish position on the teachings of the NT.
Also my apologies for wrongly quoting Maimonides -thanks for the detailed explanation on that.
Take care.
Hi Sharon, I also misunderstood what Maimonides actually wrote which is why I decided to quote the entire passage. I think Concerned Reader gave a very nice explanation of what he meant. The best way to learn Torah is from people who really know like Rav B., Rav Skobac, or from books that come with good recommendations, not from an anonymous guy like myself on a blog. And I thank you very much!
On 4/2/17, 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources
I’m aware of the distinction between fences, rabbinic enactment, and Torah law. My point was merely that Jesus” unique strict view has negative consequences beyond being an addition to the Torah.
Eve adds “you shall not touch” to G-d’s command not to eat.
Oh ok CR. I’m very happy and impressed that you were already aware. I get what you meant now. I believe the Midrash blames Adam for making up the new fence and he taught it to Eve without saying the he made it up as a fence, and when the snake pushed Eve against the tree (also Midrash) and she didn’t die she began to doubt Hashem’s command and threat of dying. If I’m mistaken about this Midrash maybe someone will correct me.
On 3/31/17, 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources
Hey everybody, I’ve been busy tied up with other more important matters, but I do want to follow this discussion.
There are 2 problems –
1. In Matthew 5, Jesus says whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. But we see from the written Torah (Deuteronomy 24:2-3) that it is permitted to marry a divorced woman.
Jesus contradicts the Torah and all of the sages since Moses.
2. In Matthew 19:9, Jesus says: “Now I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another commits adultery.”
Jesus is saying that if someone divorces his wife for any reason other than the wife being immoral and then he marries another woman, he is guilty of adultery.
According to every sage and Sanhedrin since Moses, such a man would not be guilty of adultery. This is not in the written Torah and it is not in the oral Torah. The Jewish people have never known of such a view even to this day. If a person accepts Jesus’ ruling, they believe that Jesus is above the law; he is above the rules of legislating Jewish law.
Yeshua is not writing Halacha, rather this is his oral teaching on existing Halacha.
CP,
I really and truly tried my best to be as clear as possible – especially in my last post about the “2 problems”. I don’t know how to get any clearer than that, I really don’t. I guess we’ll drop it.
CP. We are saying Jesus violated the law by adding, and it cant be interpreted away as some kind of fence.
Jesus was claiming that people who remarry are in sin via adultery. He added a commandment.
The Church even admits that this was a new dispensation. It is a rule that has had negative impacts throughout the history of the Church with practical legal implications, even today.
Imagine how different the story of Henry the 8th would have gone if people in Church would have accepted the Torah’s view of Divorce, and not Jesus’ law. There would probably have been an annulment without so many beheadings.
Your Jesus is a test tube Jesus, not the one who served as an inspiration to billions of people whose ideas had severe implications in law.
He was a man, and not a perfect one. He sinned, ate, slept, needed the Mikveh, etc. I dont mean to be harsh, but you are spinning like a top trying to defend Jesus, when you admit he was only a man.
I can admit when Moses made mistakes. Why do you persist in trying to justify Jesus as having not erred?
You have brought up putting away a wife for burning dinner. (Cite your source with folio #)
Renember that a divorce requires a beit din to judge. “Burning dinner” could well be a turn of phrase covering any aspect of spousal interaction in domestic activities. Also, keeping a kitchen is not simply cooking in Torah context, but involves the mountain of details in keeping a kosher home. This suggests that you are reading the section wrong.
CR, it’s tractate Gittin 90a and you’re guess at the meaning is very good, I think it is correct. You will see there how much the sages encouraged people to try to stay married and make it work. Divorce is a last resort especially if there are kids involved.
On 3/31/17, 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources
CR,
” the mountain of details in keeping a kosher home. ”
It looks like a mountain before you do it, it’s actually like a mole hill after a little while of doing it. After a while, it’s rare when you need to ask a question to a rav. There are actually very few laws you need to keep in mind to run a regular household kosher kitchen.
“CP. We are saying Jesus violated the law by adding, and it cant be interpreted away as some kind of fence.”
A Beit Hillel Pharisee (or a Beit Shammai one) wouldn’t have unlawfully added laws or stringent fences in the way we see Jesus do it in the gospels, laws/fences that are so so so stringent as to ruin people’s lives so badly, which is what Jesus’s rulings would have done to the Jewish people. This is why my hunch is that if Jesus was a really a card-carrying Beit Hillel Pharisee then these statements in the gospels were redactions.
Alan, myself (being a gentile,) it looks like a mountain of details lol. I’m sure being raised with it, you wouldnt think twice.
I took a couple classes in college about law, so we had to read briefs of hypothetical cases. I noticed that Talmud reads a lot like a case brief with vague and hyperbollic language.
“CR, I was raised secular, G-dless, no Jewish education. Zero. We never ever went to shul not even on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. I statted keeping the commandments when I was 25. When I started I had zero experience with any of it.
On 3/31/17, 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources
Did you ever take a look at the user’s manual for your car, how thick it is, how many details it has in it? It’s seems so overwhelming. Same with your computer’s user manual. But we all know that for day-to-day driving and computer use we don’t even think about the manuals. The manuals are for unusual emergency situations or we go to a mechanic or technician who will guide us from time to time. Living a day-to-day Jewish life according to halacha is really quite similar. The books look overwhelming, but day-to-day living is really pretty simple and not burdensome at all. Hashem made the laws so that everyone can do it, not just those who are detail-oriented or super spiritual.
Just give up CP, the guy is a fraud and we gave enough evidences. You just don’t want to accept the truth…
“Rather this is his oral teaching on existing halacha”
It’s against the rules of halachic legislation to give an oral teaching over as binding that doesn’t have a source in the written torah, was unknown as an opinion in the oral torah and didn’t go through the Sanhedrin for a final decision and vote.
On 3/31/17, 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources
Iland Silver,
This has been my point. Yeshua’s oral teachings are being deemed invalid by the Oral Torah and used as a proof against him to say he was not any kind of first advent of Messiah. Considering the Oral Torah wasn’t written down at the time, I think there is an over zealous use of later Halacha in an attempt to dismiss Yeshua.
CP,
This is my last post before shabbat. I don’t know how Ilan Silver got there. I guess it was because I posted from a handheld and went through gmail. I never post using the handheld. Oh well. English name is Alan, hebrew Ilan (EE-lahn) Silver last name.
“This has been my point. Yeshua’s oral teachings are being deemed invalid by the Oral Torah and used as a proof against him to say he was not any kind of first advent of Messiah. Considering the Oral Torah wasn’t written down at the time, I think there is an over zealous use of later Halacha in an attempt to dismiss Yeshua.”
The written Oral torah is just a short-hand record of the Oral torah, if Jesus’ opinion on divorce appeared anytime from Moses until his day, it would appear somewhere in the Mishnah or Talmud at least in the name of another sage. But it doesn’t. That’s why my hunch is we don’t know who’s teachings these were.
Shabbat shalom.
With what you said, I think we have another good reason not to accept Yeshua. People don’t have second advent. They don’t come back in the clouds and we can actually dismiss your messiah, as he did not fulfill any of the things the messiah was supposed to fulfill.
CP, sorry, but I am quite annoyed. Every time we arrive with a valid objection to your messiah, you dismiss it as insufficient. You don’t give any evidence nor reason why he should be considered the slightest as messiah. This has become ridiculous, one thing after another, we arrive and show you why any reasonable person should not accept him. You keep on finding lame excuses on why it does not matter what we are saying. The slightest unknown is used as an excuse. In this case, maybe there was an unwritten book that got lost or maybe G-d changed his mind, but your precious messiah could not have been wrong! Why did you come here if you are unwilling to listen in the first place?
RT,
Your comment eerily reminds me of Job’s wife’s comment (2:9)
*hebe gebees
Not meaning any offense
“Not meaning any offense”
You didn’t say anything wrong at all.
I think there is an over zealous use of later Halacha in an attempt to dismiss Yeshua.
Earlier halachot were much more strict (as outlined by the appocrypha, DSS, etc.) Non rabbinic halacha would not help Jesus. Even the Samaritans rejected Jesus’ claims.
Not even Philo or Josephus (hellenists) accepted Jesus as the messiah.
Jesus is rejected for the same biblical reasons Shabbatai Tzvi, the Rebbe, and Jacob Frank were all rejected. None of the unambiguous promises about the messiah, or messianic age came about via these men.
If you believe that Jesus’ death had redemptive value, you have to realize that such a concept has no effect if you are not changing behavior. Nothing about Jesus’ death has any real impact.
CP. why would you quote a book that neither the Church nor the Synagogue regard as authentic?
Because this what was being read by the people who wrote the NT. This gives us a glimpse into the cultural context at the time of Yeshua. They wrote in this context, not the context of hundreds of years later. As you well know the Christian Bible, the Tanach and Talmud were not codified & canonized for hundreds of years after Yeshua in completely different environments (a Greek/Roman gentile world and a Jewish world without a Temple or a Country).
IMHO; this is excatly where these concepts come from that Alan objects to because they are not mainstream modern Judaism.
There is talk of fiery hell in the Talmud but only when it’s really warranted, not for just calling someone ‘fool’. This is what I was objecting to- the overkill. If a person gets hell for just calling someone fool then how can he live life without being completely terrified and hopeless? This is what I was objecting to. Do you understand what I mean?
On 4/2/17, 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources
Alan,
Surely you don’t think Yeshua is teaching people go to hell for calling someone a fool. Yeshua is addressing the attitudes of the heart, the same attitudes which if entertained and not dealt with end up being the real thing.
There are a number of Orthodox Rabbis who don’t have a problem with Yeshua’s teachings because they understand what he was teaching.
CP said, “There are a number of Orthodox Rabbis who don’t have a problem with Yeshua’s teachings because they understand what he was teaching.”
Who CP? What proof do you have? None wouod be my guess, because no rabbis you could possibly list believe in Jesus.
Like I said, and you haven’t yet addressed it, Even Samaritans and hellenistic Jews (who had nothing to do with rabbinic assumptions or alleged bias against Jesus) rejected Jesus.
If we look at the pool of Jesus’ Jewish followers, all we have are some illiterate fishernen, Jesus’ brother, some zealots, unnamed Sadducees, a betrayer who killed himself, and a man from Tarsus who never knew Jesus.
None of these men have descendants alive who carried on Jesus’ teaching, or identify as religious Jews.
The gospels are annonymous compositions, and we have no record of any of the Jews among the sectarian groups (who rejected pharisaic assumptions) accepting Jesus either.
This means that your hypothetical Jewish (but not rabbinic) cultural context is mostly a creation of your own mind.
Its also irrelevant, because even the few Torah Observant followers of Jesus were erased from history. There are no Jewish descendants of the Jerusalem Christians.
I hear what you are saying about not just resting on Talmud blindly, but you must realize, I am not resting on religious rabbinic teadition.
I say this with all respect, but you need to quit fooling yourself into thinking that rabbinic Jews somehow “don’t understand” their own culture, history, or their own covenant obligations. THEY ARE THE ONLY LIVING MODEL TO GO OFF OF.
The only people who can actually teach you how to live as a Jew would live, how to speak languages a Jew would speak, are rabbinic Jews.
All of the “Jewish” things messianics try to do to reignite a Jewish Jesus are rabbinic in origin. There are no kippot, Seders, or Hannukah details in the written Bible.
I already illustrated for you how many rabbis understood Jesus the way modern academia does, centuries beforehand, BUT NONE OF THESE RABBIS BELIEVE HE IS THE MESSIAH. Invoking them accomplishes nothing.
In fact, The greatest Jewish polemic against Jesus was written by a man who opposed rabbinic tradition very strongly, the Kataite Isaac Troki.
I dont mean to be so blunt with you CP, but I am blunt because I was once where you are at now, searching for the “true Jesus.”
I listened to all those steven allen lectures (when they were still New!) I read dual covenant, ten tribes, etc. BUNK. ITS ALL BUNK. IT HOLDS NO WATER.
You remind me of a 2012 conspiracy theorist, no offense.
When everyone in popular culture thought 2012 was going to be the “end,” the only people nobody would actually trust, ask, or listen to were the actual living descendants of the ancient Maya people (who actually developed the calander.)
You are like those advocates of pop culture from 2012. You are willing to entertain many fantastical theories of a hypothetical lost Jewish cultural context, but you refuse to hear what the actual living Jews among you are telling you about why Jesus just doesnt fit.
CP, you can spend a lifetime trying to recover a hypothetical Jesus (which will only ever be an image built by men’s minds,) or you can be content with the Torah that all 3 of the Abrahamic teaditions rely on.
Concerned Reader,
Thank you so much!
I would like to say a word about rabbinic tradition. The following is based on what I learned from a great teacher and torah scholar Rabbi Zvi Lampel as well as from my own experience learning Talmud –
The goal of the Talmud was to determine the original Sinaic Divine Will. Most of the data from Sinai remained intact. This data were Hashem’s instructions that He gave to Moses who then taught it to Joshua who taught it to the elders, who taught it to the prophets, down through the times of the Mishnah and Talmud. The data the Talmud deals with also includes the decrees enacted by each generation’s Sanhedrin starting with the Sanhedrin of Moses (e.g. protective fences and rabbinic enactments such as the holiday of Purim, Hanukah, and others). The number of issues debated in the Talmud are really miniscule compared to the amount of information that there is no dispute over. But some data either got lost or became unclear throughout the long and turbulent history of the Jewish people. The goal of the Talmud was to record both those data for which there was no dispute as well as to make an honest attempt – to the best of human ability – to reconstruct the original Sinaic Divine Will as well as to reconstruct the decrees of each generation’s Sanhedrin that became lost or unclear. The reconstruction was a best attempt and often remained with some doubt hanging over it. Sometimes the final picture was reasonable enough to live with and sometimes they had to leave it unresolved. The sages of the Talmud were sincere people who readily admitted mistakes and retracted their opinions when they were presented with new data that they were previously unaware of.
Alan,
Surely you don’t think Yeshua is teaching people go to hell for calling someone a fool. Yeshua is addressing the attitudes of the heart, the same attitudes which if entertained and not dealt with end up being the real thing.
There are a number of Orthodox Rabbis who don’t have a problem with Yeshua’s teachings because they understand what he was teaching.”
CP,
I would like to just respond to one thing – “and whoever says ‘fool’ will be brought to fiery hell’ – You say this is not meant to be understood according to its simple and plain meaning. On what basis do you insist that Yeshua meant this to be understood ONLY on a deeper non-literal level?
CP, I was thinking about your question: “What teaching of Yeshua goes against Torah?”. How could Yeshua be a “sacrifice”. I understand that you don’t believe that Yeshua’s death was a sacrifice. What else? Do you believe that his death was for remission of sins?
“Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? ” Hebrews 9
It is clear that Jesus death was for remission of sins in all gospels “And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the[a] covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Matthew 26.
47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.” Luke 24
This is my blood of the[c] covenant, which is poured out for many,” he said to them. Mark 14
“Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. John
Following
CP, can you answer my question?
Numbers ch. 20 –
10 And Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock, and he said unto them: ‘Hear now, YE REBELS; are we to bring you forth water out of this rock?’ 11 And Moses lifted up his hand, and smote the rock with his rod twice; and water came forth abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their cattle. {S} 12 And the LORD said unto Moses and Aaron: ‘Because ye believed not in Me, to sanctify Me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them.’
The classical commentators struggle over what Moses did so bad in this episode that he lost the privilege of entering the promised land. If I remember correctly, one of the main opinions is that Moses yelled at his fellow Jews and harshly called them REBELS. Even though this was one slip-up that Moses made in terms of being too harsh with his people as opposed to the thousands of times he lovingly cared for them and ALWAYS stuck up for them, in Hashem’s wisdom, he was barred for entering his beloved land.
If this was Moses’ punishment for speaking too harsh to his people one time, I can only imagine what Hashem thinks of Jesus’s hate-filled excoriating of his fellow Jews in the gospels on top of his consistently not sticking up for them (except for one time ‘forgive them Father for they know not what they do’, unless these words were a later addition to the gospels). He consistently did not stick up for his fellow Jews before the Romans.
You want a good laugh…. Jesus, as per the new testament is the spiritual rock in the wilderness.. (1 Cor 10:4). G-d, as per Christian thinking, told Moses to speak to that rock because Jesus was not supposed to be struck twice. G-d got angry at Moses, because he messed his allegory of Jesus being that rock, and that’s for that reasons that G-d was angry with Moses. Hitting once represented the crucifixion, but the second time, we only have to speak to G-d to have our “water” (sins forgiven), we do not have to sacrifice again Jesus.
What a bunch of non-sense!
If Paul said it in Corinthians, it must be true! Thanks RT, I didn’t know about this!
And even though the Jewish people weren’t easy for Moses, they gave him a hard time sometimes, but they were his sheep, his children, and he didn’t turn on them no matter what they did even if it meant that Moses would allow himself to be blotted out of Hashem’s book. When I read how Jesus, the “true shepherd”, treats his sheep and children in the gospels I get so sick to my stomach that this is what most of the world thinks it means to be a true shepherd.
Alan says,
“CP,
I would like to just respond to one thing – “and whoever says ‘fool’ will be brought to fiery hell’ – You say this is not meant to be understood according to its simple and plain meaning. On what basis do you insist that Yeshua meant this to be understood ONLY on a deeper non-literal level?”
Alan, the way you worded your question is fantastic! You ask “On what basis…?”. The basis certainty isn’t Halacha; the context of the ‘Sermon on the Mount’ makes this obvious. Remember when the adversary accused Job? Did he accuse Job’s observance of Halacha? – No, he was faultless in that. Wasn’t the accusation of Job observing Halacha for ulterior motives?
How about the student who is told to sit down, he complies but whispers to his friend; “I still standing up on the inside”.
Imho the reason ou have troube with this is because you’re looking at this from the perspective of Halacha; for example you say if lusting in your heart is considered adultery, then it makes lusting a stonable offense. This is not at all what Yeshua is teaching. What Yeshua IS teaching is what Hashem desires in our innermost beings rather than only what Halacha requires. Yeshua IS teaching; Hashem looks at the heart.
This was the basis for the false accusation of Job – where was his heart? Why did he observe Halacha?
CP, I agree with what you said about Iyov. And I agree that Matthew 5 is not about what is permitted vs. prohibted according to halacha (at least not most of it). What I’m asking about this one statement is even though it’s non-halachic, how can you know for sure that Jesus didn’t mean what he said when he said “whoever calls someone ‘fool’ will go to fiery hell”? If you’re saying that non-halachic statements are not to be understood literally, where do you get this idea from? There are tons of non-halachic statements in the gospels that are meant to be understood literally. The statement “I am Jesus” is not halachic, but you can’t claim that it’s only meant to be understood on a non-literal level.
On 4/4/17, 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources
Alan,
It is difficult to take things purely literal when one doesn’t literally read the literal words which were likely spoken in Armaic, translated into Greek and now read in English. Below is a literal translation of the verse you address:
“…. I say to you, that every one who is angry at his brother without cause, shall be in danger of the judgment, and whoever may say to his brother, Empty fellow! shall be in danger of the sanhedrim, and whoever may say, Rebel! shall be in danger of the gehenna of the fire.”
(Matt 5:2 YLT)
Above we can see Yeshua is not saying a person who calls his brother a fool (empty fellow) is going to firey hell but rather they are putting themselves in “danger” of going to a fiery hell. As I’m sure you would agree, this is a perfect example of how thoughts lead to actions and small actions to a worse actions which results in major consequences.
CP,
If this is what Jesus actually said, I don’t see anything wrong with it. How do I know that this translation is what Jesus actually said but the translation I got from the NET is not correct? Last week you said the NET was a very good translation.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/mat/5/3/t_conc_934022
This is the translation word per word from the greek… You may check the meaning of each word.
Thanks RT. I didn’t know about this site.
Alan,
The NET is a very good translation, but not perfect – it is still a translation and an electic translation at that.
“How do I know that this translation is what Jesus actually said ….”
Lol! Welcome to the world of NT textual criticism. The modern NT does not draw on any one source however it is codified in the Nestlé-Aland Greek text. But translations do not slavishly follow this text, (some more than others) and utilize the Textus Recptus, Targums and a collection of discovered ancient texts. The Nestlé-Aland relies heavily on two of the oldest and most complete texts from the 4th century discovered in the 1800’s (iirc), however even it is still an electic text. This all may all sound very weird, but the Tanach is not different in this respect, the only difference being is it’s codification happened so long ago that variant readings are virtual non-existent, that is until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
CP,
Are you saying that the same level of uncertainty exists about what Isaiah, Jeremiah and the other prophets said and wrote vs. the uncertainly that exists about what Jesus actually said?
CP,
1. Are you saying that the same level of uncertainty exists about what Isaiah, Jeremiah and the other prophets said and wrote vs. the uncertainly that exists about what Jesus actually said?
2. Why do you think Jesus allowed himself to call his brothers “empty fellows/fools” even though he was putting himself in danger of the sanhedrin? Perhaps we can say that because he called his brothers “empty fellows/fools” he was responsible for his own condemnation by the sanhedrin according to his own teachings?
I really don’t want to be a nudnik, but I just want to point out to people who might not already know that Jesus probably taught primarily in Aramaic or Hebrew. If G-d thought Jesus’ own words were so important why do we not have a record of the Aramaic or Hebrew words that came out of his mouth or pen? Why did G-d let Jesus’ very own words disappear only to be replaced with various Greek versions? We don’t even know if the Greek is a translation or an adaptation of what Jesus actually said in Aramaic or Hebrew. But why do we still have Moses’ words exactly as he said them in Hebrew? Why do we have Joshua’s and Isaiah’s, Jeremiah’s and all of the prophets’ prophecies in their own actual words – the words they wrote themselve, dictated to their scribe and taught to the people – the very same Hebrew words that came out of their mouths or pens? Only G-d knows where Jesus’ own Aramaic or Hebrew words are today The words we have in Jesus’ name are other people’s words. Why didn’t G-d see fit to let us see Jesus’ own words? Then at least we’d be able to judge the accuracy of the Greek and other translations as we can do with the Tanach and it’s various translations.