Eternal Covenant

Posted on December 15, 2011 by yourphariseefriend

Eternal Covenant

“When you are in distress and all these things have befallen you, at the end of days, you will return to the Lord your God, and hearken to His voice. For the Lord your God is a merciful God, He will not abandon you nor destroy you, and He will not forget the covenant of your forefathers that He swore to them. For inquire now regarding the early days that preceded you, from the day that God created man on the earth, and from on end of the heaven to the other end of the heaven: Has there ever been anything like this great thing or has anything like it been heard? Has a people heard the voice of God speaking to them from the midst of the fire as you have, and survived? Or has any god ever miraculously come to take for himself a nation from the midst of a nation, with challenges, with signs, and with wonders, and with war, and with a strong hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with greatly awesome deeds, such as everything that the Lord your God, did for you in Egypt before your eyes? You have been shown in order to know that the Lord, He is the God, there is none beside Him. From heaven He caused you to hear His voice in order to teach you, and on earth He showed you His great fire, and you heard His words from the midst of the fire.” (Deuteronomy 4:30-36).

The point of this passage is: That the fact that Israel is the only nation that claims to have heard God’s voice from the midst of the fire, and the fact that Israel is the only nation that claims to have experienced anything like the exodus from Egypt, is supposed to encourage the Jew at the end of time that God will not forget the covenant that He made with our forefathers.

Why? How do the unique claims of Judaism reassure us that God’s covenant with us still stands? What is the covenant that we share with God?

The thrust of the covenant that Israel shares with God is that we are called to be His nation and He declares Himself to be our God (Exodus 6:7, Deuteronomy 29:12, 1Chronicles 17:22). This means that God tied up His own identity with that of Israel. The covenant that Israel shares with God denotes that God will be called: “The God of Israel”, and that Israel will be called: “The people of God”. In other words; a covenant is like a marriage. No longer can we look at the two parties of the covenant as separate entities; the destiny of these two parties is bound up with one another and the very identity of these two parties is bound up with one another. The exodus and Sinai sealed the connection between God and Israel. From that point onward, Israel is God’s bride, and God is Israel’s husband and lover.

Israel’s intimacy with God that was displayed by the exodus and the familiarity with God that Israel gained through the Sinai revelation remains unmatched by any other national entity.

In these verses in Deuteronomy, God is reassuring Israel that no nation will ever match Israel’s claim of being married to God.

The perception of God that Israel acquired at the Sinai revelation is not a peripheral aspect of our covenant with God. Neither is this perception something that fades away with the passage of time. God points to this knowledge of God that we acquired at Sinai as the very heart of our relationship with Him, and God speaks to the last generation and points to this knowledge as a unique possession that sets us apart from every other national entity. This knowledge was not acquired through the handing over of a book, nor was it accomplished through the recital of words. God points to a fiery encounter, collectively experienced as the means through which He imparted this knowledge to us (Deuteronomy 4:35). God also tells us how it is that this knowledge will be preserved throughout the generations. Again, it is not through the recital of words or through the reading of a book; but through the channel of love and trust that exists between children and their parents (Deuteronomy 4:9, Psalm 78:5).

Sinai and exodus were fiery experiences that seared the perception of God into the minds and the hearts of the people who experienced it. They were commanded by God to keep this awareness and intimacy with God alive and to pass it on to their children. Each generation of Jews is enjoined by God to absorb the testimony of exodus and Sinai from their parents, to come to know and love the God of their ancestors and to stand together with their parents in a covenantal relationship with God (Deuteronomy 29:13). The power, the reality and the truth of God embodied in the testimony of exodus and Sinai is so weighty that the last generation of Jews can put their full trust in the God of Sinai on the basis of this testimony (Psalm 78:7). A trust in God that will encourage them to give their lives for Him (Psalm 44:17-23). A trust in God and a love for Him that will carry them through the darkest times (Isaiah 26:13, Micha 7:7,8). A trust and a yearning for God so that when God arises to judge the earth, the children of the exodus and Sinai will cry out with joy: “Behold! This is our God! The God that we hoped for! (Isaiah 25:9). And the connection between God and Israel that was forged at exodus and Sinai runs so deep and is so steadfast, that when God alone is exalted on that day (Isaiah 2:17), His bride, Israel, will be vindicated to the eyes of all the nations (Isaiah 49:23, 62:2. Micha 7:10, Psalm 98:2,3).

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 Basic, Faith Structure, Judaism | 28 Comments

Covenant and Embrace

Posted on December 15, 2011 by yourphariseefriend

Covenant and Embrace

The point of a covenant is the preservation of a relationship. The two parties recognize that they share a bond with each other. The two parties also recognize that the awareness and the appreciation of the bond between them may grow dim with the passage of time, so they seal a covenant. They promise to each other that they will remain faithful to their shared bond and they bind themselves to each other in a union that cannot be broken.

There are different types of relationships that covenants can possibly attempt to preserve. Some of these run deeper than others. An alliance between two nations can be called a “covenant”, but in no way can such a covenant compare to a covenant of friendship between two people who would die for each other. The deepest covenant that exists between people is the covenant of marriage. Not only do the two parties agree to remain faithful to the deep bond that exists between them, but these two parties agree to redefine themselves forevermore on the basis of this union. The covenant of marriage requires that each member of the covenant no longer see themselves as a single person, but rather, they accept that from henceforth forevermore they are to be known as the spouses of their respective partners.

The covenant between God and Israel is such a covenant. This covenant was sealed at Sinai. The closeness to God that Israel experienced at that time sealed their eternal connection to God (Deuteronomy 4:30-35). From that point on, God identifies Himself as the God of Israel and Israel identifies herself as God’s people.

The Divine embrace that Israel experienced at Sinai is not something that is relegated to the past. It is an embrace that we experience today. It is possible to get involved in the petty complications of day to day life and miss life itself – that is what we have a covenant for. No matter how far we stray, the covenant forces us to remain loyal to the bond that exists between us and the Creator of heaven and earth. But the embrace is still experienced. The cycle of the holidays recreates for us the exodus experience in its three primary expressions, Passover – redemption, Shavuot (Pentecost) – revelation, Sukkot (Tabernacles) – embrace. The Sabbath touches us with a holiness that springs forth from the depth of our bond with God (Exodus 31:13). Each of the commandments infuses us with the holiness of God’s love (Numbers 15:40). All of these are only facets of the deepest relationship that is possible in existence – the relationship between Creator and created.

The closest I could come to describing this relationship with words is to echo David’s words: “Whom (else) do I have in the heavens? And with You, I desire nothing on earth, my flesh and my heart yearn – God is the rock of my heart and my portion forever (Psalm 73:25,26).

While the fires of this embrace are burning bright, any discussion about devotion to another entity is inconceivable. But, as mentioned, the purpose of a covenant is to keep the loyalty alive even when the fire of the connection is dim. Indeed, every Jew who refuses to identify him or herself as a devotee of Jesus (or any other entity aside from the God our father’s knew) is manifesting an expression of loyalty to this covenant which ties us to God – and that loyalty is beloved by God and will ultimately be rewarded (Isaiah 26:2). But I appeal to you, brothers and sisters (and I am talking to myself as well). Why does it have to be an issue of loyalty to a covenant? Why can’t it be the fire of the embrace? All of our logical arguments can only do so much. Ultimately, it will be our love and yearning for God that will light up the world and dispel all the darkness (Deuteronomy 4:29, 30:2).

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 Judaism | 7 Comments

Thomas on Genesis 18

Posted on December 14, 2011 by yourphariseefriend

An argument frequently used by Christian apologists says that Jews cannot reject the trinity, or Jesus as divine, on the basis of Scripture, because there are many places in Scripture which seem to indicate that God manifest Himself into physical form, or that God has a plural nature. And therefore, who is to say the God of Israel is not a 3-part godhead, one of which took on flesh?

Indeed, there are places in the Hebrew Bible where it appears God takes human form (Abraham’s guests in Genesis 18, Jacob fighting with the man in Genesis 32, God appearing to Moses in Exodus 33). There are also instances where it appears God has a plural nature. Thus, apologists say, the Christian worship of Jesus is not worship of a form, but rather of a manifestation of God in the flesh as a human being. This article will focus on the example of Genesis 18.

Does this Christian argument stand? Can a Jew reject the trinity and the claims of Jesus’ divinity if Scripture itself appears to show God’s plural nature, and God manifesting Himself in physical form?

There are a few points to consider.

If idolatry is the worst sin against God, we can presume that God taught us clearly who Israel is supposed to worship, and that we are not forced to guess or rely on hints or vague allusions.

The central place where God reveals Himself to Israel is the revelation at Mt. Sinai- that was the foundational event where Israel as a people ‘met’ God. Prof. Kenneth Kitchen in “On the Reliability of the Old Testament,” calls the Exodus the central event of the Hebrew Bible, and the Sinai covenant its “pendant.” Clearly, the Sinai revelation is not only the only place where the people as a whole met God, but it is also clearly the most important narrative in Scripture for us to determine where the line between ‘God’ and ‘idolatry’ is drawn. Therefore, this must be the first place we look to see what God commanded on the subject of who Israel is to worship.

At Sinai, God expressly forbade Israel from making an idol because they saw no form. In fact, He repeated it (Deut 4:12, 4:15). This passage is not an irrelevant passage to the discussion- it is an explicit, direct passage placed in a central context, demanding Israel remember that they saw no form at Sinai.

This statement that Israel saw no form at Mt. Sinai is not simply a statement of fact; it is a command – direct and explicit – that because Israel saw no form at Sinai, it is to attribute no form to God. Christian theologian Edward P. Blair writes on this passage: “Men are not to worship anything that men can see.” Another theologian, WL Alexander, writes: “It is as a spirit that God is to be worshipped, and not under any outward representation.”

Clearly, then, the Sinai revelation teaches that, as far as Israel as concerned, they are to worship God as God, not in any form.

“But wait,” the apologist would say. “We worship God, not a form. God simply manifested Himself in human flesh as Jesus, and thus that is who we have to worship.” Firstly, this is a distinction without a difference, as ‘manifestation’ is no different than ‘form.’ Secondly, this line of reasoning utterly misses the purpose of the revelation at Sinai. Sinai was the formative event in Israel’s history- it was where the people were given a full understanding as to who they were commanded to worship. Thus, the question is not whether God ‘could’ manifest Himself as a human, but Who God command Israel to worship. And on this question, the Hebrew Bible never demand Israel worship God’s alleged manifestation as a human being.

What about Genesis 18, for example, where it seems God appears in human manifestation to Abraham?

Here, Abraham is visited by three men, and God seems to be interchangeable with (at least) one of the men. So doesn’t this prove God can indeed take on form?

Contrast Genesis 18 with Deuteronomy 4. Genesis 18 is neither a central teaching on who Israel is supposed to worship, neither is it a teaching at all. This is a narrative on Abraham, and the prophecy of his future son Isaac. This episode is never characterized by Scripture as being a central teaching (or a teaching at all) on who Israel should worship. Again, the Jewish claim is not based on the fact that “God can’t” manifest Himself as a human; rather, that He never commanded that we worship such a thing.

Not only is Genesis 18 not a teaching on idolatry, but it never even explicitly makes the Christian apologetic claim that God was one of the three men. At most, it is an inference.

This episode in Genesis 18 is also very vague.

In ‘Genesis: A Commentary,’ Lutheran pastor and scholar Gerhard von Rad says this episode is “troublesome,” with its “lack of clarity,” and is “strange and singular” in the Hebrew Bible.

In ‘Genesis,’ David W. Cotter says “This has proved to be an insoluble riddle to scholars throughout the centuries…difficulties are as numerous as solutions.”

Even among Conservative Christians, there is significant disagreement on who God is (or isn’t):

From Gerhard von Rad:

“In the narrative ch. 18.1-16 the notion that Yahweh appeared with two messengers is not the only one possible; it is not even the most likely. That the three men accepted the invitation together, if we were to think of the two as only a guard of honor to Yahweh, would be just as strange as their common question about Sarah (v.9). One is therefore rather inclined to think that Yahweh appeared in all three…”

Does that mean the trinity?

He continues:

“The interpretation given by the early church that the trinity of visitors is a reference to the Trinity has been universally abandoned by recent exegesis.”

David W. Cotter suggests a different interpretation: “Two different incidents are being described…in the first, the circumcision of Abraham is concluded by a visitation from YHWH, described in 18:1a. Subsequently, starting in 18:1b, the second incident begins with the arrival of the three visitors. This approach completely avoids one of the chief enigmas of the text as it is ordinarily read…it seems simpler, and more true to the text, to say that 18:1 introduces a new block of narrative.”

Protestant minister and scholar Walter Brueggemann (In ‘Genesis’) writes: “There is no need either to harmonize the two versions or to divide into sources or to seek a Christian statement of the Trinity here. The story is an unreflective account of a revelatory disclosure. That is enough.”

In the ‘International Standard Bible Encyclopedia,’ he writes:

“These three men had “appeared” to Abraham as a “sign” of the appearance or presence of the Lord. Even though they conveyed His Word, they were certainly not the Lord Himself.”

These citations demonstrate that the use of Genesis 18 as a ‘proof text’ for the trinity, or for our requirement to worship a physical manifestation of God, are at best, a vague inference. If Genesis 18 is supposed to teach us about God’s nature, and who we are to worship, it makes no sense that it is so helplessly ambiguous; that would defeat the entire purpose of the passage.

In contrasting Deuteronomy 4 and Genesis 18, we see Deuteronomy 4 is a direct command. It is not simply a statement of fact; rather, it is placed in a context where Israel is being taught who they are to worship. It is explicit, and unambiguous. There is no question what it is talking about, or what the message is.

It is important to contrast these two verses because the Sinai revelation is characterized in the Hebrew Bible as the standard against which all understandings of God must be compared. In other words, when God did reveal Himself to Israel, He did it in an unambiguous manner. He said nothing of a Trinity, nothing about Jesus or the messiah, and said explicitly Israel saw no form at Sinai. Now, yes, there are verses in Scripture which appear to teach the opposite of this. But make no mistake- those verses like Genesis 18 must be read in light of the Sinai revelation.

The apologetic use of Genesis 18 represents something more: that while Judaism relies on explicit, direct commands as the basis for understanding who Israel is to worship, Christian apologists argue that, as in Genesis 18, there is evidence of God’s nature throughout Scripture.

This debate is not a philosophical question of what God could theoretically do, but about ‘Who should I worship’ and ‘What constitutes idolatry.’ After all, this debate is about whether worship of Jesus is idolatry, and about whether belief in the trinity is precluded by the Sinai revelation. This is not an academic debate; it is one where one must choose who to worship. Therefore, in order to find God’s teachings on idolatry, it only makes sense to look to places where God explicitly teaches us about idolatry, and not rely on allusions and hints in Scripture.

But if, as Christian apologists do with Genesis 18, one is going to look beyond the direct commandments for guidance on God’s nature, and see hints everywhere, there is no reason to stop at the trinity and Jesus. Why not join many biblical scholars who say Moses and the Israelites were not monotheists at all, but henotheists (i.e. – they worshipped one god, while accepting that others existed). Would the same apologists who claim Genesis 18 is proof for God having taken on flesh, say that Exodus 12:12, where God says He will defeat the Egyptian gods, proves the existence of other gods aside from the God of Israel? And since Exodus 3 features God manifested in the ‘burning bush,’ does that mean the burning bush is the fourth member of the godhead?

Scripture has indeed many vague references where one can develop an infinite number of beliefs, but the central question is not what do these ambiguous passages seem to indicate, but rather- What did God command? At Sinai, where the teaching of idolatry was given, did God command worship of the Trinity or of the messiah? No. It is God’s commands to Israel – direct, explicit and unambiguous – which we need to use as the standard for our worship.

So when apologists say they do not worship a ‘manifestation’ of God in Jesus, it also minimizes their belief that Jesus was not simply a ‘representation’ of God, but rather, an entirely distinct member of the godhead- a member which Israel was never commanded to worship at Sinai. If at Sinai, Israel was never commanded to worship two of the three members of the trinity, then they are outside of what Israel is allowed to worship.

Summary:

1/ The Jewish rejection of the trinity and Jesus’ divinity is based on their non-mention at the Sinai revelation, thus precluding them from legitimate Jewish worship.

2/ Deuteronomy 4 reminds Israel they saw no form at Sinai, and thus, Israel is to worship no ‘form’ (or manifestation) of God. If Deuteronomy 4 is not a command, and merely a statement of fact that Israel saw no form at Sinai then it makes no sense for God to place such emphasis on it.

3/ The Jewish rejection of worship of God’s manifestation is not based primarily on the question of “whether God is capable of” taking on flesh, but rather, as in Deuteronomy 4, what our parameters for worship are. In other words, did God ever demand our worship of it? If not, it is excluded.

3/ The instances in the Hebrew Bible where God appears to be in human or physical form (Abraham’s guests, or the burning bush) are not clear teachings on idolatry or who Israel should worship. They are almost always vague and unclear. However perplexing they may be, they cannot be used to influence who we are to worship.

4/ Christian belief does not simply place Jesus as a physical manifestation of God, but as a member of the trinity distinct from the other two. There is no command anywhere in Scripture which demands Israel to worship these other two members of the trinity.

5/ If the Sinai revelation does not preclude belief in the trinity, or in the divinity of Jesus, then it certainly doesn’t preclude a 4 or 5-part godhead, or worship of the burning bush as god, or worship of God as manifested as anything imaginable. And if Sinai does not preclude all this, then it becomes devoid of all meaning.

The Jewish cleaving to God is based on a simple command- worship the God who revealed Himself at Sinai. The Christian claim that God is a three-part godhead, one of which manifested himself as a human – is something that God never commanded Israel to worship.

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 The Ultimate Truth, Thomas | 23 Comments

What Would It Take?

Posted on December 13, 2011 by yourphariseefriend

What Would It Take?

 

Belief systems generally provide their adherents with a complete world-view. Followers of various belief systems tend to look at the world in a way that fits with their religious beliefs. This basic fact presents a serious obstacle to a meaningful discussion between the adherents of two different belief systems such as Judaism and Christianity. Since each of these people look at the world so differently, there is little common ground upon which to base the discussion.

 

One of the factors adding to the confusion is the fact that these two belief systems use the very same words to refer to two different, and sometimes even opposite concepts. Take the words: “relationship with God”. For the Jew, the concept of a relationship with God absolutely precludes devotion to Jesus, while to the Christian; devotion to Jesus is part and parcel of a relationship with God.

 

One way of overcoming this communication barrier is by transposing concepts from one system to the next. In other words, instead of talking about concepts from the standpoint of your own belief system, try to find a parallel concept in the belief system of the person you are trying to communicate with and talk about that.

 

Let me provide an example.

 

As a Jew, you see the arguments that the Christians present for devotion to Jesus as inconsequential. This should not surprise you, because these arguments are inconsequential to the Christian as well. If you noticed, the Christian expects you to submit to Jesus just because he is Jesus and if you reject him – well you are rejecting Jesus! In other words, the Christian believes in Jesus first, and the arguments only come to justify his or her belief.

 

Instead of trying to argue with Christian about the merit of the arguments presented by the Church to justify her devotion, try to get the Christian to see the entire scope of the argument from your perspective.

 

Here is how you are going to do it.

 

Ask the Christian the following question: “What would it take?” – What it would it take to convince you to put your faith in a person aside from Jesus? How much evidence would you demand before accepting the claim that someone, who lives today, is a reincarnation of Jesus? What would be the quality of proof that you will want to see before believing that someone is the fourth person in the god-head? What would it take to convince you that your faith in Jesus is dead without faith in another person? What it would take to get you to believe that you are going to hell if you don’t believe in the new incarnation of Jesus?

 

So what would it take? – What is the quality of the evidence that you would demand?

 

Some Christians will tell you that their relationship with Jesus doesn’t allow for devotion to another person that can be considered equal to their devotion to Jesus. Others will tell you that the belief system of Christianity doesn’t allow for a fourth person in the god-head or for a new incarnation of Jesus, much less for a philosophy which preaches that faith in Jesus is meaningless without faith in another person as well. Other Christians will argue that if the Scriptures were to explicitly and directly teach such a doctrine, then they would accept it, but it would need to be explicit, clear, consistent and direct.

 

Now that the Christian understands how difficult it would be to introduce a new devotion into his or her own belief system, you can turn and ask if they could appreciate how difficult it is to introduce a new devotion into our belief system, the belief system of Judaism. Perhaps the Christian would then understand that our relationship with God, doesn’t allow for devotion to Jesus. Perhaps the Christian could understand that the God-given belief system that preceded Christianity, doesn’t allow for a trinity. And perhaps the Christian could understand that if the Biblical evidence is less than direct, explicit, consistent and clear – it is no evidence at all.

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 | 89 Comments

Deuteronomy 17:3 and the Bedrock of Existence

Posted on December 13, 2011 by yourphariseefriend

Deuteronomy 17:3 and the Bedrock of Existence

 

Throughout the Scriptures, God warns us against idolatry. The fact that Scripture repeats these warnings again and again leaves us with no doubt that idolatry is the most grievous sin towards God imaginable.

 

What is idolatry? How do the Scriptures define this sin?

 

In Deuteronomy 17:3, the worship of idols is described as “that which I have not commanded”. The same concept appears in Exodus 32:8, Deuteronomy 4:23 and Deuteronomy 13:6.

 

The concept is simple. God commanded us to worship Him and Him alone. Any worship that God did not command us, is by definition, idolatry.

 

Most of the commandments of the Torah were relayed to the people of Israel through the medium of Moses (Deuteronomy 4:14). The commandment against idolatry is different. When it comes to this critical commandment, God did not rely on the agency of Moses to impart this law to His people. God Himself directly commanded Israel who it is they are to worship. God did not just say a few cryptic words in order to impart this pivotal lesson to His people. God preformed the miracles of the exodus and He spoke to Israel from the midst of the fire in order to command them who it is that they are to worship (Deuteronomy 4:9,15,35). This demonstration brought God’s commandment to the entirety of the nation, from the smallest to the greatest. No one had to study any books in order to understand this commandment and no one had to philosophize about the nature of God – God made the commandment clear to everyone.

 

God also commanded us to pass this clarity on to our children (Deuteronomy 4:9, Psalm 78:5). Through the teaching of our parents we learn what it is that God commanded us to worship.

 

All of creation is bound by God’s command (Psalm 148:5). As a covenant nation, we are especially bound by God’s command (Jeremiah 7:23).

 

No one ever made the claim that it was Jesus that our ancestors saw at Sinai. Worship of Jesus is a worship that God did not command – in other words; according to the Scripture’s definition, it is idolatry.

 

As God’s creations and as the nation with whom He chose to make a covenant – there is nothing more important to us than God’s command. There is nothing more real to us than God’s command (Isaiah 40:8). The reality of God’s command is what gave men women and children, hundreds of thousands of them, the power to choose torture and death over Jesus. Most of these people were not scholars or philosophers, but they were taught by God. The unshakeable reality of God’s command was more real to them than this transient life.

 

As God’s chosen people we will continue to remain loyal to God’s truth until all idolatry is eradicated from the earth and all flesh will see that it was God who spoke (Isaiah 40:5)

 

 

God’s command is unshakeable, it is life itself, and nothing will move us from His truth (Deuteronomy 4:4, Isaiah 26:2).

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 The Ultimate Truth | 5 Comments

Another Mathematical Problem

Posted on December 11, 2011 by yourphariseefriend

Another Mathematical Problem

 

That Christianity’s insistence on directing worship to Jesus as a deity is a mathematical absurdity, is well known. Most students of mathematics are aware that one and three are not the same, and approximately the same number of students have figured out that if “A” is not equal to “B” than “B” cannot be equal to “A”. Both of these equations apply to Christianity’s claim for Jesus. If the trinity consists of three distinct “persons”, then these three cannot be one. And if worship of God is not equal to worship of Jesus then worship of Jesus cannot be equal to worship of God.

 

Many Christians remain unfazed in the face of these mathematical problems with their theology. This being the case, you may ask, why it is that I think that presenting yet another mathematical problem with Christian theology will make a dent in the discussion. My answer to this question is that I believe in the deep-seated love for truth that dwells in the heart of every human being created in the image of God. There is a part of every person that desires truth and hates falsehood, and this part of us is constantly struggling against other parts of ourselves that don’t share in this affinity for the truth. I believe that every argument on behalf of the truth empowers the part of us that seeks the truth and will play a role in the ultimate and inevitable triumph of the truth. So here goes –

 

If “A” without “B” is still “A”, then “B” could never have been part of “A”.

 

To illustrate: let us go back to the time that Jesus walked the earth. Let us turn our focus to a Jewish farmer living in Hebron. At the very same time that Jesus is preaching the “Sermon on the Mount”, this farmer, who knows nothing about Jesus, is worshiping God. His heart is bursting with gratitude towards God for all the God granted him, this farmer is filled with awe and reverence for the God and this farmer loves God with all of his soul. Our farmer now turns to the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob, the One Creator of all, with a sincere prayer of thankfulness and praise.

 

So this is the question; is this farmer praying to anyone less than the One his father worshiped? Remember; our farmer’s father died before Jesus was born. So did those who worship God before Jesus walked the earth pray to any more of a God than those who prayed to God after Jesus was born? Did God in heaven become any smaller while Jesus was walking the earth? Did God become any less worthy of worship because one of the “persons” of the “god-head” was busy teaching his disciples?

 

I hope that even if you are a Christian, you can understand that God in heaven cannot become “smaller” or “less worthy of worship”. In other words; God “without Jesus” is still one hundred percent God, and is still worthy of every last drop of devotion, adoration and worship.

 

If God “without Jesus” is still God, this means that Jesus is not and never was a “part of 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

Posted in The Ultimate Truth | 23 Comments

Tsvi on the Oral Law

Posted on December 6, 2011 by yourphariseefriend

There is an oral law, no there isn’t yes there is. Hmmmm

There was a Chinese man that said there was no Oral Law in Judaism; he followed the Holy Scriptures alone. A Jewish man went up to him and said Let us both do a sample Passover together. You do it your way and I will do it mine. The Chinese man said very good. So he went first. He set up his table and was about to kill his lamb when the Jewish person said Wo! Wait up! you cannot do that. Why; said the Chinese man? Because we can only sacrifice in the Holy Temple which has been destroyed because of our sins. OK… so he continued and took some bitter herbs and slapped it on a piece of matzah and proceeded to eat it, and the Chinese Seder comp lee. Our Jewish person asked him what does this mean to you. The answer was he was celebrating his deliverance from Egyptian bondage. Our Jewish friend said….Now come to my Seder. Of course they first searched for a crumb of leaven, they lit candles said the blessing. There was the hand washing, the asking of the questions by a little boy and the Maggid, the answers to the four questions. Yes they had the Maror and Matsah, they had the Shulchan Orech, and finally they sang Adir Hu, and all of the songs. Our Chinese friend said. That is not in the bible. Our Jewish friend said Oh but it is… Passover is a celebration. By the way, we have been doing this all the way back since we left Egypt. How long have you been doing your seder? Our Chinese friend said Just a year…

It is perhaps misleading to use the terms the Written Law and the Oral Law as if there were two laws. There is only one law. It was spoken to Moses by God, and he taught it to Israel for 40 years, and he entrusted it to Joshua and the Elders of Israel. We the people lived this law as commanded from that day until this. Oh yes, He wrote the Holy Scriptures and in them when a Jew reads the Pesach (Passover) story he knows the full meaning of each and every word written because of how it was Implemented for over 3,500 years. The person who has not the connection with the people has only words that are written but sadly lacks the total meaning entrusted to Israel alone (Psalm 147:19,20) Thus it is with every written word in our sacred Scripture. The meaning has been a living experience within the Jewish people from our very beginning. One cannot just take a written paragraph without having lived it.

Tsvi Jacobson

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 Tzvi Jacobson | 2 Comments

Square Circles – 1Kings 18:21

Posted on December 4, 2011 by yourphariseefriend

Square Circles – 1Kings 18:21

The English teacher asked her sixth grade students if they could provide an example of an oxymoron. The girl in the back row raised her hand and the teacher called on her. The student said two words: “President Obama”.

I respect the child’s right to free speech and I am not saying that I disagree with her, what I am saying is that I would have chosen a different example. I would have said: “Messianic Judaism”.

The movement known as Messianic Judaism is in the continuous process of realigning themselves with Jewish tradition and practice. They have incorporated observance of Shabbat, commemoration of the biblical festivals, laying of tefillin, and many other rituals of traditional Judaism.

But Judaism is not about keeping Shabbat, celebrating the festivals or putting on tefillin. Judaism is about keeping the Shabbat as an expression of our obedience to the One God who revealed Himself to our ancestors at Sinai. Judaism is about celebrating the festivals to affirm the truth that there is but One God. Judaism is about wearing tefillin as a testimony to the absolute sovereignty of God. In short; Judaism is about a concept of God – a concept which stands as the very antithesis of Christianity’s claims for Jesus. Belief in Jesus as an expression of Judaism is as absurd as fireproof matches, dark lights and square circles.

The Messianic Jews do not give up. They argue that Jesus is really “one-and-the-same” as the God of Israel.

It is easy to get confused with this argument if you think of it in terms of abstract theology. But this is not an issue of abstract theology – this is an issue of devotion, worship and adoration – all of which take place in the very real human heart.

The devotion towards the God who the Jews have always worshiped is rooted in a very different set of emotions than is the devotion towards the Yeshua of the Messianics. Israel’s devotion towards God is rooted in a deep gratitude towards the God who is above and beyond all of nature, and the gratitude is for every detail of life and existence. This gratitude is based on the recognition that all of existence is but a dependant existence, a needy existence. It is rooted in the recognition that we are all here only because God wills it so. The worship of the Jew is rooted in a deep comprehension that every finite being – with all of their respective qualities – are but creations of the One Creator.

The worship of the Christian/Messianic on the other hand is rooted in a deep appreciation for the qualities of one finite being who walked this earth and breathed its air. This appreciation is based on a denial that the one finite being who is the object of this adoration, was a subject of the One Creator just like the rest of us.

These two devotions are polar opposites; the one is rooted in an awe and reverence for a personality that appeared in the confines of a human body while the other is rooted in the recognition that whoever lives in the confines of a human body owes awe and reverence to the Creator of all. The one devotion is rooted in a sense of gratitude that holds nothing back – a sense of gratitude that recognizes that everything – everything – belongs to the One Creator of heaven and earth. While the other devotion is rooted in the denial of that gratitude – it is rooted in the belief that one inhabitant of this earth owed nothing to anyone and is owed everything by everyone.

What is it that gets your heart excited? Is it the hope that one day all of creation will recognize its absolute dependance on the One Creator of all? Or is it your heart fired with the hope that one day all people will acknowledge their supposed debt to another person?
– If you chose the former – call your belief system: Judaism, for that was the name of this belief for the last 2000 years. If you chose the latter – call yourself a Christian, for that is what those who hoped to Yeshua/Jesus called themselves for the same amount of time.

Whatever you choose – don’t be a square circle.

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 | 1 Comment

A Tale of Two Schools

Posted on December 4, 2011 by yourphariseefriend

Imagine two schools of medicine. Let us call them “x” and “y”. Each of these schools has their own approach to medicine and each of these schools puts forth students who put their respective school’s theories into practice. As you probably guessed, these two schools disagree on many elements of the study and practice of healing people. Disagree is actually too mild of a word. Each of these schools earnestly believes that the other school is not teaching medicine, but murder.

One day, the faculty of school “x” admit that they made a mistake. Not just a one-time mistake but a mistake that had continuously been taught as truth for years and years. Not just a minor mistake, but an error about one of the fundamental concepts of medicine. Let us say that they had been teaching that the liver and the heart are useless organs. May I remind you that the members of “y” had been preaching for years that the liver and the heart are vital organs – but the members of “x” have always disregarded the opinion of school “y”.

At this point you would expect the members of school “x” to do some soul searching. They should ask themselves how this error came to be preached as truth? What fundamental flaw in their system allowed this error to be perpetuated for years on end? What prevented them from realizing their mistake for so long? Why could they not appreciate the inherent truth of school “y”’s teaching concerning the heart and the liver?
Imagine if the members of school “x” do none of the above. Instead they continue teaching whatever they have taught up until now – without even fully rearranging their medical theories to fit with the “newfound” truths that they learned about the heart and the liver.
Would you begin to take them seriously?

The meaning of this parable should be apparent. School “x” is Christianity while school “y” is Judaism. The mistake that many Christians have admitted to is that their teaching of “replacement theology” – which insists that the Church has replaced Israel – is an error. Let us pause to understand the depth of this error. Israel is the second most important word in the Jewish Scriptures after God. Reading the Bible with an incorrect understanding of the word “Israel” is as bad as reading a book about the earth’s climate without knowing what the word “cold” means. You would expect that the various schools of Christian theologians who have now come to realize the error should pause and take stock. They should ask themselves what lead them to this error. They should ask themselves what flaws are inherent in their system that allowed this error to be perpetuated for so long. They should ask themselves why they could not hear the truth inherent in the claim of the Jewish people when they asserted that Israel is Israel and not the Church.
Finally – you would expect them to open their ears just a little bit when the same Jewish people are arguing that God is God and not Jesus.

Is that asking too much?

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 | 39 Comments

Deuteronomy 33:4 – Oral Law

Posted on November 28, 2011 by yourphariseefriend

Deuteronomy 33:4 – Oral Law

 

Judaism affirms that God made use of two methods of communication in order to transmit the truths of Judaism from one generation to the next; the written text and the living communication of parent to child. These two methods of communication complement and support each other. It is only when we absorb the message through both of these mediums of communication that we can arrive at a proper understanding of God’s truth.

 

Some of Judaism’s detractors attempt to invalidate the second method of communication; the living transmission of parent to child. These critics of Judaism argue that the written text; i.e. the Bible, is God’s word, and as such is reliable and trustworthy, but the living transmission is only words of men. Why should we rely on the words of men? What indeed is the basis for the Oral Law?

 

If we examine the Bible itself, we will see that this criticism of Judaism does not get off the ground.

 

Those who dispute the validity of the Oral Law assume that the Five Books are the basis and the foundation for the Law. They understand that the written text comes first. When these critics approach Israel’s claim for an authoritative Oral Law, they see this as a claim for a supplementary code, one that is authorized to define and to interpret the written word. These critics contend that if there is a valid code of Law that supplements the text, we would expect that it should have been mentioned in the text.

 

The facts though are exactly the opposite. It is not the Oral Law that is a supplement to the Written Law, it is the Written Law that serves as a supplement and an augmentation for the Oral Law. The Five Books present themselves as something that came after a complete body of Oral Law was already firmly established.

 

Throughout the Five Books of Moses we find that God communicated with Moses and Moses, in turn, communicated with the people – orally, without any written medium.

 

Deuteronomy 5:28, – God tells Moses: “But as for you, stand here (at Sinai) with Me, and I shall speak to you the entire commandment and the decrees, and the ordinances that you shall teach them and they shall perform in the Land that you shall possess.”

 

Deuteronomy 1:18- Moses reminds the people: “I commanded you at that time (at Horeb) all the things that you are to do”.

 

These conversations between God and Moses and between Moses and the people of Israelare the basis of the Law. The format of the text of the Five Books fully confirms this basic truth. The Five Books do not present themselves as an independent legal text. They are written in the format of a narrative, with various laws woven into the narrative. In other words; the Torah does not read like the constitution of the United States which simply sets down an arrangement of laws. Instead the Torah records the conversations in which God commanded Moses one law or another. Sometimes the Torah may record a lengthy series of laws, but always in the narrative setting of a God talking to Moses (as in Leviticus 1:1-7:38) or Moses talking to the people (as in the book of Deuteronomy). The usage of the narrative format confirms the significance of these conversations as the basis of the Law.

 

Furthermore, these narratives are not written in a way that would indicate that every last word of the conversation was included in the written record. In fact the opposite is true. It is actually clear from these narratives that they are not literal, word-for-word records of these conversations. The first example of such a narrative conspicuously highlights this truth. In Exodus 12:1-20 we find a narrative that tells us what it was that God said to Moses and Aaron concerning the Passover offering. Verses 21 thru 27 of the same chapter record Moses passing on this same commandment to the elders of Israel. The words of these two narratives (God to Moses – Moses to the people) and the structure of these two narratives are entirely different. Each of these narratives contain elements that are absent in the other one. There can be no question that these narratives are not meant to be a verbatim record of these conversations. The same pattern holds true every time the Torah presents both sides of the conversation; God to Moses and Moses to the people. In each instance the words are different and the details are different (e.g. Exodus 25:1-28:43 versus 35:4-29; Exodus 29:1-37 versus Leviticus 8:5-36). It is clear that these narratives are not literal records of every word that God told Moses or that Moses told the people. The fact that these narratives do not attempt to record every last detail of the conversations is evidence that the people possessed another, more complete record of these conversations, which can only be the record they retained in their memory.

 

There is yet another way that the written text affirms the central nature of the Oral Law in Israel.

 

The Five Books reiterate again and again the importance of passing on the teachings of Moses to the future generations (Exodus 10:2; 12:14,17,24; 13:8,14; 31:13,16; Leviticus 23:43; Numbers 15:24,38; Deuteronomy 4:9,40; 6:2,7,20,21; 11:19; 12:25,28; 30:2; 32:46.) Not once throughout the Five Books are we commanded to utilize a book in the personal process of passing on the teachings of Moses to our children. The process is described as one in which parents speak to their children – an oral transmission.

 

When Moses exhorts the people to keep the Law and to pass it on to their children he is referring to a body of law that these people have absorbed through the medium of speech. When Moses refers to “all that I have commanded you” (e.g. Deuteronomy 30:2), he was not referring to a particular scroll that each individual Jew had tucked in his pocket. He was talking of a Law that lived in their hearts and in their minds. The children of that first generation of Jews were to receive the Law from their parents through the medium of oral communication. They were also to realize that the Law that they receive from their parents is the very same Law that God delivered to Moses and that it was God who established this medium of communicating with them. The written text, which was only presented to the Levites and the priests at the end of the 40 year sojourn in the wilderness, served to augment, to support and to corroborate the oral testimony of their parents. But the primary means of communicating the Law from generation to generation was and still remains; oral.

 

Throughout the Five Books of Moses, mention is made of ten written documents. Not one of these documents was designated to play a role in to the personal process of parents teaching the practical observance of the Law to their children.

 

Let us examine these Scriptural references to the various written documents and let us see what function these documents were to serve.

 

The first reference to any written document is found in Exodus 17:14. Moses was to write a remembrance of God’s enmity towards the people of Amalek. This was not a text that was handed to every individual Jew. This was a national remembrance that was in the hand of the central leadership; Moses and Joshua. Furthermore, the text tells us that the written remembrance did not stand alone. Moses was to place the remembrance into “the ears of Joshua”. The communication was to be passed on through both mediums; the written text and the living transmission.

 

The next reference to a written document appears in Exodus 24:4 where Moses wrote the ordinances recorded in the previous chapters. The ordinances of Exodus 21 – 23 were first presented to the people orally and only afterward were they written down in a book (Exodus 24:3,4). This book (the “book of the covenant”) is not mentioned again in the Five Books. At no point are the people directed to look in this book as a resource of reference for the observance of the Law. It is clear that the function of that book (the book of the covenant) was ceremonial and not practical.

 

The next reference to a written document speaks of the tablets of testimony which contained the Ten Commandments (Exodus 24:12; 31:18; 32:15,16; 34:1,27,28; Deuteronomy 9:9,10; 10:1-5). The Ten Commandments were presented to the people through the medium of speech (Exodus 20:1). The tablets upon which the Ten Commandments were engraved were only given to Moses after his stay on the mountain (Deuteronomy 10:5). These tablets were eventually put into the ark that was placed in the holy of holies, which was accessible to no-one, but to the high priest, once a year (Exodus 40:20, Leviticus 16:2). It is clear that these tablets were not used for any practical transmission of information from one generation to the next.

 

Another reference to a written document appears in Numbers 5:23. This passage describes how the priest is to write the curses on a scroll and erase this writing into the bitter waters which the suspected woman is to drink. It is clear that the only function of this scroll was ceremonial, and in no way did this written text function as a means of communicating information.

 

The next reference to a written document instructs the King, as a public figure, that he must keep a Torah scroll with him and read from it constantly (Deuteronomy 17:18). (The wording of the aforementioned verse indicates that it is only the book of Deuteronomy that the king must copy for himself). This injunction is limited to the person of the king and is in no way related to the practical transmission of the Law from one generation to the next.

 

The next reference to a written text appears in Deuteronomy 27:3,8. Moses commands the people to write the Torah upon an altar of rocks upon their entry into the land of Israel. In the book of Joshua we learn that this commandment was limited to the book of Deuteronomy (Joshua 8:32). This altar was used only once; on the occasion of the reading of the blessings and the curses as described in the book of Joshua. This was not the permanent altar in the Tabernacle, which was not on Mt. Ebal but rather at Shilo (Joshua 18:1). At no point does the Torah direct the people to read the writing on this altar and at no point are the people commanded to preserve this writing on the altar, which presumably faded with the passage of time. It is certainly possible and even plausible to assume that the people did read these written words. But in no way can it be said that this was their first encounter with the Law, nor can it be said that this altar served as a means of transmitting the Law from generation to generation. After the one-time use of this altar described in the book of Joshua, this altar is never mentioned again in the Scriptures.

 

The first reference to the complete Torah scroll appears in relation to the imprecations of the covenant (Deuteronomy 28:58; 29:19,20, 26). The curses that will befall Israel if they disobey the Law are described as: “the imprecations of the covenant that are written in this book of the Law”. It is significant to note that the details of the curse would not be relevant to the practical day-to-day living of a Jew in his observance of the Law. It therefore follows that this information would require a written document in order to ensure its preservation. Again we see that the written document is not mentioned in relation to the practical observance of the individual Jew.

 

The next reference informs us that the priests and the Levites were presented with a copy of the complete Torah scroll (Deuteronomy 31:9). As the guardians of the Law (Leviticus 10:11, Deuteronomy 33:10) these public servants would make use of a written text. But for the individual Jew, the Law that he or she heard from her parents was the primary method of learning the Law. The fact that Moses commanded that the Torah be read publicly once in seven years (Deuteronomy 31:11) does not mitigate this truth. The once-in-seven-year reading would do little to impart knowledge to the nation as a whole. Hearing the Torah once in seven years can perhaps reinforce existing knowledge. It cannot be used as a method of teaching new information. How can you expect a nation to follow a Law that is as complex as the Torah on the basis of having heard it read once, in the setting of a vast crowd, five years ago? It is clear and obvious that the people passed the Law on to their children as they heard it from Moses – orally. The public reading was a means of reinforcing the knowledge of the Law that they already possessed through the medium of the living transmission.

 

Another reference to a written text tells us that the song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32;1-43) was to be written down (31:19). This written version of the song is presented as a supplement to the oral teaching of the song (Deuteronomy 31:30). The song of Moses is not related to practical observance of the Law. It is parallel to the “imprecations of the covenant” that would befall Israel if they were to disobey God’s Law. This particular document is also not related to the practical observance of the Law.

 

The final reference to the written document describes how Moses presented the Levites and the priests with the completed Torah scroll. They were instructed to place it beside the Ark of the Covenant as a testimony against Israel. Here too, we see that this text was not used for the personal transmission of practical information from parent to child. Rather, this text was placed in a national setting (the holy of holies) and its main function was to keep record of the curses that would befall Israel should they disobey the Law.

 

The Law of Moses, as it is described in the Five Books, remains for all practical purposes an Oral Law. When Moses makes continuous reference to “the Law”, “the commandments”, or “that which I command you” (e.g. Deuteronomy 26:16; 27:26; 28:1,14; 29:28; 30:2,11; 32:46), he refers to a body of information that his listeners carried around in their minds and in their hearts. When the Five Books declare: “Moses commanded us a Law, and inheritance for the congregation of Jacob” (Deuteronomy 33:4) – it is referring to an Oral Law that is the exclusive inheritance of the intergenerational community of Eternal Israel.

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 Faith Structure, Oral Law | 85 Comments