Slander:

Posted on May 21, 2014 by yourphariseefriend

Slander:

  • The dissemination of untruths with the express purpose of defaming another person or a group of people.

The Christian Scriptures present a caricature of the Pharisees which is untrue. Here is a brief list of Christian definitions of the Jewish sect of Pharisees which is the forerunner of Orthodox Judaism. These definitions are based on the Christian Scriptures.

http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/pharisee.htm

http://biblehub.com/topical/p/pharisees.htm

http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/pharisees.html

http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/dictionaries/dict_meaning.php?source=1&wid=T0002926

http://www.bible-history.com/pharisees/

If you read the literature of the Pharisees, and there is quite a bit of it, you will realize that this caricature is a pack of lies.

You have two choices. You can accept the definition of the Pharisees presented by their own writings and you will then realize that the gospels have nothing to do with truth and a lot to do with petty hatred. Or you can accept the definition of the Pharisees presented by their theological opponents. But then I will ask you to be consistent, and accept the definition of Jesus as presented by his theological opponents. You see, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

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

Posted in General | 57 Comments

And With Kindness

Posted on May 19, 2014 by yourphariseefriend

And With Kindness

 

“I will betroth you to Me forever, I will betroth you to Me with righteousness, with justice, with kindness and with mercy. I will betroth you to Me with faithfulness and you will know Hashem” (Hosea 2:21,22)

 

In this week’s haftora (Hosea 2:1-22) we learn about God’s ultimate goal for Israel. The Prophet begins by describing the unfaithfulness of Israel; how we strayed after idols and foreign powers. The Prophet goes on to tell us how God will take everything away from us and we will still seek after those strange forces that we see as the source of our blessing. But this search will be futile. We will come to realize that those forces which attracted us with offers of wealth were simply mirages. We will come to the recognition that every blessing comes from God and that there is no other source of goodness.

 

God will then bind us to Him with the bond of betrothal. We will stand in a relationship with God that binds us to Him and Him to us in a bond that will never be broken. And this bond will be a bond of faithfulness, a bond that leads to the ultimate closeness with God; a closeness that is described as “knowing God.”

 

But the knowledge of God is preceded by righteousness, justice, kindness and mercy. We need to be imbued with these qualities in order to be able to stand in this eternal relationship with God.

 

From the context of the passage it would seem that God will grant us these qualities of justice and kindness through the suffering of exile. In our suffering we will not only learn of the futility of serving any other power aside from God. We will also learn the futility of what these powers represent; and these idols and foreign powers represent the exact opposite of righteousness, justice, kindness and mercy.

 

Any entity aside from God that demands our heart in worship to itself represents greed, self-centeredness and injustice. Even when we are free from idolatry, we may still be tainted with the negative qualities that the idols represent. Under the confusing influence of our own self-interest, one may attempt to serve God with wickedness, injustice, selfishness and cruelty. Our bias prevents us from identifying our activities and attitudes as wickedness, but that is how we may be approaching God.

 

In the end our hearts will be opened to recognize the futility of wickedness, the emptiness of injustice and the ugliness of selfishness and cruelty. Just as our hearts will recognize that no power can help us so will we recognize that selfishness cannot bring us close to Hashem. We will learn to identify evil and we will no longer be confused into thinking that self-centeredness is righteousness.

 

God will cleanse our heart from evil and from confusion and he will instill into our inner beings these qualities of righteousness, justice, kindness and mercy to the degree that they will remain with us permanently. When we are imbued with these qualities then we can know Him, because living these qualities is knowing God (Jeremiah 22:16).

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

 

Posted in Reflections on the Haftorah | 4 Comments

Excerpt from Supplement

Posted on May 13, 2014 by yourphariseefriend

V. 69. Objection 6.15

 

It is here that Brown addresses the third of my challenges to him: “An honest reading of the NT will reveal that Jesus and his followers believed in, and observed the unwritten traditions which the Jews accepted as God‑given.”

 

It is important to note that this discussion is not relevant from the stand-point of the Jew. Whether Jesus did or did not repudiate the Oral Law has no bearing on the Jews acceptance of the Oral Law. Furthermore, since the Jew sees no reason to trust the editors of the Christian Scriptures, the Jew is in no way convinced that the Christian Scriptures present an accurate portrait of Jesus and his disciples. Nonetheless, the Christian Scriptures as we have them today still contain strong evidence that Jesus and his Jewish disciples accepted the validity of the Oral Law. This, despite the fact that by the time the Christian Scriptures were being edited, the Church found itself in an intense conflict with the Pharisees – the bearers of the oral traditions. The editors of the Christian Scriptures were no friends of the Pharisees and their negative feelings towards them pervade their writings; still and all, they could not hide the fact that Jesus himself was a Pharisee.

 

Brown limits the challenge to Jesus’ directive quoted in Matthew 23:2,3: “The teachers of the Law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.”

 

The fact is that there is more evidence in the Christian Scriptures that support the argument that Jesus believed in the Oral Law, and Brown does touch on some of it throughout his response to this objection, but he does not share with his readers the full scope of the argument or of the evidence that has been brought forth to support it.

 

Before we get to all of the textual evidence that supports the contention that Jesus himself observed and believed in the Oral law, let us summarize Brown’s response to the quote from Matthew 23.

 

Brown begins by acknowledging that certain Christian scholars, such as Dr. John Fischer, recognize that Jesus “even accepted Pharisaic extensions”; meaning that Jesus accepted both the Written and Oral Laws, including even rabbinic injunctions that were appended to the Law by the Pharisees. Brown lists the tithing of herbs (Matt. 23:23), the recitation of grace at meals (Mark 6:41; 8:6), blessings over wine and the recitation of Hallel at the Passover seder (Mark 14:22-23,26).

 

Brown however, argues that this interpretation of Jesus’ words must be wrong. Brown attempts to demonstrate that Jesus teaching was directly opposed to the teachings of the Pharisees in so many different situations, that his words in Matthew 23; (“do everything they tell you to do”) cannot be taken literally.     

 

Therefore, Brown concludes, Jesus must have been speaking sarcastically, or what Jesus meant is that his disciples should obey the Pharisees insofar as they accurately represent Moses, or Jesus was only instructing his disciples to obey the Pharisees up until the time when “the kingdom would be taken from them”, which Brown associates with the destruction of the Temple. Brown offers yet a fourth interpretation of Jesus’ words, namely that the directive only applied to matters of local legal disputes, and finally, Brown offers us a variant reading of Matthew 23 as proposed by Nehemiah Gordon in which Jesus instructs his disciples NOT to obey the Pharisees.

 

Brown asserts that at least one of these interpretations must be correct because throughout the Christian Scriptures, we find Jesus in conflict with the Pharisees. On this basis, Brown negates the straightforward meaning of Jesus’ words.

 

As for Brown’s five interpretations; the first and the last don’t deserve a refutation (if Jesus meant this sarcastically, what else did he mean sarcastically? And Gordon’s variant reading is not found in any ancient manuscript). The second and third interpretations do not negate the point that Jesus accepted the Oral Law. In the context of Pharisee Judaism, the idea of “accurately representing Moses” would include the interpretations of the Oral Law. If Jesus meant to negate the authenticity of the Oral Law, he should have referred to the Sadducees, who were closer to Brown’s idea of ignoring the traditional interpretations and sticking to the Written word alone. As for the third interpretation, where Jesus has his disciples obey the Pharisees until the time that “the kingdom is taken from them”, this would still indicate that as far as the Law of Moses is concerned, the Pharisee approach is the one to be followed, and not the Protestant approach of “Sola Scriptura”. Brown’s fourth interpretation which limits Jesus’ directive to obey the Pharisees to areas of local legal disputes, also does not negate the argument that Jesus accepted the authority and the authenticity of the Oral Law. The Torah provides legislation on all matters of disputes that arise between man and man. The Law of Moses requires that each of these disputes be settled in a specific way. If Jesus believed, as Brown does, that the Pharisees possessed a completely crooked and inaccurate understanding of the Law of Moses, why would he submit his disciples to their authority? Why would he not send his disciples to the Sadducees, who were closer to Brown’s “Sola Scriptura” approach to Scripture?

 

When we us examine the areas of conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees as recorded in the Christian Scriptures, it will become clear that Jesus was NOT disputing the Oral Law as it was passed down from Moses. On some occasions he was disputing some rabbinic enactments, which are different from the Oral Law as an interpretation of the Law of Moses. Even in his disputes with these enactments, Jesus limits himself to those enactments which were disputed within the circle of Pharisees themselves, or to those enactments that were in the process of being instituted. On the other hand, on every occasion, we see that Jesus accepted the Pharisee interpretation and the Pharisee application of the Law of Moses. This helps us understand why some of Jesus’s disciples identified themselves as Pharisees (Acts 15:5 – a comparison with Galatians 2:11,12,14 will reveal that Peter himself was one of these Pharisees). It is obvious that they understood Jesus’ directive to obey the Pharisees in its most straightforward sense – obey the Pharisees!

 

Brown refers to the rebuke of the Pharisees that follows Jesus’ directive to obey them (Matthew 23:5-39. Brown points out that Jesus refers to the Pharisees as “blind men” and “blind guides”, which seems to indicate that they are not leading the people properly. Brown points to Matthew 15:14 where Jesus tells his disciples: Leave them, they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into the pit.” How then could Jesus’ original directive to obey the Pharisees be taken literally? – asks Brown.

 

This argument is refuted by Matthew’s Jesus himself. Jesus clearly says: “they do not practice what they preach”, or according to the King James: “for they say, and do not”. In other words, Jesus was arguing that as men who are supposed to lead by example, they are blind guides, but their words are true and authoritative. (As for Jesus’ words in the context of Matthew 15:14, see below.)

 

Brown points to Matthew 23 verse 4 where Jesus describes the Pharisees as people who: “put burdens on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.”  Brown argues that the way the Pharisees put burdens on people’s shoulders was through their teachings, so how then can Jesus be instructing his disciples to submit to these same teachings?

 

This rebuke of Jesus can be understood in a way that does not conflict in any way with his clear directive to obey the Pharisees who sit in Moses’ seat. We must put these words into their historical context. The Pharisee leadership in the time of Jesus were in the process of setting down rabbinical enactments. These were new decrees that were meant as a “fence” to the Law of Moses. One such decree, which was still in the process of being accepted in Jesus’ day was the enactment of hand-washing (- see below). It was these new decrees that Jesus was deriding as “burdens” that his contemporaries were placing upon people’s shoulders. He was not referring to teachings that his contemporaries were handing down from previous generations. This is obvious from the wording he uses. He throws out a personal accusation against the contemporary Pharisee leadership; it is these people who he accuses of placing the burdens, he is not referring to leaders from previous generations and neither is he referring to teachings that these people are passing on in the name of Moses.

 

Brown reminds his readers of the dispute that Jesus has with the Pharisees concerning the hand-washing decree as recorded in Matthew 15 and Mark 7. Here is an area where Jesus clearly rejects a Pharisee teaching. In light of this conflict how can we understand his instruction to obey the Pharisees?

 

The answer is to this question is quite simple. The hand-washing decree was never presented as an interpretation of the Law of Moses. It was a rabbinic decree that, at first, was not accepted by all. It is only the contemporaries of Jesus who gave this decree its full legal force (B. Talmud Shabbos 14b). So Jesus was not disputing an interpretation that the Pharisees were passing down from Moses, he was not even disputing an ancient tradition. Jesus was taking issue with a new decree that had a history of uncertainty surrounding it. This hardly constitutes a repudiation of the Oral Law; certainly not one which would force us to reinterpret the straightforward meaning of Jesus’ clear directive as quoted in Matthew 23.

 

There is another conflict that Jesus has with the Pharisees that Brown does not mention directly; this encounter is found in Matthew 15:5,6 and Mark 7:10-12. In these texts Jesus is criticizing a practice wherein one would consecrate his possessions so as to avoid having to honor his parents. The problem with this account is that there is no historical record of any Jewish leader presenting such an opinion. According to every opinion in Jewish law, honoring one’s parents is one of the foremost commandments, and no leader on record ever encouraged his followers to consecrate their possessions in order to avoid honoring one’s parents. In a situation where one went ahead and actually consecrated his or her possessions to the Temple treasury, those possessions would be assumed by the Temple treasury and in effect, this person would no longer be able to honor his or her parents because of a lack of means to do so. But this person would have utilized a Biblical Law (Leviticus 27:14, Numbers 30:3), and not an oral tradition, in order to avoid fulfilling the commandment to honor parents. So Jesus’s rebuke of the Pharisees for exalting their tradition above the commandment of God is not readily understood in light of what we know of the Pharisee teaching on the subject.

 

The most likely interpretation of these texts would have Jesus in conflict with a select group of Pharisees and not with the entire movement. Since this rebuke of Jesus is placed together with his arguments against the hand-washing decree, it follows that this was a recent innovation of some Pharisees that Jesus was criticizing. From the historical records, it seems that the opinion that Jesus was criticizing, never gained any level of popular support.

 

Brown goes on to the violations of the Sabbath that the gospels attribute to Jesus and his disciples. Brown tells his readers: “…the New Testament authors not only record these instances where Jesus’ disciples differed with the Pharisaic tradition, but at other times, they record instances where Jesus himself violated some of these traditions…”

 

Brown sees these Sabbath violations as an example of Jesus’ repudiation of the Oral Law. Let us examine these texts more closely. Mark 2 and Matthew 12 record an instance where Jesus’ disciples plucked some grain as they walked through the fields. The Pharisees challenged Jesus: “why do they on the Sabbath that which is not lawful?” According to Brown’s hypothesis which has Jesus repudiating the Oral Law, Jesus should have told these Pharisees that this activity is NOT prohibited on the Sabbath under any circumstance. Would Brown hesitate to pluck something off a tree to eat on the Sabbath? But this is not what Jesus answered. Jesus launches into a speech about David’s eating from the show-bread which was forbidden to him and about the priests violating the Sabbath in the service in the Temple. These two are examples of an activity that violates the Law, but is permitted due to extenuating circumstances. By providing these comparisons, Jesus affirms his acceptance of the Pharisaic definition of prohibited activity on the Sabbath. His only difference with the Pharisees was wether the prohibition was relevant in that specific situation.

 

In the book of John, Jesus justifies his Sabbath violation with the following argument: “If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?” (John 7:23). Again, Jesus does not argue that the activities that he did should not be defined as “work” that is forbidden on the Sabbath. Jesus fully accepts that his activities fall under the definition of forbidden “work”. He argues instead that his activities should be permitted because they are done for the purpose of healing.

 

Furthermore, the entire weight of Jesus’ argument rests on the assumption that the Oral Law is true. Without the Oral Law how would we know that the act of circumcision is considered a forbidden activity on the Sabbath? And after we accept that premise, then where in the Written Torah does it say that the act of circumcision may indeed be preformed on the Sabbath? The fact that Jesus accepted these two axioms (that circumcision falls under the category of prohibited “work”, and that for the sake of fulfilling the commandment, this act is permitted on the Sabbath), and the fact that he based his argument on these two axioms, tells us loud and clear that Jesus accepted the Oral law, and that he expected his audience to accept it as well.

 

The fact that Jesus observed the Pharisaic calendar, the fact that he observed many Pharisee teachings such as the blessings on wine and bread, and the order of the Passover seder (as Brown acknowledges), the fact that his disciples observed the times of prayer instituted by the Pharisees (Acts 3:1), and the fact that many of Jesus’ disciples identified themselves as Pharisees long after Jesus had died – testifies clearly that Jesus did not repudiate the Oral Law. When he instructed his followers to obey the Pharisees because they sit in Moses’ seat, his immediate disciples did not think that he meant it sarcastically.

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

 

Posted in Oral Law | Leave a comment

Condition of the Heart

Posted on May 11, 2014 by yourphariseefriend

Condition of the Heart

 

In this week’s haftora (selected reading from the prophets), the Prophet speaks of the great merit of trusting in God and conversely the terrible consequences of trusting in man (Jeremiah 17:5-8). In the very next verse, the Prophet declares; “The heart is deceitful above all things.” We are told of the capacity of man to fool themselves and others concerning the true intentions of their hearts.

 

Rabbi David Kimchi (Radak) explains that the quality of trusting in God is dependent upon the heart. It is relatively easy to put on a show of trusting in God with words and actions but the true trust in God is something that takes place in the deep recesses of our hearts. And the heart is deceptive, only God can truly evaluate the condition of a man’s heart. No one can really know how much a human heart has truly placed its trust in God. It is even difficult to know what is going on in your own heart.

 

How then can we evaluate our hearts? How can we know where we are holding in our service of God if our sages teach us that it is our heart that God demands (Sanhedrin 106b)?

 

It is for this reason that our sages encouraged us to love rebuke (Tamid 28a). Rabbi Asher (Rosh) expresses this concept by teaching to rejoice when we hear criticism as if we found a great treasure (Orchos Chaim 45). It is difficult for us to see our own faults and when they are exposed we are granted knowledge that we would otherwise be unaware of.

 

But perhaps the most important thing to remember is that it is not our responsibility to evaluate ourselves. The Maimonides (Rambam) writes that everyone should always see themselves as if they were at the midpoint between merit and guilt (Hilchos Teshuva 3:4). Our work in this world is not to keep score. We are here to make the next minute better than the one that preceded this one.

 

This then would be the message of the verse that follows the one that we are discussing. In this verse God reminds us that it is He that searches the heart to give to each individual the fruit of their deeds (Jeremiah 17:10). God is reminding us that He knows where we are holding and He is a fair judge. It is not incumbent upon us to busy ourselves worrying about our status in God’s book. Yes, we must learn to recognize our good qualities and our negative traits, but all for a practical purpose. We need to study ourselves in order to know where we can grow and how to be better. But the primary focus should be to make today a better day than yesterday.

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

Posted in Reflections on the Haftorah | 4 Comments

The Experiment

Posted on May 7, 2014 by yourphariseefriend

Testimony of History

 

 

When scientists test a drug they do so with the understanding that things might not work out as they expect. Before allowing a given remedy to be widely distributed the researchers will subject this new treatment to a set of experiments. One of the experiments that these researchers will use is the distribution of this drug to a broad range of people. The scientists will take a large group of men and women, young and old, healthy and weak and administer the drug to them. At the same time they will take another, similar group of people and withhold the drug from them. Perhaps the researchers will give this second group of people a placebo during the trial period. At the end of the designated time, the scientists will evaluate the two groups of people, those that took the drug and those that didn’t.

 

It is obvious that they will not compare the strongest and the healthiest of one group against the weakest and most sickly of the other. The scientists will judge the two groups as a whole, the strongest of one group against the strongest of the other and the weakest of one group against the weakest of the other.

 

We have an experiment that has been running for about 2000 years. One group of people has been given to believe that all men are intrinsically evil. This same group of people was taught that man’s actions are really insignificant and they were taught to revere a god who never did anything for those who wouldn’t acquiesce to his desire to be worshiped. This group of people was also focused on a book that spends more words slandering the author’s theological opponents then it does preaching about kindness and justice.

 

On the other hand, a different group of people were taught to believe that all men were created in the image of God and that the inner soul of man is holy and pure. This second group of people was given to believe that every deed of man is immensely significant and they worshiped a God who constantly sustains every living creature even while they are in the middle of rebelling against Him. And the focus of this group of people was on a book that magnified their own faults.

 

So we have these two groups of people and we have a 2000 year case study. Each of these groups produced villains and saints. But what type of societies did these two groups produce?

 

The one group produced a society that had little respect for human life. It was a society built on class distinctions, considered cruelty to be entertainment and glorified war. Its attitude toward people who didn’t respect their god was disgraceful, this society often persecuted those who did not share their views and this society elevated hate to the level of religious virtue.

 

The other group produced a society that loved life, hated war, respected education, practiced kindness and learned to thrive under any condition. When this second society was persecuted and murdered, they spent more time reestablishing their own lives than they did hating their persecutors.

 

So what is the argument? How could anyone try to justify the perpetuation of these teachings which stand at the heart of 2000 years of evil? And in case you think that the deemphasizing the concept of man being created in God’s image is not related to murder, you will note that long before this experiment was conducted, the Bible had tied the two together (Genesis 9:6). And in case you thought that slandering people and standing by while they die are two unrelated actions, you will note that the Jewish Scripture tied these two concepts together as well (Leviticus 19:16). So how could anyone from Matthew’s school dispute the findings of this comprehensive experiment?

 

Ah! But there were some saints in this evil society. And the argument has it that all the other people in the society (those that were not saints) were evil before they were taught these teachings. It is only the saints who should be considered when we judge the effects of the teachings on the society. They were the “real” students of the teachings in question.

 

Is that how we conduct experiments? Would you want the FDA to apply this twisted logic when they test the medications for your children?

 

Isn’t it time to go back to the Torah’s teachings of respect for all humanity? Isn’t it time to stop denigrating the deeds of men? Isn’t it time to turn away from a man whose circle of supposed beneficiaries only extends as far as his popularity and submit our hearts to the One who holds the soul of every living being in His loving hand?

 

Is a 2000 year experiment not good enough for you?

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

Posted in General | 52 Comments

The Servant of Chapter 49

Posted on May 6, 2014 by yourphariseefriend

The Servant of Chapter 49

 

“Listen to me, O islands, and hearken O distant regimes: the Lord summoned me from the belly; He mentioned my name from my mother’s womb. He made my mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of His hand He hid me; He made me like a smooth arrow, in His quiver He concealed me. He said to me: “You are My servant, Israel, in whom I take glory.” But I said, “I have toiled in vain and used up my strength for nothingness and naught; however, judgment is with the Lord and (the reward for) my accomplishments is with my God.” And now the Lord, who formed me from the belly to be a servant to Him, to restore Jacob unto Him, and Israel will be gathered unto Him and I was honored in the eyes of the Lord and my God was my strength. He said: “It is insufficient that you be a servant for Me to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the ruins of Israel; I will make you a light for the nations, so that My salvation may extend to the ends of the earth.” 

Who is this servant?

At first glance, we would say that this is Isaiah. The prophet is described as one who is called from the womb (Jeremiah 1:4). The mouth of the prophet is the implement that God uses to accomplish His purpose (Jeremiah 1:9,10). Isaiah was first called to restore Israel to God (when he spoke to the Jews of his own generation), but ultimately, it is Isaiah who is the primary prophet called to bring the message of the Messianic era to all of mankind. It is Isaiah’s words that are written on the side of the U.N. building expressing man’s hope for a future of peace. And it is Isaiah’s metaphor of the lion lying with lamb that is most often used to describe the glorious plan that God has for all of humanity. Furthermore; the servant in this passage speaks for himself in the first person without being introduced in any way, which also leads us to believe that it is Isaiah who is talking.

However; the servant is identified as “Israel” (verse 3). Israel is also called from the time of their formation (43:21; 44:2, 21, 24; 46:3). The servant of this passage is described as a “sword” and an “arrow” just as Israel is called the “armor-bearers of the Lord” (52:11) and they are set by God to be a “threshing board of many blades” (41:15). Just as this servant is sheltered in the shade of God’s hand so is Israel likewise sheltered (51:16). Just as the servant fears that his toil has been in vain so does Israel fear that their toil has been in vain (40:27). Just as the servant will bring light to the nations so will Israel bring light to the nations (60:3). And this passage is placed in the midst of a series of prophecies which are spoken for the encouragement of Israel (48:20; 49:14).

The lines between the prophet and the nation are intentionally blurred. The encouragement to Israel is that in a certain sense they are the prophet of God. Just as the prophet carries God’s word so does Israel carry God’s word and just as the prophet is granted the strength of God’s word so is Israel granted the strength, the power and the eternal nature of God’s word (40:8).

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

Posted in Scripture | 7 Comments

Supplement to Response to Charles

Posted on May 5, 2014 by yourphariseefriend

Supplement to Response to Charles

Since I did not respond to all of Soper’s arguments in my previous articles I felt that I should perhaps elaborate.

I addressed all of Soper’s arguments concerning the validity of the Oral Law in “The Council of My Nation” and in “Supplement to Contra Brown, Volume 5.” Soper has not provided an explanation for the testimonial commandments according to his theology. If the Jewish people are not supposed to look at the observances of their parents as a repository for divine truth then what is the point of the testimonial observances?

Soper explained that he accepts Scripture because he believes that God preserved the Scripture among His people despite their sins. Soper provided a reference from the Psalms (12:7) to prove this point. The problem with Soper’s reference is that it refers to the words of God without limiting them to written words. The passage in the Psalms speaks of God’s utterances, both those preserved in writing and those preserved in the heart of the people (Isaiah 51:7).

Soper seems to reject the notion that the prophets of Israel were validated by their conformance to Israel’s perception of God that was acquired through the exodus and Sinai experiences. But that is precisely what Moses taught us to do. That is to reject any prophet who encourages devotion or speaks in the name of a god we do not know (Deuteronomy 13:2-6; 18:20).

Soper asks why it is that Orthodox teachers do not speak publicly against the theory of evolution. The fact is that our community is primarily focused on teaching our own children and we teach them creation and not evolution. Some prominent teachers in our community wrote books against the theory of evolution (such as Rabbi Avigdor Miller). Others in our community believe that some of the basic concepts of evolution do not contradict the Biblical account of creation and have written books explaining their position (such as Gerald Schroeder).

The relevance of the creation story to our lives is reflected in the teachings and practices of the Orthodox Jewish community. And that is the recognition that every facet of existence owes its being to the One Creator of all. The Christian community on the other hand, with all of its protests against evolution, has missed the point of creation. By pointing to one man and elevating him to the status of an object of worship, Christianity has denied the lesson of creation. God created everything, even Jesus. And your heart belongs to its Creator and you are not master to choose to whom to direct your devotion.

As for Usury; the Bible does not prohibit gentiles from lending or borrowing with interest. So I am not sure why Soper expects our community to decry the practice of Usury amongst non-Jews.

I will close by thanking Soper for challenging my words. It is through discussions such as these that we can all move closer to the 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

Posted in Correspondence | 2 Comments

A Response to Charles

Posted on May 5, 2014 by yourphariseefriend

Charles Soper responded to my article “Facing Scripture” http://www.strateias.org/ybcs.docx – here is my open response to him.

 

Charles

I must begin for commending you for the gracious if frustrating tone that you bring to this discussion. There is no need for you to apologize for addressing me by my last name without any titles. I prefer not to be addressed with any titles as I want my words to be weighed on their own merit and not on the basis of any imagined authority.

You missed the point of my response. Scripture clearly indicates that Israel is in possession of a unique piece of knowledge, one that they acquired through the experiences of the exodus and Sinai. Those who seek to remain loyal to those experiences testify to a certain perception of God, a perception that places all of finite existence as His subjects. Over history, many Jews have taken a stance against this testimony. They have exploited the Jewish Scriptures to justify their rebellion but they never claimed that they were following a true tradition that they received from Sinai.

Here are some Scriptures for you to face. Deuteronomy 30:1-10 clearly indicates that a repentance will take place prior to the circumcision of our heart, a repentance of a people with children (not a bachelor). The text clearly indicates that this repentance will be accepted favorably by God and will be the basis for our return to the land.

How do you explain this?

In your response to my article you attempt to face the Scriptures that testify that Israel is in possession of a unique perception of God (Deuteronomy 4:35). You attempt to deflect this Scripture by pointing to people who were born into the Jewish people who accepted your idol. You seem to be claiming that this is the remnant that possesses the “truth.”

I addressed this argument (as well as most of your other arguments) in my article “The Council of My Nation” but for the sake of the readers I will briefly repeat it here. None of those Jews who accepted Jesus did so claiming that they were following a testimony passed on from the exodus and Sinai experiences. The Jews who accepted Jesus quickly lost the covenantal sign of the Sabbath (Exodus 31:16) that God promised will remain with His people. This should tell you that these people are NOT the witnesses that God spoke of in the book of Isaiah.

So will you face the Scriptures that refute your theology?

As a post script I will say that your entire theory about the covenant of Sinai vs. the covenant of the patriarchs is irrelevant to this discussion. The question is simply; who are God’s witnesses?

One more thing. Can you please provide me with an e-mail address so that I can update you with my responses in the future?

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

Posted in Correspondence | 38 Comments

Destiny of a Nation

Posted on May 4, 2014 by yourphariseefriend

Destiny of a Nation

 

The selection of the prophets (Jeremiah 32:6-27) that we read in association with Parshas Behar (Leviticus 25:1 – 26:2) describes an event that took place during the waning days of the First Temple. Jeremiah the Prophet was imprisoned for predicting the destruction of Jerusalem. While Jeremiah was in prison his cousin proposed to sell him a field and God commanded Jeremiah to take up his cousin’s proposition. Jeremiah does as he is commanded and he tells the people that his action signifies God’s promise to the people that Israel will yet return from exile and they will buy fields in the Land of Israel.

 

At first glance, the message of this prophecy seems to stand in contrast with the message of the Torah reading. In the Torah reading we learned that we the land cannot be permanently sold to remind us that we are not permanent residents in the land (Leviticus 25:23). We are merely God’s guests and it is incumbent upon us to keep this truth in mind. The message of Jeremiah’s prophecy seems to be that the people of Israel will always be connected to the Land of Israel. Our place in the land seems to be permanently reserved for us. So what is it? Are we transitory migrants or do we belong on the land?

 

But perhaps the message of the Torah reading and the message of the selection from the prophets are focused on the same point. The land does not belong to us, but we belong on the land. God created the Land of Israel so that His nation can live up to His plan for them; to live as a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. This ideal can only be fully reached in the holy land.

 

The message of the Torah reading is that we should never for an instant think that the land is under our own personal jurisdiction. The land belongs to God and we are but His servants. But neither can we escape our destiny. God sealed a covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and as their children we will always be His chosen nation. God will never let us stray to a point that is beyond return.

 

The selection from the prophets is emphasizing that we will always remain God’s servants. No matter how far we wander, the land will still be waiting for us to return and live up to God’s plan for us. Both the Torah reading and the selection from the prophets teach us that we are not in control. It is not our land and our national destiny is not about our own power and control. Our destiny is to live as a nation that accepts God’s absolute sovereignty in the land where God’s sovereignty is most obvious (Deuteronomy 11:12). And that destiny will certainly be fulfilled.

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

Posted in Reflections on the Haftorah | 1 Comment

Facing Scripture

Posted on April 28, 2014 by yourphariseefriend

Facing Scripture

 

In the spring of 2010 I wrote a booklet entitled “The Elephant and the Suit” https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/the-elephant-and-the-suit/ . This work is a critique of Dr. Michael Brown’s five volume series in which he attempts to argue for the alleged Messiah-ship of Jesus. Dr. Brown has not responded to my arguments despite his assurances to do so. In light of the silence of Dr. Brown, a different follower of Jesus, Charles Soper, took up his pen to respond to some of my arguments http://strateias.org/ProBrown.pdf . In a 12 page essay, Soper attempts to invalidate two of the arguments that I presented in The Elephant and the Suit.

 

The first of my arguments that Soper addresses is based on Deuteronomy 4:35. In that passage God points to the knowledge that He imparted to the Jewish people as a sign that His covenant with them still stands. These words are addressed to the last generation of Jews, after the Jews experienced the curses of the covenant that result from disobeying God. And God speaks to this generation of the knowledge of God that they were granted through the stupendous events of the exodus and through the unparalleled collective revelation at Sinai. God points to Israel’s unique possession of this knowledge as a proof that His covenant with them will never waver.

 

We learn from this passage that Israel’s knowledge of God that was gained, not through the reading of books but through living experience, is a unique possession which sets them apart from the other nations. This Scriptural witness testifies that Israel is the exclusive repository of this knowledge. It is for this reason that God refers to Israel as His witnesses in the prophetic book of Isaiah (43:10,12; 44:8).

 

This passage stands at the heart of Israel’s resistance to any other devotion. Yet Dr. Brown could not find space for it in his 1500 page argument that is ostensibly meant to be a Christian response to Judaism. I argued in The Elephant and the Suit that this proves that the argument in defense of faith in Jesus is not an argument for truth. If a lawyer finds the need to suppress the testimony of a key witness then this lawyer’s client must be guilty.

 

Soper’s contribution to this debate only solidifies my argument. Soper simply follows in Dr. Brown’s footsteps and refuses to face the Scriptural passages that refute his position. Instead he presents his own arguments without explaining how they conform to the Scriptural passages that I quoted. The difference between Soper and Dr. Brown is that Dr. Brown doesn’t quote these passages altogether. Soper, on the other hand, does quote them, he even goes on to assure his audience that they support his own faith, but subsequently he fails to address them at all.

 

How does Soper fill the 12 pages of his essay? He cites various passages in Scripture which speak of Israel’s disobedience. He then argues on the basis of these passages that it is impossible for Israel to have maintained any Godly truth throughout these long periods of rebellion against God.

 

What Soper fails to explain is how Deuteronomy 4:35 makes any sense in light of his own assessment. If Israel lost possession of the Godly truth that they acquired through the exodus and Sinai experiences then how is the exclusive possession of this truth supposed to encourage them in the last generation? What is Moses talking about in Deuteronomy 4:35? Soper simply does not face this Scripture that refutes his position.

 

The second Scriptural passage that Soper quotes but fails to address in any serious way is Deuteronomy 30:1-10. The passage speaks of Israel ultimate return to the land on the basis of her repentance. The Scripture describes repentance as obedience to the Law of Moses as Moses taught it. The Scripture clearly explains that this repentance will precede the circumcision of our hearts predicted by the prophets. These Scriptural teachings refute the central pillar of Christian theology; that the path to salvation cannot run through the Law but through faith in Jesus. Aside from one directionless paragraph, Dr. Brown fails to address this central passage in his five volume series and this omission speaks volumes.

 

Soper’s cavalier treatment of this passage speaks as loud as Dr. Brown’s silence. Soper acknowledges that this passage indicates that Israel’s repentance will precede her return to the land but he claims that six other Biblical passages contradict this passage from Deuteronomy. An examination of these passages (Ezekiel 11:17-20; 20:42-44; 28:25-26; 36:24-28; 37:21-23; Zechariah 12:8 – 13:1) reveals that they do not contradict the prophecy of Moses at all. Some of these passages speak of a new spirit which follows the return to the land, but this does not contradict Moses’ prophecy, it actually conforms to it. Moses also speaks of a circumcision of the heart that follows the return to the land and this circumcision of the heart is parallel to the new spirit spoken of by Ezekiel. But Moses also speaks of a repentance that precedes the circumcision of the heart and the other prophets never contradict Moses’ word on this matter.

 

But let us accept Soper’s irresponsible interpretation of Ezekiel and Zechariah for a moment. Soper still needs to face the words of Moses. After all Moses is also a prophet of God. In the one sentence out of his 12 page article that is devoted to explaining the passage in question, Soper suggests that the passage is referring to Jesus. So does Soper believe that Jesus needs to have his heart circumcised? Does he believe that he needs to repent from a state of disobedience?

 

Soper leaves these questions unanswered. He fills his pages with his own dissertation on theology laced with irrelevant quotations from Scripture. I will shortly demonstrate how his theology has no basis in the word of God but there is something that needs to be addressed before we get to that peripheral work.

 

The argument that I presented in The Elephant and the Suit against Dr. Brown’s work was that he refuses to face Scripture. He has no hesitation in quoting Scripture, but he does not face the Scriptural passages that refute his position. It seems that Soper has not grasped the serious nature of this refusal to face Scripture. Soper does not seem to realize that if one has the time to write a dissertation filled with quotations from Scripture but fails to address those passages which directly apply to the discussion at hand, then that person cannot be arguing for the truth.

 

Let us now approach Soper’s dissertation. Soper argues that there is a need for a mediator between Israel and God. He bases this argument on the Scriptural passage that speaks of Israel requesting that a prophet bring them the word of God. Soper then takes the English word “mediator” and stretches it to fit all of its connotations; prophet, priest, intercessor and sacrifice. The scriptural text that Soper quoted is actually only speaking of a prophet and not of a priest, intercessor or sacrifice.

 

Soper quotes Deuteronomy 18:16-18 in an effort to prove that a more perfect prophet is to come and “mediate” between Israel and God. The problem with Soper’s interpretation is that the text says nothing about a “perfect” prophet. It describes the prophet as someone like Moses, a man who Soper believes was not perfect at all.

 

Under the heading; “The necessity for another Priesthood,” Soper quotes Psalm 89:27 to prove that God will appoint a priesthood that will replace the priesthood of Levi and Aaron. The Scripture that Soper quoted is speaking of a king and not a priest and the passage speaks of a king who will have descendants that will sin (vs. 31). This cannot be referring to Soper’s Jesus who never had descendants.

 

Under the heading; “The necessity for another sacrifice,” Soper quotes Psalm 51:16 as a proof that there is to be another sacrifice that will supersede and replace the Temple offerings. This Psalm speaks of the efficacy of simple repentance, a turning back to obedience and has nothing to do with a “new sacrifice.” The sacrifice that God desires is a broken heart and not faith in a theology that refuses to face Scripture.

 

Soper concludes his dissertation with the claim that “only the perfect obedience of a perfect man can bring life.” He bases this non-Scriptural doctrine on the very passage that refutes it; Deuteronomy 30. In Deuteronomy 30 the prophet clearly states that God will accept an unperfect repentance, a repentance that precedes the circumcision of the heart. But Soper, in the footsteps of Dr. Brown and hordes of Christian apologists before him, refuses to face the Scriptures that refute his theology.

 

After sharing his theological musings on the need for Jesus, Soper goes on to contrast the behavior of Evangelical Christians with that of Orthodox Rabbis. He claims that various Orthodox Rabbis forbade their people to flee Europe during the holocaust while they themselves did not hesitate to escape the inferno of the Nazi death machine. He contrasts this behavior with that of Evangelical Zionists who supported Herzl’s vision for the establishment of the State of Israel and who participated in the practical execution of this plan. Soper dismisses those Evangelical Christians who advocate anti-Zionist positions with a “strong repudiation” that is limited to one sentence. Soper’s criticism of Orthodox Jewish leadership is not complete without an accusation that they have “bowed” to the idol of evolution and Darwinism.

 

At this point I would like to return to the beginning of Soper’s 12 page essay. The first slew of quotations from Scripture that Soper shared with us was devoted to the prophet’s record of Israel’s sin. Soper pointed to this record as “proof” that Israel no longer possesses any true testimony from God. As did Dr. Brown before him, Soper refuses to face those Scriptures which explicitly speak of Israel’s possession of God’s testimony at the end of the age (Deuteronomy 4:35, 30:2). Soper seems to be unaware of the testimony of Psalm 78:5-8 which explicitly states that God will preserve His truth in Israel for the last generation despite their disobedience (another relevant passage that is noticeably absent from Dr. Brown’s five volume series).

 

What Soper has failed to realize is the prophet’s purpose in recording this sin. The prophet did not put Israel’s sin in writing in order to invalidate Israel as God’s witness. The purpose of recording Israel’s sin is so that Israel can turn back to God in humility and faithfulness. A nation that reveres a record of its own sins is less likely to hide behind the evil platitude “those were not my people.”

 

Soper’s incredible arrogance is rooted in an opposite tradition, the tradition of the Christian Scriptures. The authors of the Christian Scriptures highlight the faults of their theological opponents and ignore their own humanity and that of their hero. It is in this spirit that Soper praises the leadership of the Evangelical Church while criticizing the leaders of Orthodox Judaism.

 

The holocaust was a huge keg of hatred that exploded with devastating results. The gunpowder in this keg was poured in over a period of many centuries. The most prominent contributors to this supply of hatred were the people who believed in Jesus. If Christianity would have a tradition of revering writings that expose their own sins perhaps they would engage in some soul searching repentance. But as it stands Christians like Soper are satisfied to point to a few examples of heroic people and declare that these people represent them. The millions of people who reacted with hatred or apathy while innocents were being slaughtered are “not my people” says Soper.

 

No Orthodox leader prevented his people from fleeing the scourge of Nazism once it became apparent. The general attitude of many Orthodox leaders before the war was that Jews should stay where their spirituality is safe. It is for this reason that there are those who argue that had this policy not been in place, more Jews would have survived the war. But this has nothing to do with encouraging people to stay in a danger zone. When the Orthodox leaders realized the danger, they did everything in their ability to save their people. But the gates of the free world were closed to them thanks to the apathy of those nations.

 

The Church that Soper belongs to was not known for its efforts to save Jews during that dark period. The fact that some of them supported a secular political movement does little to exonerate them. Where were they when Jews were being gassed? Where were they when Jews were being refused entry into almost every country on the face of the planet?

 

If Soper considered these questions he doesn’t tell us about them. Perhaps it is difficult to look at these questions in the face. It is also difficult to face the Scriptures that refute your position. But if you are going to defend Jesus, then it is not only difficult to face the Scriptures, it is impossible, as Charles Soper and Dr. Brown have so eloquently demonstrated.

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

Posted in Critique | 15 Comments