1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources

Sinai and Sabbath, for what Purpose? – A Response to Charles

In response to – https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2015/04/13/facing-scripture-iv-a-response-to-charles/#comment-18628

Charles

I apologize for my delay in responding to you and I hope that your relative is doing well.

You seem to be under the impression that your comments are not welcome here. Please be assured that this is not the case. I would appreciate if you would do more to understand what I am actually driving at – but either way, your comments are welcome – if they weren’t I would simply block them.

Your comments are welcome but your warnings – I wouldn’t say that they are not welcome but I will say that they are useless. Anyone could issue “warnings” and call them “sober”. The purpose of this blog is to hammer things out through open discussion and those who participate in this discussion generally don’t care much for unsubstantiated warnings.

About Isaac Lichtenstein – Your entitling him with the honorific “Chief Rabbi of Hungary” simply fit into a pattern of missionary dishonesty concerning converts to their belief – I can accept that it was an honest mistake – but you should look to the honesty of missionary descriptions – both of their friends and of their opponents – starting from the Christian Scriptures.

Now let us get to the core of our difference. You argue that your “seeking to identify” the One who issues the commandments is not a violation of Deuteronomy 4:15. Charles, you are not “seeking to identify.” Why would you need to “seek to identify”? Didn’t David give us more than enough identifying information in his Psalms? If you seek to worship the God of Israel you can look into David’s heart and you will know Him. And David’s heart is an open book with 150 chapters.

Your “seeking to identify” is also not an abstract exercise to determine if God could theoretically incarnate Himself in a human body or if He has done so at some point in history. Your “seeking to identify” is an attempt to justify a specific worship. And it is this very worship that God is commanding us to avoid in this passage in Deuteronomy.

You say that you do not claim that Israel has no voice, merely that rabbinic Judaism is not that voice. You go on to quote various passages which speak of the law as testimony.

Just as Scripture points to the Law as God’s witness so does Scripture explicitly identify Israel as God’s witness. In other words God is pointing to a specific group of people that go by a specific name and calling them His witnesses. You are shutting out the testimony of the only people who go by that name.

You claim that man is capable of perfection. This is contradicted by Scripture. Even angels are not capable of perfection in God’s holy eyes (Job 4:18).

You go on to say that the best of men are lighter than vanity. Here you conform to Scripture. Indeed all flesh is but grass that withers away (Isaiah 40:6). There is no reason to believe that Jesus is an exception to this Scriptural rule.

I accused you of making Sinai out to be a “pathetic joke.” You tell me that I profoundly misunderstand your position. You go on to write that the purpose of Sinai is twofold; to demonstrate God’s character and to demonstrate our woeful shortcomings.

This is Charles’ explanation of the purpose of Sinai and it is not the Scriptural explanation for the purpose of Sinai. It seems that you refer here to the general covenant of Sinai. I was referring to the specific revelation that was granted to the people as whole and the purpose of that revelation was to put the fear of God into them, to show Israel that there is no other power aside from God and who it is that they are to worship (Exodus 20:17,19; Deuteronomy 4:15,35). The Sinai revelation set the Jewish people apart from other national entities in that through this revelation did God show His closeness to them like to no other. The understanding that Israel received at Sinai stands apart from the understanding that any other nation received of God. (Deuteronomy 4:32-35).

By encouraging a worship that violates the testimony of Sinai and by giving a purpose to Sinai other than the purpose that the Author of Sinai ascribed to it – you have indeed made Sinai into a pathetic joke.

You say that the “essence of Sabbath for the heart lies only in real atonement” and you quote Leviticus 16:30-31 in support of your theory. As if the Hebrew words “Shabbat shabbaton” were only written in the context of the Day of Atonement. You seem not to have noticed that this expression is used in the context of the weekly Sabbath as well as the sabbatical year (Exodus 31:15; 35:2; Leviticus 23:3; 25:4) – and the Torah does not associate these with atonement at all.

I will take this opportunity to point out to you how it is that you manipulate the word of God. I pointed out to you how God emphasized the Sabbath. You deflected this point by attaching to the Sabbath a concept that Scripture does not connect to the Sabbath in any explicit way in order to deflect the point of the Sabbath – which is that it testifies to the great truth that all of existence is God’s creation, that Israel is sanctified by God and that the Jewish people were slaves in Egypt and that they were redeemed from there by God’s own hand (Genesis 2:3; Exodus 20:11; 31:13,17; Deuteronomy 5:15).

You further manipulate God’s word by dismissing the significance of the sequence of events described in Deuteronomy 30 verses 1 thru 10. By dismissing the sequence you eviscerate the passage. The entire thrust of the passage is that we are capable of repentance and the evidence to this is that the succeeding passage begins with the word “ki” – “because”. And the Scripture goes on to explain that the Law is not too difficult for us. If the sequence is to be ignored as you say then verses 11 thru 14 disconnect from verses 1 thru 10 while the Scriptures explicitly connect them.

In our discussion about Hosea 12:5 you try your hand at reading Rashi and the Talmud. You fare no better with these than you do with Scripture. Rashi does not put the second verb (“pleaded”) as something that Jacob did. Rashi simply provides the context for the angel’s pleading – it was when Jacob declared that he will not let the angel go unless it blessed him. Rashi goes on to describe how the angel pleaded with Jacob to relent and allow him to go without giving the blessing. Your read on the Talmud has it that there is some type of argument as to who wept before who when no such argument exists. What the Talmud is saying is that if we were to look at the verse in Hosea we could interpret things either way – we could say that the angel wept before Jacob or that Jacob wept before the angel but the Talmud concludes that when we look at the passage in Genesis we can decisively determine that it was the angel who wept before Jacob. There is no argument in the Talmud about this matter.

The Christian read on this passage in Hosea reflects the Christian resentment of one of the men who was loved by God (Deuteronomy 10:15) – as if by dismissing the father they can dismiss the testimony of his children. The entire point of the episode described in Genesis is that Jacob was victorious over the angel. What is the point of victory if the victor needs to cry and plead before the vanquished?

You asked me to cite your manipulations of Scripture. You did my work for me but to recap – the fact that you attribute a purpose to Sinai other than the purpose attributed to it by God, the fact that you attribute a purpose to Sabbath other than the ones attributed to it by God and the fact that you dismiss the sequence of the passage in Deuteronomy 30:1-10 are three prime examples.

You write that if we reject God’s only remedy we will surely perish. You cite the brass serpent as an example of a remedy that God provided. Perhaps you are aware that the brass serpent eventually became an object that enabled rebellion against God (2Kings 18:4). Applying a remedy for one situation to a situation where God never applied it is not “following God.” God provided the only remedy from our troubles and that is repentance, returning to the Law of Moses (Deuteronomy 4:30; 30:2). Indeed, if we reject God’s only remedy we shall perish.

You ask if it is proper to call those rejected permanently by the title – “God’s children.” I agree with you here as well. Those who were cut off from the body of the nation such as the followers of Jesus and other false prophets that preceded them (Ezekiel 13:9) cannot lay claim to being God’s children. But those who were allowed to continue to carry the name “Israel” through fire and water can be confident that they are indeed God’s children. – Yes, if they will stray after the idols of the nations and do not repent they can be cut off as well, but it is to those who carry the name Israel that God’s promises are valid.

You ask about the situation when the majority of the congregation and the accredited priests and prophets were apostate what criteria could I apply to judge and determine if God had spoken or not. I answered this question many times but I will do so again now for your benefit. God always had a remnant that was loyal to Him and to His Law. This remnant is identified not by the titles that they hold or by their social connections but by their loyalty to the inheritance of Jacob (Deuteronomy 33:4).

You ask “what better means than apparently hallowed traditions to ensnare the unwary.” You quote several irrelevant Scriptural citations to support your argument. You seem to have forgotten the relevant Scripture – Daniel 11:14. Setting up a false vision is the means that God told us that will be used to cause stumbling.

The comparison of one kingdom to gold, another to silver, then copper Iron and pottery is explained very clearly by the Scripture itself – Daniel 1:37-43. No need for further speculation unless you don’t take the word of God seriously.

You encourage all “objective” students to study the series of singular pronouns in Daniel 7 verses 13 and 14 and decide carefully whether the reference is to an exalted individual or a nation. Charles, here we have Scripture itself giving us an explanation of the vision. You want to ignore Scriptures explanation and focus on the “series of singular pronouns.” That is your prerogative but do not think that your calling such an exercise “objective” will actually make it “objective.”

As for Psalm 2:12 – If the correct translation is “son” then there is no question that it refers to the son of verse 7 and I never disputed that. What I did say is that the kissing does not necessarily signify worship. Even the word “prayer” is used for submission to humans (Isaiah 45:14). It is indeed a foundation of quicksand to build your theology on this reference while ignoring God’s explicit and clear commandments.

You encourage private reverent introspection and this is indeed an important aspect of our walk before God. But to turn to private introspection while closing our ears to the direct words of God will not bring us any closer to His truth.

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

Reflections on an Alleged Resurrection – Three Letters from Jim

Lion,

You have been insistent that the resurrection is an event that proves that Jesus was the Messiah. I have argued elsewhere that the resurrection is irrelevant to the Messiah. But, for your sake, I will take up several objections to the resurrection. For the ease of reading, I will address these problems in separate posts. In this one I will take up the question of its credibility.

The question of whether or not the resurrection happened is difficult. Certainly, we do not wish to argue that God cannot resurrect someone. It is not beyond the realm of possibility. However, that does not mean it happened. The problem with knowing whether or not it happened is that it was a private event. Jesus revealed himself to a relative few.

Complicating matters, the gospels are written in such a way to earn the reader’s sympathy. One sees things through the eyes of a believer. The telling of the story inclines one to accept it, because of the perspective from which it is written. It is as if the reader is there with the disciples when Jesus comes back. To help us examine the credibility of the claims of the NT, I would like us to alter our perspective for a moment. Let us separate ourselves from the perspective of the writer, and consider ourselves as people who lived during the time of Jesus. Let us figure out what the resurrection would have looked like to us as people who did not witness for ourselves the resurrection.

For this thought experiment, we will assume that we have heard of Jesus. Perhaps we have even heard him speak. Perhaps we have even been moved by his teaching. According to Matthew, the Jewish leadership understood that Jesus was to be resurrected after three days, so we will assume that we know of this claim. We have heard that Jesus was to return three days after his death.

So, here we are, wondering if this man just might be the Messiah. To our horror, he is put to death, a brutal death. This saddens us, for we thought that he just might be the one for whom we had been waiting. Now we see that he was just another false claimant to the throne. But wait! We remember that he is supposed to come back after three days.

And so we wait expectantly, wondering if it just might be true. Will he come back?

Since we are not in the inner circle, three days come and go for us uneventfully. According to the NT, Jesus only appears to a few on the third day and the event is not publicized. You and I have heard nothing about it. We continue about our business.

Then, 47 days later, suddenly we hear news. His disciples claim that Jesus returned just as he said he would. I do not know about you, but I am wary at this point. He was supposed to come back on the third day. We are only hearing about it on the 50th. This seems rather suspicious. But, if you are willing to hear them out, so am I. So we ask them to take us to Jesus. And they tell us that he ascended to be with the Father ten days prior to their announcing his resurrection. He is not here anymore.

This is the story according to the NT. It is not until day 50, not day 3, that the resurrection of Jesus is announced. And then, he is not around to prove the claim. My question to you is this: do you find their claim credible?

Before you answer, consider the way a magician performs an illusion. He tells you that he is going to turn an egg into a dove. Then he puts the egg behind a handkerchief, a veil through which you cannot see. All you can see is movement, while he distracts you with patter. Then, as if by magic, from behind the veil, emerges a dove. So, do you believe that this was actual magic?

Of course you do not. You know that the reason the magician veils his actions is because he is not practicing actual magic. He distracts you and obscures his actions while he swaps the egg for a pigeon. And while you may be delighted by the illusion if it is performed well, you do not believe for a moment that you saw actual magic.

With the resurrection, things are the same. There is a remarkable claim made, but everything happens behind a veil. You are told that Jesus came back on time. But the event was private. It was not publicized until 47 days after the event was predicted to happen. Moreover, at that time, there was no Jesus. At least with a magician, you get a pigeon. With the resurrection, you do not get Jesus at all.

This is like a magician who forgot the pigeon and tries to fake it. He flutters the veil quickly and looks up like the pigeon just flew away. He tries to inspire amazement in the audience talking about how quickly the pigeon flew for having just been transmuted from an egg. He says that he’s never seen the trick go so well. None of the audience sees the bird. Just so, they never saw Jesus.

So, is the claim that Jesus was resurrected credible? No.

Jim

Continuing to contemplate the resurrection.

I have already argued that it is not a credible event. There is no reason to believe it. Now, I would like to argue that Jesus cannot be taken as a prophet, precisely because of the promise of the resurrection.

According to Matthew 12.38, some Pharisees and scribes approached Jesus and asked him for a sign. Inasmuch as Jesus seems to claim special knowledge through revelation, this is a reasonable request. Jesus uses it as an opportunity to attack them, as is his way. Jesus does not like to be questioned. He expects one to just take his word for it.

However, he does give them a sign, if in a surly manner. Basically, he says that he will come back from the dead after three days and three nights. So now, the Jewish people have a test. The only question is whether or not Jesus fulfills the sign that he offered them.

Now a note about signs: a sign is something observable. If one cannot see a sign, then the sign is not a sign. If I tell you that I am a police officer, the sign of my being one is my badge and identification. But they are not signs unless I show them to you. If I tell you I am a police officer and that I have a badge in my pocket but that you cannot examine it, you are not likely to take my word for it. I have offered you no proof by claiming that the proof is in my pocket where you cannot see it.

With that in mind, let us consider what happens. Jesus is supposed to have come back from the dead. At that point, the only way to fulfill the sign and his word is to present himself to the Pharisees. This is his responsibility. Instead he skulks about, hiding for forty days until he rises, like Romulus, to the heavens.

It is the testimony of the NT that Jesus never fulfilled the sign. Deuteronomy 18.22 tells us what we are to make of this: “If the prophet will speak in the Name of HaShem and that thing will not occur and not come about–that is the word that HaShem has not spoken; with willfulness has the prophet spoken it, you should not fear him.” Jesus prophesies, but his prophecies do not come about. He promises a sign and does not fulfill it. We are to reject such a prophet.

Keep in mind, even the NT acknowledges that Jesus did not present himself. This is why the Church has created a new definition of faith, which is believing what it says without proof. (See Jesus’ treatment of Thomas. “Blessed are those who have not seen, etc.”) Faith in the NT means taking the NT’s word for it.

Very frequently, critics of Christianity cite Jesus’ failure to return in the lifetime of his contemporaries as a false prophecy. And certainly they are correct. But according to the NT, his failed prophecies begin earlier than that. Jesus told people that he would return after three days, and then never came to them and showed them. He just disappeared.

As I pointed out, then, he never fulfilled the sign, even if he did come back, because it was not observable. It is as if he said that he was a police officer, but he cannot show you his badge just now. Even if he did return from the dead, he did not fulfill the sign. So, we are not to listen to him.

Jim

Continuing my remarks on the resurrection:

Let us assume that the resurrection did take place. And let us imagine that Jesus did present himself to the Pharisees. Would this have been enough to establish him as a true prophet and the Messiah?

The Torah system does not rely solely upon miracles. As R’ Blumenthal recently spoke about, miracles by themselves do not prove anything within the Torah system. Deuteronomy 13 tells us that there may be false prophets who are able to perform signs and wonders.

Before pressing on, we must note something here: the Torah does not differentiate in the magnitude of the miracle. The Torah does not say that if one heals the sick, that’s pretty good, but if he raises the dead, then the prophet is certainly a true prophet. There is no ranking of miracles. The Torah is about to apply a test to the prophet, but that test does not relate to the difficulty of the miracle.

Within the Torah system, which you acknowledge as having been given by God, the prophet is not entirely validated by his signs or wonders. The Torah says that if the prophet should say, “Let us follow gods of others that you did not know and we shall worship them,” they should not be heeded (v. 3). In fact, this prophet is to be stoned. Deuteronomy 13 makes clear that one is to follow HaShem alone. “HaShem, your God, shall you follow and Him shall you fear; His commandments shall you observe and to His voice shall you hearken; Him shall you serve and to Him shall you cleave” (v.5).

Here is where Jesus runs into another problem. Even if the resurrection story were credible, which it is not, and even if he had presented himself to the Pharisees as promised, which he did not, if Jesus claimed divinity, he is not to be heeded. The remarkable nature of the supposed resurrection does not grant license to worship him. Deuteronomy is clear that one is to worship HaShem alone, and it does not allow for a new understanding of him, as has been discussed regarding Deuteronomy 4.

If Jesus claimed to be divine, then he was a god that the Jewish people did not know. They did not receive a revelation of Jesus. In fact, Deuteronomy 13 is making quite clear that one’s devotion is to Hashem alone. One must keep His laws and serve Him. The perversion of those laws advocated by Jesus, by turning Pesach into a day about himself, for example, is another violation of these conditions. Jesus ends up failing the test of the prophet in two ways then, and must be viewed as a seducer.

The resurrection, therefore, if it had happened, would be interesting. By itself, however, it would not vindicate Jesus. He would not be granted carte blanche to teach whatever he wanted. He must not teach others to worship him. The magnitude of the sign or wonder does not give license to devote oneself to anyone other than HaShem. If Jesus claimed to be divine, then his resurrection becomes irrelevant. It is known by his message that he is a false prophet. And, being a false prophet, he is certainly not the Messiah either.

The appeal to the resurrection has failed three ways, then. One, the claim is not credible. Two, Jesus did not fulfill the conditions of the resurrection to make it a sign. Three, even if he had resurrected, if he advocated worship of himself, he is in violation of Torah and is not to be heeded. One’s faith just cannot rest upon the resurrection.

Jim

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