Supplement to “Hope Faithfulness and Joy”

Posted on May 25, 2011 by yourphariseefriend

Supplement to Hope Faithfulness and Joy

Dear P. J.

Thanks for your thoughtful questions. Your questions encourage us to try to find more light and more clarity in our search for truth.

You asked me if Isaiah really predicted that the Jews will remain faithful to God throughout this long exile.

My response: Yes, he did.

Look my friend. Isaiah tells us that the one who bears the glad tidings to Israel will just say one phrase: “Your God has reigned” (Isaiah 52:7; see also 40:9). That is all he will have to say to bring joy to the heart of Israel.

Furthermore, Isaiah describes how the nations will serve Israel in the Messianic era. Isaiah tells us that the purpose of this is: “so that you know that those who hope to Me will not be shamed” (Isaiah 49:23). It is clear that Israel will be identified as the people who had been hoping to God.

The verses I quoted in my original article (Isaiah 25:9; 26:2,9,13) all put words of hope and yearning for God in the mouth of Israel.

Yes, Isaiah does describe Israel as a nation that yearns for God.

Let us now focus on the revelation of God’s arm described in Isaiah 52:10.

The prophet associates this revelation with the consoling and the comforting of Israel(52:9). This concept is mentioned by Isaiah several times – 12:1; 49:13; 51:3; 54:4, 66:11,13, – all in relation to the final redemption.

This revelation is associated with the joy that Israel experiences in the Messianic era (52:9). Another theme that Isaiah keeps coming back to – 12:3,6; 35:10; 41:16; 51:3,11; 54:1; 55:12; 61:3,7; 66:10,14.

The revelation of the “arm of the Lord” is associated with a return to Zion, a return that will take place on a path that is pure (52:11). Isaiah provided another vivid description of this same return (35:8 – see also Psalm 126).

Throughout Isaiah we learn that the revelation of God’s glory will remove Israel’s shame, bring her glory before God, and bring shame upon her enemies – 24:23; 25:8; 41:11; 44:23; 45:16,17,24,25; 46:13; 49:23; 51:7; 60:15; 61:3,7; 62:3.

So how could you accept the Christian interpretation which propounds that a prominent theme of the Messianic era will usher in period of shame and embarrassment for the Jewish people for not accepting Jesus?

Do you really think it is just a wild coincidence that the very same term: “arm of the Lord” appears twice, just a few verses apart (52:9 – 53:1)?

“But is there no shame for Israel?” you ask. “Doesn’t Ezekiel speak of Israel experiencing shame in the Messianic era (Ezekiel 20:43; 36:31)?”

That is another good question, and I am glad you raised it. It will bring more clarity to our discussion.

On a simple level we can say that the Jewish people are divided into two camps; the righteous remnant and the rest of the people. We would then say that Isaiah was referring to the righteous remnant while Ezekiel was referring to the nation as a whole.

That is not a bad answer, and there is truth to it, but I think it runs much deeper than that. Please read Micah 7:7-10. The prophet speaks on behalf of Israel, an Israel that has sinned before God – but an Israel that still longs and yearns for God. An Israel that will be glorified by the revelation of God’s glory – to the utter consternation of her enemies.

Let me give you a parable.

In a village in the far reaches of the kingdom lived a people who were very far from the king. Not only were these people far in the sense of geographical location, but they were so coarse and unrefined, that they had no connection to the King’s cultured and refined ways. They all feared the King and had a grudging respect for him, but they did not try to follow his rules.

One day a new kid appeared on the block. He too, was not that refined and not that cultured, but this fellow tried to keep the King’s laws in his own uncultured way. The villagers gathered around this newcomer and asked him: “what are you doing?” The newcomer answered: “I am the King’s son, and this is what I do”. The villagers burst out in laughter. “You are the King’s son?!” – “No way!” The newcomer stuck to his story, and the villager’s resentment for this newcomer grew. They taunted him day and night and they made life difficult for him in every way they could imagine. They spread rumors about him that he is actually the son of the King’s greatest enemy (John 8:44), and after a while began believing the rumors that they themselves had spread. Every time this newcomer would violate one of the King’s rules, which would happen once in a while, the villagers would exaggerate the violation and announce it from the roof-tops so as to shame the newcomer. As time went on, and the newcomer’s suffering increased, the villagers argued that if he would really be the King’s son, the King would never allow him to suffer like this – but the newcomer ignored their taunts.

The day came, and suddenly the King himself appeared in the village and there they were in the village square – the King and the newcomer in a loving embrace – an embrace that could only mean one thing – he really is the King’s son.

The King of my parable is the God of Israel, the Creator of heaven and earth. The newcomer is Israel, God’s firstborn son (Exodus 4:22; Jeremiah 31:8). The villagers are those who pointed to Israel’s suffering as “evidence” that they are not God’s elect.

Yes, perhaps God will rebuke Israel, His son, for not doing a better job – but that is something between a Father and a son – and it is that limited rebuke that Ezekiel was talking about. That does not compare in the slightest to the shame that the persecutors of Israel will feel for their rejection of the King and his son, neither does it diminish the joy of the son’s ultimate vindication – the vindication that Isaiah described.

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 Isaiah 53, Messiah | 4 Comments

Hope, Faithfulness and Joy

Posted on May 24, 2011 by yourphariseefriend

Hope, Faithfulness and Joy

The prophets describe the great joy that the Jewish people will experience at the time of the ultimate redemption. Isaiah declared: “And the redeemed of the Lord shall return, they will come to Zion with song, with eternal happiness on their heads, they will attain joy and gladness, and sadness and sighing will flee” (Isaiah 35:10, 51:11).

The prophet also taught us what it is that will bring Israel such joy.

The Scriptures tell us that the Jewish people will have been hoping to God throughout this bitter exile. They will remain faithful to Him through fire and water (Isaiah 26:2,9,13; Psalm 44:18). When the God that Israel has been hoping for finally reveals His glory and His might, Israel’s dearest hope and their deepest longing will have come to pass. Their trust in the One Creator of heaven and earth will have been fully vindicated. Israel will then exult: “Behold, this is our God, we hoped to Him that He would save us, this is the Lord to Whom we have hoped, let us exult and rejoice in His salvation” (Isaiah 25:9)

The Psalmist tells us that the same revelation of God’s glory that brings joy to Israel will bring shame to those who worship idols (Psalm 97:6-8). Moses and Isaiah both prophesied that God will then take revenge on behalf of the Jewish people who had been so cruelly persecuted for their loyalty to God (Deuteronomy 32:43; Isaiah 34:8; 35:4; 61:2; 63:4; 66:14).

The prophets referred to this revelation of God’s glory, which will bring joy to Israel, and shame to her enemies as: “The revelation of God’s arm” – Isaiah 40:9,10; 52:10; 63:5; Psalm 98:2,3.

With this information in mind, let us approach the question posed in Isaiah 53:1: “On whose behalf is the arm of the Lord revealed?”

By now you should know the Bible’s answer to this question.

(The Hebrew words: “al mi” – which I translated: “on whose behalf” can also be translated as: “upon whom”. The Biblical answer will remain the same. Isaiah explicitly declared that God’s glory will be revealed upon Israel to the consternation of her enemies (Isaiah 60:1,2).)

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 Isaiah 53, Messiah | 4 Comments

Response to The Line of Fire 5

Posted on May 23, 2011 by yourphariseefriend

Response to The Line of Fire 5

On the May 19 2011 edition of his radio show: “The Line of Fire”  http://lineoffireradio.askdrbrown.org/ , Dr. Brown takes issue with a presentation I had made on the Christian interpretation of Leviticus 17:11.

Christians point to Leviticus 17:11 as a support for the doctrine of “no atonement without blood”.

The salient points of my presentation were:

  1.  The verse is not placed in a context that would indicate that a teaching on atonement is about to be presented.
  2. Even according to the Christian interpretation, the verse only supports one fragment of the Christian doctrine on atonement. The verse speaks of blood on the altar and not about a human sacrifice that was in no way connected to the altar in the Temple.
  3. The verse does not say that there is no atonement without blood. Saying that blood provides atonement is not the same as saying that there is no atonement without blood.

It is obvious that of these three points, it is the third point that is the most important. The verse does not say what the Christian claims that it says. Dr. Brown did not respond to my third point. There is not one verse in the Jewish Scriptures that comes close to saying – “there is no atonement without blood”.

Why? According to Christian theology this is one of the most foundational principles, yet the Scriptures never mention it.  Even Dr. Brown will admit that there is no EXPLICIT statement in the Jewish Scripture that states “there is no atonement without blood”. Why did God see no need to mention this “foundational” principle? God did say that no one born of a woman can be righteous. He actually wrote that twice (Job 15:14, 25:4) directly contradicting the Christian doctrine of a sinless Messiah – a doctrine that has not a shred of Scripture to hang on to (see also Ezekiel 45:22). Yet the doctrine that is most “critical for the salvation of mankind” – according to Dr. Brown – is not mentioned once!

Dr. Brown’s response to my first point is that by placing the text in the book of Leviticus, this teaching is placed in an “atonement” context.

It is not necessary to point out that the majority of the book of Leviticus does not have to do with atonement. This is especially true when we take Dr. Brown’s own argument into consideration. On page 182 of volume 2 of his “Answering Jewish Objections” series, Dr. Brown argues that when Isaiah speaks of burnt offerings and “zevachim” (-sacrifices), he is not necessarily referring to atoning sacrifices. If this is true, then the majority of the sacrifices mentioned in the book of Leviticus were not necessarily atoning sacrifices.

Dr. Brown did not really respond to my argument. The point I was making in my presentation was that in the case of repentance, the Divine Author introduces the passage with a sentence that makes abundantly clear that a teaching on the subject of forgiveness from sin is about to be presented (Ezekiel 33:10). Why did God not do the same for Leviticus 17:11?

The second point in my presentation contends that even according to the Christian interpretation, Leviticus 17:11 only supports a fragment of the Christian doctrine on atonement. The verse speaks of atonement on the altar. How do they get from the altar in the Temple, to Jesus.

Dr. Brown attempts to counter this argument by pointing to Isaiah 53:10 where he sees justification for the doctrine of a human substitutionary offering.

I will again refer the reader to my article: https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/isaiah-53-teaches-that-jesus-is-not-the-messiah/ and to Contra Brown where I demonstrate how Dr. Brown’s interpretation of Isaiah 53 is unfounded.

But even according to Dr. Brown’s interpretation, the Jewish Scriptures still do not support the complete doctrine of Christianity on the subject of atonement. Scripture never speaks of faith in an individual as a prerequisite to atonement. Even according to Dr. Brown’s understanding of Scripture there is no justification for the Christian doctrine that outside of faith in Jesus there is no atonement for sin.  Christian theology actually takes this concept one step further. Not only today, when there is no Temple, is there no atonement outside of Jesus, but according to Hebrews 10:4 – even the offerings of the Temple did not really atone. On this same radio program, Dr. Brown discusses this concept and he presents the position that the Temple sacrifices did not provide a complete atonement.

Let us recap. According to Dr. Brown Leviticus 17:11 tells us that there is no atonement without blood. We are supposed to then understand that this concept is not limited to the animal sacrifices that the passage in Leviticus 17:11 is actually speaking about, but applies to a sacrifice that is not mentioned in the book of Leviticus altogether. Then we are supposed to go back to Leviticus 17:11, and realize that the sacrifices that the verse speaks of, namely the animal sacrifices, didn’t really provide a full atonement to begin with.

This is the “Scriptural support” for one of the central doctrines of Christianity.

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 Atonement, Response to Dr. Brown Line of Fire | 6 Comments

Response to The Line of Fire 4

Posted on May 22, 2011 by yourphariseefriend

Response to The Line of Fire 4

On the May 19 2011 edition of his radio show: “The Line of Fire”  http://lineoffireradio.askdrbrown.org/ , Dr. Brown made the argument that the rabbinic interpretation of Exodus 23:2 is inexcusable. The verse tells us not to follow a crowd to pervert justice, while some of the respected rabbinical commentators – including Maimonides, understand that the verse teaches to follow the majority. According to Dr. Brown this is an unpardonable distortion of the Biblical text.

Before we answer this question, we will note that Maimonides knew how to read Hebrew (an understatement if there ever was one) and that he was well aware of Dr. Brown’s arguments because they were already articulated by Rashi and the Ibn Ezra before him. It is also known that Mimonides had tremendous repsect for the Ibn Ezra, so if he took a position against the Ibn Ezra in a matter of Scriptural interpretation we can be sure that there is a logical explanation that supports his opinion.

We do not have to go too far to find it.

The oldest Jewish commentary on the text, which actually predates the advent of Christianity, the Targum Yonatan, provides an answer for Dr. Brown’s problem.

The first thing we must realize is that the word “crowd” appears nowhere in the original Hebrew. The correct translation is “numerous”. According to the Targum, the verse teaches us not to misuse the court procedure of following the “numerous” – i.e. the majority, to pervert justice. The clear implication is that the natural system would have us follow the majority, and the Torah is teaching us not to use this court procedure as an excuse to pervert justice.

It is interesting to note that according to Dr. Brown, the Torah never tells us what court procedure we ought to follow when the judges disagree. Neither does the Torah tell us the correct number of judges that ought to adjudicate, or the method of electing judges. According to Dr. Brown, the fact that the Written Torah does not address these matters, means that there is no Divine legislation on these matters. This would then mean that even according to Dr. Brown, the community’s decision to adopt a “follow the majority” procedure does not violate any Scriptural law.

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 Response to Dr. Brown Line of Fire | 1 Comment

Response to The Line of Fire 6

Posted on May 22, 2011 by yourphariseefriend

Response to The Line of Fire 6

In the May 19 2011 edition of his radio show, “The Line of Fire”  http://lineoffireradio.askdrbrown.org/ , Dr. Brown attempts to defend his arguments relating to the Biblical book of Jonah.

The book of Jonah describes how the wicked people of Nineveh were threatened with destruction. They repent, and the Divine decree is rescinded.

The obvious message of this book is that God accepts repentance for the forgiveness of sin.

Christian theology contends that there is no forgiveness of sin without a blood sacrifice. The book of Jonah presents a serious problem for Dr. Brown. Where was the blood sacrifice of the Ninevites?

In volume 2 of his “Answering Jewish Objections” series, Dr. Brown presents an inventive solution to this Christian problem. Dr. Brown argues that the blood offering for the people of Nineveh was offered on their behalf by the Jewish people in the Temple in Jerusalem.

Dr. Brown attempts to prop up this fanciful theory with a passage in the Bible. In Exodus 19:6, God tells the people of Israel that they will be a “kingdom of priests”. Dr. Brown then jumps to the conclusion that Israel is now enjoined to offer sacrifices for the gentile nations, and that these sacrifices will be a critical requirement for the gentile nations to achieve forgiveness for their sins.

I have corresponded at length with Dr. Brown about this particular issue. At the end of this article I share two sections of this correspondence, one of which is available on this blog in its entirety – https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/letter-to-aryeh-leib/ .

At this point I will just make a few general observations.

The entire thrust of the book of Jonah is that repentance is efficacious. God saw that this message was important enough so that He devoted a full book of the Bible to accentuate this message. If it is as Dr. Brown says, that the repentance of the gentiles is meaningless without the blood sacrifices of Israel, why does God not devote at least the same amount of space in Scripture to articulate this message? Why is it that even according to Dr. Brown’s interpretation, this “critical” message is presented in only one segment of one verse in such a backhanded way?

The passage in exodus singles out Israel from all the nations of the earth. We would then expect that whatever the verse is referring to would be limited to the nation of Israel to the exclusion of the gentiles. The fact is that the gentiles were allowed to bring blood sacrifices in the Jerusalem Temple on their own behalf. The Scriptures never limit the bringing of blood offerings to the Jewish people alone. According to Torah law, even in the absence of the Temple, gentiles are still permitted to bring blood offerings to the Creator of heaven and earth. When God singles out the people of Israel, He is NOT stating that members of no other nation may bring blood offerings.

Finally, the people of Israel are referred to as priests in the Messianic era (Isaiah 61:6). If it is as Dr. Brown contends, that the title “kingdom of priests” denotes the bringing of offerings to atone for the nations, then why will this be necessary in the Messianic era – when according to Dr. Brown’s theology, Jesus will have already fulfilled that requirement?

4) A kingdom of priests

The reason this subject entered our dialogue was because I was trying to demonstrate that without the rabbinical writings you will have no answer for objection 3.14. You went on to argue that on a purely scriptural basis, you would say that the Jews were supposed to bring offerings for the gentiles – this based on the kingdom of priests passage in Exodus. (Even if I were to agree with the interpretation, this is still a far cry from the concept that the gentiles have no atonement without Israel’s offerings – in a sense that the plain meaning of the book of Jonah is utterly negated.) I wrote back to you saying, that if you would only have Jewish scripture to go with (and not the rabbinic writings or the Christian scriptures) you would never have come to this conclusion. The role of the priests towards the rest of Israel as bringing offerings for them is not paralleled in scripture’s description of Israel’s role towards the nations. The role of the priests as teachers is paralleled. I think this is pretty straightforward.

You respond by asking me if I do not believe that the priests were intercessors for the rest of Israel. They certainly were intercessors for the people in the sense of praying for the people (Joel2:17) – paralleled by Jeremiah 29:7 in describing Israel’s role towards the nations amongst whom they were dispersed. The Priests were intercessors in the sense that they were a “lightening rod to attract God’s wrath upon themselves” (what a vivid expression!) As stated in Numbers 18:1 and as paralleled in Isaiah 53 in describing Israel’s role towards the nations. But as for the priests being intercessors in the sense of the bringing of offerings, I cannot find a parallel in scripture where this is described as Israel’s role towards the nations. So if one were to go on a strictly scriptural basis, he would sooner conclude that Israel is to pray and suffer for the nations before he would conclude that Israel must bring offerings for the nations.

5) A Kingdom of Priests

I must thank you for bringing this subject into focus for me. It seems that we both see in this quotation from Exodus 19:6, support to our conflicting positions. You see the chief role of the priests as the affecting of atonement. You also happen to believe that there is no atonement without the offering of blood sacrifices. Therefore you see in this passage a support to the philosophy that the gentiles do not have atonement only through the blood offerings of the people of Israel.

I see the chief role of the priests as being directly responsible for the service of God that is necessary for His divine presence to dwell in our midst. This certainly includes the processing of blood offerings for atonement, but in no way is it limited to this. The priests were assigned many responsibilities that related to the open manifestation of God’s presence here on earth. I believe that the gentiles can achieve expiation for their sins without the people of Israel (as the book of Jonah openly teaches), but they cannot merit an open manifestation of God’s presence without the people of Israel.

I think that the overwhelming weight of scripture supports my understanding of this passage. If indeed this passage (Exodus 19:6) is talking exclusively about blood offerings and is highlighting their fundamental importance, then what is God saying in Jeremiah 7:23? If the chief role of the priests is to provide atonement, then why does scripture so often describe the role of the priest as “le’shareis”( – to serve) and not as “le’chaper” (- to atone)? If the chief role of the priests is to provide atonement, and since Jesus came on the scene, the blood offerings of Israel no longer atone, so why is the nation spoken of as being Kohanei Hashem (- the priests of the Lord) by Isaiah (61:6) in the messianic era? The role that the nation of Israel played in the offering of blood offerings – namely bringing the animals to the temple and paying for and supporting the temple service, is a function that is clearly permitted to the gentiles. If the entire point of Israel’s designation as a kingdom of priests is limited to the blood offerings, then in what way is Israel as a nation different than the gentiles?

The way I understand this passage (Exodus 19:6) is that just as the priests were designated by God to be involved in the service related to the manifestation of His presence in a more direct and explicit way than the rest of the nation of Israel. So were the Jewish people as a whole designated by God to be involved in His service as it relates to the manifestation of His presence in a more direct and explicit way than the rest of the nations. This was clearly true when the temple was standing and it will be obvious again when the temple will be restored, but it is also true now. Ezekiel 11:16 (note Matthew Henry’s commentary) tells us that even in exile we are in God’s sanctuary. The covenantal sign of the Sabbath, tells us that God’s sanctity is still with us. The glimmer of God’s sanctity that dwells in this fallen world dwells amongst the Kingdom of Priests – those who love God and are loyal to His word.

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 Response to Dr. Brown Line of Fire | Leave a comment

Response to The Line of Fire 7

Posted on May 22, 2011 by yourphariseefriend

Dr. Brown presented his counter-arguments to a presentation I had made on the subject of “original sin” on the May 19 2011 edition of his radio program – The Line of Fire  http://lineoffireradio.askdrbrown.org/ .

My response has been published on this blog on March 15 2011.

https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2011/03/15/not-by-your-righteousness/

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 Response to Dr. Brown Line of Fire | Leave a comment

Response to “The Line of Fire” 3

Posted on May 20, 2011 by yourphariseefriend

Response to The Line of Fire 3

On the May 19 2011 segment of Dr. Brown’s radio program  http://lineoffireradio.askdrbrown.org/ , he addresses some of the arguments that I raised on the Jews for Judaism youtube channel.

The first argument he addresses is my challenge to Christian missionaries. I challenge the missionary to designate a set of criteria for determining if a given doctrine is truly Scriptural. Then I encourage the missionary to take the verses presented by the Jewish people in support of their doctrines, and the verses presented by the missionary in support of Christianity and run it through the test that they themselves have created. I am confident that there will be no contest. The verses that are  presented to support the Jewish position will pass with flying colors while the verses that are used to support the doctrines of Christianity will fail.

Dr. Brown accepted my challenge. He sets forth the criterion that the doctrine be supported by the plainest most obvious contextual sense of the verse.

Dr. Brown then presents Isaiah 53 as a support for the doctrine that the Messiah is supposed to atone for the sins of Israel and he contrasts that with the Rabbinical teaching that the Rabbis are authorized to pronounce rulings on matters of religious law on the basis of Deuteronomy 17:8-19.

Nice try.

The challenge was to take ALL of the verses that are used to support the doctrines of Christianity and contrast them with ALL of the verses that are used to support the doctrines of Judaism.  My challenge was to look at the total picture. What Dr. Brown has attempted to do was to take one of the stronger proof-texts used by the missionary and compare it to one of the weaker proof-texts presented by the counter-missionary. (When I use the terms “stronger” or “weaker” – I mean – the way they may seem at first glance. A study of Isaiah 53 in context will reveal that Jesus is NOT the Messiah. Please see my article “Isaiah 53 Teaches that Jesus is Not the Messiah” – on this blog.)

Dr. Brown presented the argument that Deuteronomy 17:8-19 only refers to civil law and does not refer to ritual law. This argument was articulated by Dr. Brown quite a while ago and I responded to this argument in the publication “You are My Witnesses” – that I actually handed to Dr. Brown over a decade ago (this publication is available on the Jews for Judaism website). I pointed out that the parallel passage in 2 Chronicles 19:10 and 11 makes it abundantly clear that the jurisdiction of the courts extended both to matters pertaining to the king (i.e. civil law) and matters pertaining to God (i.e. ritual law).

If you want to take my challenge seriously , please go through the verses that I presented on my blog in support of Judaism. There are over 1000 of them. https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2010/08/31/1000-verses/

You may also find my article: “The Totality of Scripture” helpful – it is available on the Jews for Judaism website.

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, Response to Dr. Brown Line of Fire | 1 Comment

Response to “The Line of Fire” 2

Posted on May 20, 2011 by yourphariseefriend

Response to Line of Fire 2

Dr. Brown addressed Rabbi Cohen’s presentation on repentance on his “Line of Fire” radio show on May 12 2011  http://lineoffireradio.askdrbrown.org/ . Rabbi Cohen demonstrated from the Jewish Scriptures that the path to forgiveness from sin is repentance.

Dr. Brown opened his response by acknowledging the importance of repentance. He then goes on to compare repentance to one wing of a bird, the other being blood sacrifice. Dr. Brown is attempting to argue that repentance does not work without a blood sacrifice.

This argument of Dr. Brown has no biblical basis. The Jewish Scriptures NEVER say: “there is no forgiveness without a blood offering”. The Scriptures clearly say that with repentance there is forgiveness.

Dr. Brown appeals to his audience: “would you want to stand before God having to rely on your own repentance”?

This argument is fallacious for two obvious reasons.  We do not rely on our own repentance.  We rely on God’s explicit word that He fully accepts our repentance. It is not a matter of relying on our own actions. We rely on God and His promise.

Furthermore, does the Christian not need repentance? According to Dr. Brown, repentance serves as one of the wings of the bird? How can a bird fly without one of its wings?

Dr. Brown’s assertion that Nineveh’s sin was forgiven because of the sacrifices of Israel, has just about the same Biblical basis as does Paul’s assertion that the Temple sacrifices only worked because of Jesus’ future sacrifice.  Namely: Zero. I might as well say that Jesus’s sacrifice only worked because someone in the future will die for the sins of mankind.

The Scriptures are abundantly clear. God in His infinite mercy accepts our repentance. All we need to do is to take God on His word.

For further information – please read Contra Brown and The Elephant and the Suit (on the Jews for Judaism website) as well as the articles filed under the category “Atonement” that are posted on this blog.

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, Response to Dr. Brown Line of Fire | 5 Comments

Response to “The Line of Fire” 1

Posted on May 20, 2011 by yourphariseefriend

Response to Line of Fire 1

Those of you who have been following this blog may find it of interest that Dr. Brown has chosen to address some of the issues that we have been discussing here – on his radio show: Line of Fire – http://www.lineoffireradio.com/2011/05/12/jesus-the-messiah-of-israel-opening-up-some-major-messianic-themes/

On this program Dr. Brown plays two clips from the Jews for Judaism you tube channel, one at about the 67 minute mark and the other at about the 82 minute mark. Each of these clips is followed by Dr. Brown’s response.

The first of these clips is my presentation of the argument that is articulated in the article; “The Polar Opposite” (https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2010/09/05/the-polar-opposite/ – see also – https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2011/01/30/yearning-for-the-messiah/ ), while the second is Rabbi Eli Cohen’s presentation of the Scriptural concept that all that is required for forgiveness from sin is sincere repentance.

Before I address the issue under discussion, I would like to clear up a possible misconception. The focus of that particular radio show is the belief of some that while Jesus is not the Messiah of Israel, he somehow still plays the role of the savior of the gentiles. In his introduction of the first clip Dr. Brown described the clip as explaining why Jesus is not the Messiah of the Jewish people, which may give the mistaken impression that Jesus could somehow be the savior for the gentiles.

Let it be known that both Rabbi Cohen and I do not subscribe to such a belief. Jesus was not the Messiah of the Jews or the gentiles, and he is not the savior of the Jews or the gentiles. He is not the Messiah – period.

The main thrust of my presentation was that the Scriptures point to David as an example of the Messiah. David brought Israel into a deeper relationship with God through the songs of the Psalms. Through these songs David directs Israel’s devotion and worship towards the God of Israel and towards the God of Israel alone. He does not divert an iota of the worship and adoration that is coming to God towards his own person. This is the Messiah.

Jesus –  as a man who demands worship as a deity, is not only – not the Messiah. Jesus is the polar opposite of the true Messiah.

Dr. Brown’s first response to my argument was that a believer (in Jesus) listening to my presentation would shake his head in disbelief. Dr. Brown goes on to argue that Jesus has attracted many people to God serving like a magnet that draws people into a relationship with God. People have thrown away their idols and turned to God through the teachings of Jesus. Dr. Brown declares that Jesus served as a path to God in his own personal life. Dr. Brown claims that religious Jews have told him that they only came to know God through Jesus. Finally, Dr. Brown states that the concept that Jesus somehow distracts from God is “profoundly wrong”.

How is this a response? Does the Jesus of Christianity demand worship and devotion as a deity or does he not? Of-course he does. Is there anything more to discuss?

Some people find it confusing when they see a crude pagan throw away his wooden statues and accept Christianity. This pagan never heard of the One Creator of heaven and earth, and the Christian missionary introduced him to this foundational truth. For this pagan, Christianity seems to have been a positive development. But this does not make Jesus the Messiah any more than it makes Mohammed or Joseph Smith the Messiah. The teachings of these two people also lead many pagans and atheists to recognize the One Creator of heaven and earth.

For someone who never had a relationship with the Creator, entering into relationship with the Creator together with one of His creations, namely: Jesus; could perhaps be viewed as a positive development. But for someone who already possesses a deep and intimate relationship with the One Creator of heaven and earth, be they Jew or gentile, for such a person to bring Jesus into the relationship is a most catastrophic development.

Dr. Brown’s contention that people who believe that they have a true relationship with God without believing in Jesus – don’t “really know” God – doesn’t really deserve a response. How could he tell our martyrs, who gave their lives for the love of God – “you don’t really know God”? How could he be sure that he “really knows Jesus”? After all, according to Dr. Brown, our martyrs were deluded into thinking that they “really knew” God – how could he be so sure that he is not deluded into thinking that he “really knows” Jesus?

The argument I presented in the you-tube clip stands. For an individual who lives with the love of God in his heart, David and Jesus represent two polar opposites. David points this individual ever closer to God, while Jesus attempts to direct this person’s devotion towards himself.

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, Response to Dr. Brown Line of Fire | 4 Comments

Letters to a Messianic Jew

Posted on May 20, 2011 by yourphariseefriend

Letters to a Messianic Jew

Dear Brother

I am writing this letter with the hope that you will stop and reconsider the most important decision you made in your life.

I realize that this hope of mine is a brazen one, or as we say in Yiddish: “chutzpa”. Perhaps I should be minding my own business and stay out of your life.

Perhaps – but your own actions encouraged me to write this letter. You see, you spend your own time and energy in an effort to get Jewish people to rethink their commitment to traditional Judaism. You would want people to realize that you are motivated by the feelings of kinship that you harbor in your heart towards your brothers and sisters. You would want people to realize that you are moved by a sincere desire to help your people.

Please view my words in that same light.

You have asserted that your decision is based on the Jewish Bible. You maintain that the words of the Jewish prophets inspired you to commit your life to Yeshua.

It is difficult for me to accept your assertion at face value.

If you truly based your decision on the Bible, it should have taken you much longer to come to a decisive conclusion.

You would have first studied the differences between Judaism and Christianity. You would have made sure to understand the viewpoint of Judaism from a Jewish source, and you would have acquired an understanding of Christianity from a Christian source.

With the two opposing world-views clear in your mind, you would have then approached the Jewish Bible. You would have read it carefully and thoughtfully from cover to cover, all the while asking yourself, which of the two belief systems is supported by this text. Many sections of the Bible cannot be properly understood with a casual reading. You would have had to devote more than a little time and energy in order to master the Jewish Bible.

You came to your decision too quickly.

It is not too late. You can start again. You can study. It may take time and it may be difficult.

But then your decision will truly be based on the Bible.

Your Brother

Yisroel

Dear Brother

I am writing again. There is something else I want to talk to you about.

Let us step back and think about the big picture. What did you mean when you told me that you had based your decision on the Bible? I want to point out to you that there are certain principles that one must accept before your assertion can begin to make sense.

Before justifying your decision with the assertion that it is based on the Bible, you must first accept that the Bible is the guidance and the direction that God provided for mankind.

You see, a chain cannot be stronger than its weakest link. If the only way you know that the Bible is true is because “someone” told you it is true, than your trust in the Bible cannot be stronger than the trust that you place in the word of that “someone”.

How indeed do you know that the Bible is really God’s word? How do you know that the prophets of the Jewish Bible actually lived? How do you know that they were authentic prophets? And how do you know that each of the books of Scripture truly belongs in the Biblical canon?

If God gave you the Bible for guidance, and if God expected you to make life-changing decisions on the basis of this book, He would have presented you with solid answers to these questions.

And He did. After all – He is the God of truth.

My dear brother. Are you a man of truth? Can you honestly say that you based your decision on the Bible if you cannot articulate how it is that you know the Bible is authentic?

You owe it to yourself to find the answers to these questions:

How were the Jewish Scriptures canonized?

What were the requirements demanded of a claimant to prophecy before his or her books were accepted?

Who determined that these requirements were indeed met, and how can we be sure that the judgment of these people was indeed accurate?

When you find the answers to these questions, and when you are honestly satisfied with those answers then, and only then, can you say that you decision is based on the guidance that God has provided.

Your Brother

Yisroel

Dear Brother

Here I am again.

This time I want to ask you if you know what it means to be a Jew?

It was not so long ago that if you wanted to be called a Jew, it would have cost you dearly. If you wanted to be called by the name Jew you would have to give up your basic civil liberties. You would not be considered a citizen in most countries, you would not be allowed to own land, you could not live outside of the ghetto walls, and you could not practice most professions. Often enough, your insistence at being called a Jew would cost you your life.

But our ancestors proudly carried the name “Jew” through fire and water.

Our ancestors appreciated their calling as a nation chosen by God. That calling was dearer to them than life itself.

You are probably aware that our ancestors would not have been pleased with your decision to follow Yeshua. What you may not be aware of is how deeply your decision would have pained them. You see, they did not view a decision such as yours as a mistake, a sin or even a terrible transgression. It goes much further than that.

From the standpoint of our ancestors, the path you have chosen violates the very core of our calling as a nation before God. The way our ancestors look at it, the faith that you presently follow represents the precise opposite of what it means to be a Jew.

I recognize that you have a different understanding of the word “Jew” and of our calling as a nation before God. But wouldn’t you agree that you owe it to your ancestors to find out why they were so convinced that you are wrong?

After all, it was through your ancestors that you inherited the name: “Jew”. The price that they paid so that you can carry this name was nothing less than their very life-blood.

Won’t you at least allow them to share with you their appreciation of what it means to be a Jew? Will you let them talk?

Your Brother

Yisroel

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 | 1 Comment