The text and diagram are color-coded for easily associating between them.
24: Seventy weeks [of years] have been decreed upon your people and upon the city of your Sanctuary to terminate the transgression and to end sin, and to expiate iniquity, and to bring eternal righteousness, and to seal up vision and prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies.
25: And you shall know and understand that from the emergence of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until the anointed king [shall be] seven weeks, and [for] sixty-two weeks it will return and be built street and moat, but in troubled times.
26: And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one will be cut off, and he will be no more, and the people of the coming monarch will destroy the city and the Sanctuary, and his end will come about by inundation, and until the end of the war, it will be cut off into desolation.
27: And he will strengthen a covenant for the princes for one week, and half the week he will abolish sacrifice and meal-offering, and on high, among abominations, will be the dumb one, and until destruction and extermination befall the dumb one.
According to most estimations, Jesus died between the years 30 and 33 CE, which is at 64 weeks (450 years). If this is true, then he died between 40 to 37 years too early to be the “anointed one, cut off," who was cut off at the same time that the Temple was destroyed in 70 CE (at 483 weeks).
For the record, this doesn't mean that Jesus wasn't the Messiah, it just means that Daniel 9:24-27 is not talking about Jesus.
228 comments:
1 – 200 of 228 Newer› Newest»Shalom Yaniv!
Regarding the 70 sevens of Daniel, we can see in the beginning of chapter 9 that Daniel was praying for the end of the Babylon exile, which was supposed to last seventy years according to the prophet Jeremiah 25:11-12.
Nevertheless, while Daniel was praying for that, the angel Gavriel came to him and told him about something much greater than what Daniel was praying about. Gavriel revealed to him about the Messianic redemption which will be fulfilled after 70 sevens, and which will put an end to sin and bring eternal righteousness to the Jewish people (Daniel 9:24). Daniel 9:24 is very clearly speaking about the final redemption of the Jewish people, which is supposed to be accomplished by the Messiah.
According to Gavriel, the exile in Babylon would not be the last exile of our Jewish people, but after the 70 sevens, the transgression and sin will come to an end, iniquity will be expiated, and eternal righteousness will be brought. This is clearly the final and Messianic redemption. Do you agree?
Second point is, in which year did you start to count the 70 sevens? After which decree?
Hello Daniel,
A couple of things here.
The first thing is that 9:24 is clearly addressing the Jews: "Seventy weeks [of years] have been decreed upon your (Daniel's) people..." Christians believe that God sent redemption to all humanity through Jesus, so the verse should have read something like "Seventy weeks [of years] have been decreed upon the world," not just "your people."
The second thing is that a problem arises from the way that you are interpreting this text. If my understanding is correct, you are interpreting "to terminate the transgression and to end sin" to mean "atonement," i.e., to Jesus. The problem is the context, which is that the seventy years of exile were decreed upon Israel due to their sins, and so the end of this exile marks the end of that sin, or more accurately, it marks the end of the exile decreed upon them for that sin. It does not mean that sin will have been (potentially) defeated, which you're associating with the Messiah.
See 9:19: "O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive..." forgive what? Forgive the sins that our ancestors committed to bring about this exile? How? By ending the exile.
Another problem has to do with the way Christianity understands people to attain forgiveness through Jesus; it is not enough for him to have died, but a person must willfully accept his death in order to be saved. This is plainly different from the way that 9:24 describes "and to end sin," which is that the "change in the living conditions" of the Jews will have occurred, which is independent of their personal faith in or acceptance of anything; it is a change in the environment, not necessarily a change in their heart.
Another problem arises when you read the rest of the chapter in Jeremiah (say from verse 15 onward), which goes on to describe the wrath and retribution that God will exercise towards Babylon and other various nations that He names. This goes to support the point that this "end of sin" is referring to the end of this exile and punishing the nations that either directly or indirectly contributed to it, and not to the end of sin as Christians understand it.
Regarding this: "Daniel 9:24 is very clearly speaking about the final redemption of the Jewish people, which is supposed to be accomplished by the Messiah," that's true, which ties in to the fifth thing, that you did not (yet) address of what I said above, which is that Jesus died in the year 30 or 33, and the Temple was destroyed in the year 70. The verse is very clear to say that the anointed one will be cut off on the same year that the Temple will be destroyed, which plainly means that this anointed one is not Jesus:
"And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one will be cut off, and he will be no more, and the people of the coming monarch will destroy the city and the Sanctuary...".
You asked: "Second point is, in which year did you start to count the 70 sevens? After which decree?"
It isn't about my counting, it's about Daniel's counting. Daniel starting counting 18 years too early, i.e, from the first decree (Jeremiah 25:12) and not the second (Jeremiah 29:10), which is what caused him to think that the exile had been multiplied by 7 to equal 490 years (Leviticus 26:18).
I also wanted to point out another interesting thing: in Jeremiah 25:9, God refers to Nebuchadrezzar as "My servant":
"Behold, I send and I will take all the families of the north, says the Lord, and to Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, My servant..."
This is relevant because it is similar to Daniel 9's reference to "the anointed one" as someone other than the Messiah. In 9:25 it refers to the king Cyrus, and in 9:26 it refers to the king Agrippa (according to Rashi).
Yaniv...
Shalom Yaniv.
I think I should address something here first: I don't believe that the 70 weeks were already fulfilled, only 69 weeks. The 70th week is yet to come, it didn't even start yet. Only when the 70th week be fulfilled everything said in Daniel 9:24 will be fully fulfilled. And you are right, the 70 weeks are about Israel as a nation, and what was written in Daniel 9:24 was not already fulfilled in Israel as a nation.
Nevertheless, Daniel 9:24 was partially fulfilled in the 69th week when the atoning death of Yeshua the Messiah "expiated iniquity" and brought "eternal righteousness", as Daniel 9:24 says would happen.
The atoning death of Yeshua brought eternal righteousness because in the same way that by one only man, Adam, sin and death entered the world, by one only man, the Messiah Yeshua, who never sinned and provided atonement for our sins through His death, eternal redemption also came to all those who put their trust in Him, as it is written in the Torah: "Avraham believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him as righteousness." Bereshit 15:6.
If you read Daniel 9:27, you will see that there is still one week to be fulfilled. And this last week will start after the "desolator"(ruler) of Daniel 9:27 comes, and will finish when this "desolator" be destroyed, as Rashi says in this verse, "in the days of the King Messiah.
If you read Daniel 9:26, you can see there that the Temple was destroyed, but in Daniel 9:27 the Temple is standing again, because this ruler who is supposed to come will "put an end to sacrifice and offering" (Daniel 9:27), what can only happen if the Temple be rebuilt.
So, as you can see, the Messiah will come to reign only after the Temple be rebuilt and this desolator comes. This desolator is called in the Brit Chadasha as "the man of iniquity", who will be a false Messiah, who will be destroyed after the true Messiah Yeshua returns on the clouds of heaven.
Regarding the start of the 70 weeks, I think you didn't notice in the passage, but it says there in Daniel 9:25 that "from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks". Hence, there must be a decree to restore and build Jerusalem in order for the 70 weeks start to be counted. I asked you from which decree did you start to count the 70 weeks. There is no decree in the passage you quoted of Jeremiah 25:10,12.
I know that the word Mashiach can be applied to other kings who are not the Messiah, but as I told you before and you agreed, Daniel 9:24 is a Messianic passage, for this reason it makes sense to believe that the Messiah in Daniel 9:26 is indeed the king Messiah. The oldest Jewish interpretation of Daniel 9:26, which comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were written centuries before Yeshua was born, says that the Mashiach of Daniel 9:26 is the king Messiah.
Shalom Yaniv,
This short video of 2 Israeli Messianic Jews will help you understand what I am talking about. It is worth watching!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRDjAv3SKrU
Chag Pesach sameach!
Thank you, I've been busy with Passover, so I probably won't be able to get to your initial comment for a while.
In the meantime, what's your view on what Dr. Craig says in this short video?
I think it's more correct to say that part of it was fulfilled then, and "eternal righteousness" will be fulfilled later. However, and I know that you are thinking this: this sounds like the Second Coming. It's different because the Messiah isn't the one that fulfilled the first part (to terminate the transgression and to end sin, and to expiate iniquity), but will be the one to fulfill the second part (and to bring eternal righteousness). The anointed one who dies in verse 26 is not the Messiah, so the fulfillment of the second part doesn't constitute a return
Regarding the fulfillment of the 70th week, it all happened within that same time frame:
1) The Temple is destroyed (in the year 70).
2) He (Titus) strengthened a covenant for the princes for one week by restoring the sacrifices and meal-offerings.
3) He went back on his word half-way through the week by "and half the week he will abolish sacrifice and meal-offering."
This is the timeline as Christians explain it:
1) The Temple is destroyed (in the year 70).
2) More than 2,000 years will pass.
3) He (the Antichrist) will strengthen a covenant for the princes for one week by restoring the sacrifices and meal offerings.
4) He will go back back on his word half-way through the week.
Also, why does verse 26 refer to "he" as Titus, and to "he" as the Antichrist without introducing this later figure, neither in this chapter, in the Book of Daniel, or anywhere else in the entire Tanakh? The "desolator" is killed in the same time frame, not in the time of the Messiah.
Thirdly, "to bring eternal righteousness" is what's bothering you. "Eternal righteousness" will occur in the future with the Messiah. The building of the Second Temple didn't end the exile of Edom and bring about eternal righteousness, because this exile began when the Second Temple was destroyed. In other words, that last week (seven years) has already occurred, but the part about "eternal righteousness" will occur in the future.
Fourthly, these verses only focus on Israel as a nation, but not on the Gentiles. Because the death of Jesus is taken to mean an atonement for both Jews and Gentiles, the fact that these verses only focus on the expiation of the sins of the Jews means that it is not referring to Jesus. Whatever events that were fulfilled during that time affected only the sins of the Jews and nobody else.
To conclude, you're separating the prophecy on an imaginary fault line between verse 26 and 27. You have to do this because Jesus died, and a misreading of 9:26 justifies his death through a prophecy. If it wasn't for 9:26 would Christians have any support for the Second Coming in the Tanakh? You use Isaiah 53 as support for his death, but do you have one for his resurrection from the Tanakh?
According to MinistryMagazine, attributing Daniel 9:26 to the Second Coming is a relatively modern approach:
A popular reinterpretation in recent years has shaped many Christians' understanding of end-time events by separating the final week of Daniel's prophecy from the preceeding sixty-nine, transposing it from the historical context of Jesus' ministry to the last days of earth, and applying it to the work of antichrist. Scriptural evidence is on the side of the traditional interpretation, says the author of this article.
It's wrong to say that Jesus brought eternal righteousness. The word "righteousness" means "the quality of being morally right or justifiable." It is the quality of being morally right, not being morally right through the actions of another You cannot inherent righteousness anymore than you can inherit wickedness.
And that's the problem with the Christian understanding of Original Sin; you are considered a sinner for something that you didn't do. I think it's more accurate to say that you are corrupted for something that you didn't do, and even though your corrupted state causes you to sin, it is not your sins that get you in trouble with God, but your corrupted state This is a huge difference that Christians need to address, but can't.
The Christian understanding of Original Sin is negated in a few places in the Tanakh:
Genesis 4:6-7 - Why are you annoyed, and why has your countenance fallen? Is it not so that if you improve, it will be forgiven you? If you do not improve, however, at the entrance, sin is lying, and to you is its longing, but you can rule over it
Deuteronomy 5:9 - ...for I, the Lord your God, am a zealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the sons, upon the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me....
Ezekiel 18:20 - The soul that sins, it shall die; a son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and a father shall not bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
Regarding Genesis 15:6, it is absolutely clear through context that God is not referring to Abraham's faith over his actions, but to the faith that he placed in God's specific promise to provide him a son through Sarah. Why do Christians overlook the context?
The context is given in Genesis 15:2 - And Abram said, "O Lord God, what will You give me, since I am going childless, and the steward of my household is Eliezer of Damascus?"
How long will Christians play these games?
It says this in Jeremiah 29:12 - For so said the Lord: For at the completion of seventy years of Babylon I will remember you, and I will fulfill My good word (דְּבָרִ֣י) toward you, to restore you to this place.
The word "word" is the same one used in Daniel 9:24 (דָבָ֗ר), hence the connection. I know that you already know this...
The two gentlemens' use of Nehemiah 2:18 is the wrong starting point because that only refers to the third wave of Jews returned to Israel. According to Foundations for Freedom, which is a Christian site:
"They [the Jews] made three returns:
1) Zerubbabel led the first wave of Jewish exiles to return in 536 B.C. (Ezra 1-6)
2) Ezra led the second in 455 B.C. (Ezra 7-10)
3) Nehemiah led the third in 445 B.C. (Neh 1-3)"
You begin counting from when Babylon destroyed the First Temple in 420 BCE, which is the date according to the rabbi's, who along with Cicero and some other historians doubt Herodotus' reporting (the general date of 536 or 538 BCE). Also, because 420 is considered by Jews to be the correct date, 445 cannot be the correct date: because it refers to the third wave, it would have had to have occurred after 420 (i.e., closer to the year 0). This would put the year of Jesus' death sometime after the year 70 CE.
Further, if you look at the beginning of Nechemiah 1(2-3) you'll see that his plea was only about the breached wall in Jerusalem, and not the Temple itself:
There came Hanani, one of my brethren, he and men from Judea, and I asked them about the Jews who had escaped, who remained of the captivity, and about Jerusalem. And they said to me, "The remnant who remained of the captivity in the province are in great trouble and reproach; and the wall of Jerusalem is breached, and its gates were burned with fire."
Isaiah 44:26-28 is the correct verse to establish the starting point:
Isaiah 44:26-28: He fulfills the word of His servant, and the counsel of His messenger He completes; Who says of Jerusalem, "It shall be settled," and of the cities of Judah, "They shall be built, and its ruins I will erect." Who says to the deep, "Be dry, and I will dry up your rivers." Who says of Cyrus, "He is My shepherd, and all My desire he shall fulfill," and to say of Jerusalem, "It shall be built, and the Temple shall be founded."
Keep in mind that Isaiah 45:1 refers to Cyrus as "His anointed one" (Daniel 9:25).
This is confirmed in Ezra 1:1-2:
And in the first year of Cyrus, the king of Persia, at the completion of the word of the Lord from the mouth of Jeremiah, the Lord aroused the Spirit of Cyrus, the king of Persia, and he issued a proclamation throughout his kingdom, and also in writing, saying: "So said Cyrus, the king of Persia, 'All the kingdoms of the earth the Lord God of the heavens delivered to me, and He commanded me to build Him a House in Jerusalem, which is in Judea.'"
Also, Nechemiah 6:15 says, "The wall was completed on the twenty-fifth of Ellul, after fifty-two days." They were not building the Temple, they were building the wall, which took 52 days to build, i.e., it was started and completed in the year 445. This is different than the approximate 46 years it took to build the Second Temple, in line with Daniel 9:25 (...from the emergence of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until the anointed king [shall be] seven weeks...).
Conclusion: The decree above was made in 420, not in 445. 420 BCE plus 490 brings you to 70 CE. It's true that starting the counting at 445 and adjusting for both the Jewish year and the 360-day year arrives at the year 31. However, that's not "the word to rebuild Jerusalem," which implies the initial word and not the green light for the third wave.
You know what bothers me most about these guys? It's not that they're wrong, or that they think they're right, but that they willingly deceive people. I guess I can't really hold it against them because they have probably been deceived themselves. Forgive them, for they know what they do.
Yaniv...
Shalom Yaniv,
Regarding Dr. Craig's video, I agree with him that believing in the Trinity is not essential to salvation. Nevertheless, what he said about Moses, that he didn't know about the Trinity, he has actually no grounds to say that. Maybe he said that because he doesn't study very much these things in the Tanakh, but in the New Testament. Of course there was no name as "Trinity" in Moses times, but of course Moses knew about the complex unity of God, since there are many passages in the Torah speaking about that.
If you look in the comments on that page you'll see that his statement generated quite a bit of disagreement, and even some dismay. One of the users said:
How can they not believe in the trinity if they believe Christ is divine? That beats the hell out of me, I always admired Bill Craig for his eloquence, fluency in which he presents his arguments, but I am afraid in this one he either lacks honesty, or unaware of the contradictions in his statement. Christians are coherently sound and argumentatively OK until the trinity is mentioned, then they go all to pieces. I am curious to what makes them hang on to this belief which I am pretty convinced they don't believe it deep down, especially highly intelligent individuals like John Lennox, Bill Craig Stephen Meyers etc..
I really agree with what he said here, and I'm glad that other people have noticed this, too: ... but I am afraid in this one he either lacks honesty, or unaware of the contradictions in his statement. Christians are coherently sound and argumentatively OK until the trinity is mentioned, then they go all to pieces.
Craig destroys everybody that he debates, people like Hitchens and Dawkins, he just destroys them. But in a short debate from about 20 years ago with Rabbi Tovia Singer about the Trinity, he lost hands down. He even looked foolish, and if I had not seen it I would have never believed it. To me this indicates that the Trinity is total garbage and cannot be sensibly defended.
And regarding "of course Moses knew about the complex unity of God," God is pretty straightforward with what and who He is. To rely on finding textual aberrations and enigmatic references to God's complex nature in the Tanakh is basically telling you that THERE IS NO TRINITY in the Tanakh. Every verse that Trinitarians point out as proof of the Trinity can be argued to the opposite and dismantled with relative ease, which is not the same for verses in which God says that He is a complete Unity.
Do you believe that the rabbi's made up traditions and customs that God never expected of them? I'm asking because much of Jesus' conflicts with the rabbi's of his time were based on this argument.
Shalom Yaniv,
I liked what you said about Daniel 9:26-27 regarding the first and second coming of the Messiah. I have never used this passage to prove two comings of the Messiah in the Tanakh, but it makes sense. I usually show the 2 comings of the Messiah in the Tanakh by other passages, as I have already told you in the email.
Regarding the fulfillment of the 70th week, I would like to see the historical source which says that Titus made a covenant of seven years with the princes. I tried to find it in the book of Josephus which I have here but I couldn't. Do you know where I can find it to see if Titus really did that?
If the things you said about Titus are true, I would say then that Daniel 9:27 is a passage with multiple fulfillments, and you should agree with that because the book of Maccabees, although not sacred, but with historical value, reports the fulfillment of Daniel 9:27 through Antiochus Epiphanes' acts.
But more than that, Rashi starts speaking that Daniel 9:27 is talking about Titus, the Emperor, but then he says that the last part of this verse will happen in the days of the king Messiah:
"and until destruction and extermination befall the dumb one: and the ruling of the abomination will endure until the day that the destruction and extermination decreed upon it [will] befall it, in the days of the king Messiah."
In other words, Rashi is saying that Daniel 9:27 is also speaking about another ruler who will come, and who will be destroyed by the Messiah. See also Daniel 12:7, which says that the redemption will come after "a time, times, and half a time" (a time:1 year; times: 2 years; half a time: 6 months= 3 years and a half), as in Daniel 9:27 which speaks about things that will happen after half of the week).
Read also Daniel 12:11:"And from the time the daily sacrifice is removed and the abomination that makes desolate is placed, is one thousand, two hundred, and ninety days."
Rashi says that after this time above passes the King Messiah will come and restore the sacrifices in the Temple. Note that one thousand, two hundred, and ninety days are 3 years and a half, plus one month (there is a rabbinic debate about why there is one more month here instead of just 3 years and a half). Note also that Daniel 12:11 is speaking about the same abomination that makes desolate and about the same removal of the sacrifice after 3 years and a half in Daniel 9:27.
The Talmud says that there will be a period of seven years in which the son of David will come. Check it:
“During the period of seven years in which the son of David will come, in the first year the verse will be fulfilled, ‘I caused it to rain upon one city and caused it not to rain upon another city’ (Amos iv, 7). In the second year the arrows of famine will be let loose. In the third year famine will be severe, and men, women, and children, and pious and saintly men will perish and Torah will be forgotten by its students. In the fourth year there will be plenty and not plenty. In the fifth year there will be great abundance; people will eat, drink, and be, and Torah will return to its students. In the sixth year there will be voices (from heaven). In the seventh year wars will occur, and at the conclusion of this seven-year period the son of David will come." Sanhedrin 97a.
Otzar Midrashim, Midrashim on The Messiah, Aggadah on The Messiah 3 says that a fierce king will rise up in this period of 7 years and have a kingdom, and persecute the Jewish people. His description in this midrash is very similar to the description of "the man of lawlessness" in the Brit Chadashah. Please read this Midrash.
So, as you can see, the rabbinic literature and even Rashi also understands that Daniel 9:27 will be still accomplished and that there will be another evil ruler who will persecute our Jewish people until the Messiah comes and destroys him.
Finishing the last post:
Yeshua also spoke about Daniel 9:27:
“So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place ( let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains." Matthew 24:15-16.
The book of Revelation in the Brit Chadashah also spoke many times about this final period of seven years in Daniel 9:27. Check Revelation 11:2,3; 12:14; 13:15. It shows very clearly that the Scriptures in the Brit Chadasha explicitly applies Daniel 9:27 to this evil ruler who will come.
You asked: "Also, why does verse 26 refer to "he" as Titus, and to "he" as the Antichrist without introducing this later figure"?
Because he will be an Emperor as Titus. Titus is a figure of him. Besides Daniel 9:27, you can also see this ruler in Daniel 7:19-27 and in Zechariah 11:16. Note that this ruler is described in Zechariah 11:16 before the final battle of Gog and Magog against Israel in Zechariah 12 which precedes the Messianic redemption (Talmud Sukkah 52a).
And yes, the 70 sevens of Daniel refers to the Jewish people, and that's why it will only be fully fulfilled when Yeshua returns in Zechariah 12:10 to save Israel from this evil ruler I quoted and all the nations of the world, when our Jewish people "will look unto me, whom they have pierced [Yeshua on the cross], and will mourn for him as for an only son" (Talmud Sukkah 52a says it is a passage about messiah ben Yosef).
This mourn will be a mourn of repentance of our Jewish people, because they have rejected the promised Messiah Yeshua, and then in Zechariah 13:1 they will be cleanse from their sins by the atoning death of the Messiah, and then Daniel 9:24 will be fulfilled to Israel as a nation.
That's also why I told you that Daniel 9:24 was not fully fulfilled yet. It was partially fulfilled because a remnant of the Jewish people have already put their trust in the Jewish Messiah Yeshua and had their sins atoned by His death.
The Tanakh speaks very clearly about the resurrection of the Messiah in Isaiah 53:10b, where it says that "he will prolong his days" after being killed in 53:7,8,9. It is not possible for the Messiah to prolong His days being dead, what implies that He will rise from the dead.
Shabbat Shalom!
Shalom Yaniv,
Regarding the other points you brought to the conversation, which are not about the seventy weeks of Daniel, I suggest we focus only in the 70 weeks here, otherwise we will never finish to talk about this. We are already talking about the other points by email, so let's focus here only in Daniel, is it ok?
Shabbat Shalom!
Hi Daniel,
Sorry for taking so long to respond, I have had my head elsewhere...
Anyway, I'd like you respond directly to the point of Nati's and Moti's miscounting. There are clear issues with the historical point at which they start their counting. I delineated it above very clearly, so please take a look at it.
I don't want to leave the Trinity discussion so quick; the theology of the Trinity is highly problematic from a true monotheistic perspective. It violates monotheism in both the spirit and the letter of the Law, both of which must be preserved, and both of which preserve us.
Thanks,
Yaniv...
Shalom Yaniv,
Regarding the starting point of the 70 weeks, there are many theories of where it begins and when it finishes. The matter is really complex. Try to read the vast amount of different opinions of how to interpret them and you will see it. But the important point is: the Messiah was supposed to be killed before the destruction of Jerusalem and of the second Temple, as Yeshua was.
Regarding the starting point of the 70 weeks being when Babylon destroyed the First Temple in 420 BCE, it cannot be, because the start point is with the "going out of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem", which didn't happen when the first Temple was destroyed but later.
The starting point is not with Cyro, since his decree involved only the construction of the Temple and not of Jerusalem (2 Chron. 36:22-23; Ezra 1:1-4). I see that you are confusing things here at this point: Daniel 9:25 doesn't say anything about the rebuilding of the Temple, but of Jerusalem.
Thus, if the decree is referring only to the Temple, it is not the "going out of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem" when the counting of the weeks starts (Daniel 9:25).
Now, check when the first decree or word to restore Jerusalem was issued. Remember Daniel 9:25 says nothing about the rebuilt of the Temple, but of Jerusalem.
Regards
Right, so let’s break this down.
You said, “The starting point is not with Cyro, since his decree involved only the construction of the Temple and not of Jerusalem (2 Chron. 36:22-23; Ezra 1:1-4).
First of all, it’s clear from Jeremiah 29:10 that the return of the Jews from Babylon refers to both Jerusalem and to the Temple: “For so said the Lord: ‘For at the completion of seventy years of Babylon I will remember you, and I will fulfill My good word toward you, to restore you to this place.’” “This place” is obviously Jerusalem. The entire chapter seems to be referring to Jerusalem and its environs, and probably as a return to Israel itself (broader than Jerusalem).
Even though 2 Chronicles 36:22-23 only explicitly mentions the Temple, are we to believe that Cyrus only approved of the reconstruction of the Temple without allowing them to return to Jerusalem? Where would the Jews lived who had to serve in the Temple? Sorry, but that makes no sense.
Ezra 1:5 says, “And the heads of the families of Judah and Benjamin and the priests and the Levites arose, with all whom God inspired to ascend to build the House of the Lord, which is in Jerusalem.” I ask you, where were all the people from Judah, Benjamin, and Levi to stay? Obviously the project was not simply the reconstruction of the Temple, but the return of a large population of Jews back to Jerusalem.
You said, “I see that you are confusing things here at this point: Daniel 9:25 doesn't say anything about the rebuilding of the Temple, but of Jerusalem.”
The word “Jerusalem” can be and often is a reference to the Temple as well. See Daniel 9:17, “… and cause Your face to shine upon Your desolate Sanctuary, for the sake of the Lord.” The “Sanctuary” is a translation of “Mikdash,” which is the Temple. When Daniel prays about “the mount of the Sanctuary” in verse 20 he is praying about the rebuilding of the Temple, not merely of the rebuilding of Jerusalem, for Jerusalem is empty without the Temple. Therefore, when God responds to Daniel in 9:24 about the city of your “Sanctuary” He is not only referring to the rebuilding of Jerusalem, but of the Temple, too, which is the whole point of rebuilding Jerusalem.
You said, ““Regarding the starting point of the 70 weeks being when Babylon destroyed the First Temple in 420 BCE, it cannot be, because the start point is with the "going out of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem", which didn't happen when the first Temple was destroyed but later.
The 490-year period spans from the first destruction (420) to the second destruction (70), but the construction of the Temple began 52 years (a little more than seven weeks) after the counting began.
Shalom Yaniv,
I think it is still not clear in your mind what verse we are discussing here. We are discussing Daniel 9:25 (this only verse and not another), which says that the counting of the seventy weeks starts with "the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem". According to 9:25 the start of the counting does not start with the return of the Jews to Israel, nor with the construction of the Temple, but with "the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem". The text is very clear, so what matters here for us to know is when the counting starts. It starts when the word to restore and build Jerusalem was issued.
And no, the Temple is not Jerusalem. The Temple can be rebuilt and the city still be destroyed, and even if you say (with no support of the passage) that Jerusalem was also rebuilt with the Temple, the word which was issued was referring only to the construction of the Temple, and not to the reconstruction of Jerusalem, as Daniel 9:25 says so clearly. Note that even if the Jewish people had started to rebuild Jerusalem before the "going out of the word to rebuild and to restore Jerusalem", the counting however was supposed to start only with the going out of the word to rebuild it, and not with the reconstruction itself. That's what the text of Daniel 9:25 says.
Now, you are trying to add words that are not present in the text. If God wanted us to know that the rebuilding of Jerusalem starts with the outgoing of the word to rebuild Jerusalem (as the text says), and not with the going out of the world to rebuild the Temple (as you say), what should God had said? Nothing that He had said would have satisfied you that the counting begins with the going out of the word to rebuild Jerusalem, and not the Temple. Let's stand with the text, Yaniv.
Chag sameach!
You said, “I think it is still not clear in your mind what verse we are discussing here.”
It's clear to me. Daniel 9:25 is a fulfillment of Jeremiah 29:10, which is I brought that verse up: “For so said the Lord: ‘For at the completion of seventy years of Babylon I will remember you, and I will fulfill My good word toward you, to restore you to this place.’” Rabbi Tovia Singer has a very thorough video explaining the connection between Jeremiah 29:10 and Daniel 9.
You said, “And no, the Temple is not Jerusalem. The Temple can be rebuilt and the city still be destroyed, and even if you say (with no support of the passage)…”
Daniel, you are allowed to think, and you won’t be breaking any rules. It’s clear through thinking this through that the Temple and Jerusalem are inextricably connected for the reasons that I stated (with both verses and logic to support it). Also, one of the verses that you mentioned (Ezra 1:5) itself indicates that a large population of people returned from the exile. Where were they supposed to live? The answer is of course that they lived in Jerusalem, and so the rebuilding of the Temple necessitates the rebuilding of Jerusalem as well, at least in the capacity to house the many people that returned.
You said, “Note that even if the Jewish people had started to rebuild Jerusalem…”
Please read what I said more carefully. I said, “The 490-year period spans from the first destruction (420) to the second destruction (70), but the construction of the Temple began 52 years (a little more than seven weeks) after the counting began.” In other words, as you said, the counting began (52 years) before the construction of the Temple.
You need to distinguish between Jerusalem and the Temple so that the timing lands on the date that you want. If you start the counting on -445 it ends when you need it to, but if you start it at -420 it doesn’t. The distinction between Jerusalem and the Temple is therefore both an arbitrary and irrational distinction; arbitrary for the reason I just mentioned, and irrational for the reasons I mentioned earlier.
You said, “Now, you are trying to add words that are not present in the text.”
I’m not adding words, I’m making the (undeniable) association between Jerusalem and the Temple for the reasons I mentioned here and in my previous comment (based on verses that you brought - 2 Chronicles 36:22-23 and Ezra 1:5). So rather than telling me that I haven’t understood your words or accuse me of interjecting my own into the text, try instead to consider the meaning of the verses that you’re quoting and read what I said.
Shalom Yaniv! I hope everything is well with you.
You said that Jeremiah 29:10 is the fulfillment of Daniel 9:25, which says “from the going out of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until the anointed king [shall be] seven weeks”. Where is “the going out of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem”? There is no “going out of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem” in Jeremiah 29:10, and more than that, Jerusalem was not even destroyed yet when Jeremiah said this!
Regarding what you said, I repeat my arguments from the last post. Moreover, even if the Jewish people had started to restore and rebuild the city, there was no "going out of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem", therefore the counting could not start there.
Now, you did not answer my question: If God wanted us to know that the rebuilding of Jerusalem starts with the outgoing of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem (as the text says), and not with the going out of the world to rebuild the Temple (as you say), what should God have said?
Shabbat Shalom!
Hello Daniel,
No, I said that Daniel 9:25 is the fulfillment of Jeremiah 29:10, not the other way around.
You said, Jerusalem was not even destroyed yet when Jeremiah said this!
Correct, that is sort of how prophecy works; something is said will occur before it actually occurs.
I'm not going in circles with you. I've explained to you how Jerusalem must logically be a reference to the Temple and vice-versa (and I provided verses), but it's like you don't actually read my responses and then ask me to respond. I think that this association answers your question.
This goes both ways: I've asked you several times to defend the Trinity according to the challenges I posed, but you seem to not want to.
Shalom Yaniv. Nice talking to you again.
You can be sure that I read all your comments. Regarding Daniel 9, I think we already said what we wanted to. So let's talk about the Trinity now. I think it is easier if we talk by separate points, so that we don't lose ourselves in many different arguments.
The first thing I would say to defend the Triune nature of God would be the fact that God is never mentioned as yachid in the Torah and the whole Tanakh, bur rather only as echad, a word for one that can mean a compound unity, as for example in Bereshit 2:24, where it says that a man shall leave his parents and hold fast to his wife and they shall become echad. Two that are one.
Don't you think that if God was by no means a compound unity, that He would say at least once in the whole Torah and Tanakh that He is yachid?
Hi Daniel,
I address this topic here: https://hashemisbeautiful.blogspot.com/2021/03/god-is-one.html
Shalom Yaniv,
I have read what you said about echad in your blog, but you didn't answer my question there: Don't you think that if God was by no means a compound unity, that He would say at least once in the whole Torah and Tanakh that He is yachid?
Shavua tov!
No, because the word echad means simple unity as well, and the Torah does refer to God as echad. This is what that article attempted to demonstrate. You're forcing a definition on to the word yachid when there is no hard-and-fast rule distinguishing between these two words (echad and yachid). Did that answer your question?
Shalom again Yaniv,
I read your whole article and I didn't see any passage of the Tanakh quoted saying that God is yachid, and no passage as well where yachid is used to show a compound unity. So, how can you say that there is no clear distinction between echad and yachid? Echad can mean an absolute unity, but also a compound unity, while yachid can only mean an absolute unity according to the Tanakh. God is only called echad in the Tanakh. Do you really think that it doesn't mean anything?
Shabbat Shalom,
If God is only called echad in the Tanakh, and echad can mean either an absolute or a compound unity, how do you know which one the Torah is telling you that God is?
Yachid is used for other purposes: it can mean either "singular" (quantity) or "one of many," but is never used to describe the internal nature of the thing being described. If it is used to mean "one of many" then it can also be used to describe the Trinity.
You're looking for a rule where echad means compound unity and yachid means absolute unity, but I doubt that you will find it. I've shown you that echad can mean either absolute/compound unity, and that yachid can mean either a lone item/an item belonging to a group.
You said, "...while yachid can only mean an absolute unity." Can you show me a few verses where yachid describes the unified, fundamentally inseparable nature of a thing? If it is plainly used this way then there is merit to your argument.
By the way, the word yachid is related to the word yachad. Yachad means "together" or "united" (with something else) and is used in this way in many places in the Tanakh. If you look it up in a concordance you'll see what I mean.
The first instance of this word is in Genesis 13:6 in the context of the dispute between Lot and Abraham:
"And the land did not bear them to dwell together (yachad), for their possessions were many, and they could not dwell together (yachad)."
In this context yachad means a compound unity so it isn't necessarily true that this type of root refers to absolute unity. The word yachid doesn't need to be used to describe God because echad is already used for that purpose (in context).
Shalom Yaniv,
The word yachad יַחַד is not the word yachid יָחִיד. If you want to prove that yachid can mean a compound unity, as echad can mean, you need to prove it showing a passage that has yachid describing a compound unity, as I can show you in the Tanakh regarding the word echad. The Tanakh is so big, with so many words. If yachid can mean a compound unity, you are supposed to find it there. And if you can't, this means that indeed yachid cannot mean a compound unity in Biblical Hebrew. And if that's true, and God is only called echad in the whole Tanakh, you, as a student of rabbinic literature, knows that this is not a mere coincidence, (since there are no coincidences in the Tanakh, but every detail has a purpose according to the rabbinic literature) but is intended to tell us something.
Regarding yachid being used to describe the internal nature of the thing being described, here it comes an example speaking about the only soul of the person: Psalm 35:17 הָשִׁ֣יבָה נַ֖פְשִׁי מִשֹּֽׁאֵיהֶ֑ם מִ֜כְּפִירִ֗ים יְחִֽידָתִֽי
I agree that the Torah has no coincidences.
The point I made about yachid and yachad was peripheral, so let's skip it and go the more fundamental points you mentioned.
I don't think it's very important that yachid can mean a compound unity. While I was thinking about this more I realized that I would have worded my response to you differently. I would have only said that the Torah does not need to actively tell you that God is yachid because the word echad already tells you that (which I wrote in the conclusion of my response). Your original focus was not on whether yachid can be compound (which is something that I introduced into the discussion), but that the Torah must tell us that God is yachid. If echad means absolute unity then yachid becomes extraneous in this sense.
We've determined that echad can mean either a compound or a simple unity. How do you know which type of echad the Torah means regarding God? The answer is that you must determine the meaning of a word by its surrounding context. In an example where several things are brought together to form one, echad means a compound unity. In an example where the text does not indicate this, that instance of echad means absolute unity. In other words, you must rely on a cue from the text to indicate that echad means multiplicity; drawing that assumption by yourself without the aid of the text is too large a supposition to make.
For example, Adam and Eve being described as "one flesh" is compound unity. This type of description is totally absent from Deuteronomy 6:4, which means that echad in that verse refers to absolute unity. It does not say that God is one composed of several Persons, it simply says that He is one, which means that you are making an assumption about the text based on your own presuppositions.
Psalm 35:17: O Lord, how long will You look on? Return my soul from their darkness, my only one from young lions.
In the verse above "my only one" refers to the only soul that I have, not to the internal nature of that soul.
Shalom Yaniv,
We agree that echad can mean a compound or an absolute unity, and I also agree with you that we should determine the meaning according to the context.
According to the context, you can interpret that God is one absolute or a compound unity, it does not matter, because what the context is saying is that there is only one God, no matter if He is a compound unity or not.
Now, my point is, we know that God focused so much in the Torah and the Tanakh that He is the only one, and that there is none besides Him. This is a very important issue in Scripture, therefore, why would not He clearly say Ani yachid at least once in the whole Tanakh and avoid this way any doctrine that says that He is a compound unity? Perhaps because He is indeed a compound unity.
Read Bereshit 1 for example, where God is creating everything through His Word, and His Spirit is hovering upon the face of the waters. Here you can see God, His Word and His Spirit, all of them present in the creation. Are you aware of the concept of the Memrah *Word of God) in the Targumim? Please, research there and you will see that according to the Targum the Memrah is a person and God Himself. This by itself proves that God is a compound and complex unity. He is the Ein Soph. We cannot try to compare Him with us, He is infinite.
Regarding Psalm 35:17, yachid is used to describe the soul of the person. The soul, by itself, is already the internal nature of someone, that's why I quoted this passage, to show yachid describing the internal nature of someone.
המשך שבוע טוב
You said, "...because what the context is saying is that there is only one God, no matter if He is a compound unity or not."
I actually disagree that this is the only thing this verse is saying. If nothing in the Torah is accidental, the two phrases in Deuteronomy 6:4 seem to be saying distinctly different things. The first part, "the Lord [is] our God," pledges allegience to God alone, namely because no other deities actually exist. The second part, "the Lord is One," refers to the unified state of God (simple unity). In other words, the first part refers to quantity (only one God) and the second part to quality (His completely unified nature); two fundamentals of monotheism. Because the phrases cannot be said to be redundant or poetic, we must rule out the explanation (borne of ambiguity) that God is a compound unity.
"...why would not He clearly say Ani yachid at least once in the whole Tanakh..."
Because echad succeeds in describing God as a simple unity. As long as that's true, there's no reason to rely on an additional word to tell us that God is a simple unity.
In addition, the word echad is used in several places to indicate complex unity, but if I am correct none of those verses refer to God, but to other things (such as night and day, Adam and Eve). We cannot assume that the use of this word to physical, created things applies to God as well. We would need to find a verse explicitly formulated in this same way, but there aren't any.
..."and avoid this way any doctrine that says that He is a compound unity?"
This is sort of like a child saying to his father, "You only said, 'Don't hit your brother.' But I didn't hit him - I threw something at him.'" The child is either playing the fool or being manipulative, knowing full well what his father desires by saying "Don't hit your brother." Perhaps the father is giving the child freedom to exercise his free will for the good; it is disturbing, and a shame, when he uses his intelligence to find a loophole.
This is a kin to Adam's response to God in Genesis 3:12, "And the man said, 'The woman whom You gave [to be] with me she gave me of the tree; so I ate.'" While that is so, Adam was given room to reason that it would have been the wrong thing to do. This is also similar to Cain's response in Genesis 4:9, "And he said, 'I do not know. Am I my brother's keeper?'"
This is a kin to Adam's response to God in Genesis 3:12, "And the man said, 'The woman whom You gave [to be] with me she gave me of the tree; so I ate.'" While that is so, Adam was given room to reason that it would have been the wrong thing to do. This is also similar to Cain's response in Genesis 4:9, "And he said, 'I do not know. Am I my brother's keeper?'"
You said, "Read Bereshit 1... Here you can see God, His Word and His Spirit, all of them present in the creation."
You are making a huge assumption that these are Persons in a Trinity. As long as the Torah does not say, "God is One Being with three Persons," or explicitly identify these things as Persons, you cannot assume that the mere mention of God's Word and "the spirit of God" are centers of consciousness. I have a hard time believing that you don't understand that.
You said, "Are you aware of the concept of the Memrah *Word of God) in the Targumim? Please, research there and you will see that according to the Targum the Memrah is a person and God Himself."
That will have to wait, but I will attempt to get my hands on one.
You said, "Regarding Psalm 35:17... The soul, by itself, is already the internal nature of someone, that's why I quoted this passage, to show yachid describing the internal nature of someone."
If you read this verse carefully you'll notice that yachid refers to quantity, not quality; David is saying that he has one soul, he is not saying that his soul is a simple unity. If true, we do not need to rely on the word yachid to teach us that God is a simple unity, because it doesn't mean that. Either way, according to Judaism the soul is made of several components, so using the word yachid to describe a soul would only indicate complex unity (just as echad can).
Sorry to be long-winded, but you run into an unavoidable conundrum when reading the Tanakh, especially here in Psalms 35. King David repeatedly refers to God as the second person singular. If God is a Trinity, why does King David continuously refer to only one of them? Which one is he addressing his prayers to? Is it the Father, the Son, or the Spirit?
It can't be the Son because we are not assuming that Jesus is standing right in front of King David, so it must be either the Father or the Spirit. You may say that David was only aware of the Father because God had not at that point explicitly revealed His Trinitarian nature yet. If so, why does King David say in verse 22, "... do not distance Yourself from me"? It cannot be the Son (as we said), and not the Father, for the Father is incorporeal (and can't be close or far), so it must be the Spirit. However, it can't be the Spirit because God had not yet explicitly revealed His Trinitarian nature. We therefore have to conclude that King David is simply praying to a unified God.
Shalom Yaniv,
"YHWH is our God" is not speaking about any quantity, but about whose God YHWH is. If I say: "Mariana is our sister", does it mean that I have only one sister? Of course not, I can have others. Also remember that the word Elohim is in its plural form, another hint from God to us about His complex unity, echad, and not yachid.
God refers to Himself in plural in Gen. 1:26; 11:5-9. Check also Gen. 19:24:
"Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the Lord out of heaven."
Check also Isa. 6:8, Ps. 45:6-7, Zech. 12:10. The three persons of God are mentioned together in Isa. 48:16, 63:8-10.
Therefore, when the Torah says that Adonay echad, it means He is a complex unity, and not a simple unity. That's why He does not say yachid in any passage.
Regarding David addressing his prayer to God, he is not thinking if he is addressing it to the Father, Son or the Spirit, he is just praying to God, who exists in these 3 persons. Now, when you pray to God, you are praying to the Father (even if you don't know that), and not to His Word or Spirit. Even in the New Testament, you don't find anyone, even once, praying to the Spirit or to the Son, but only to the Father.
Regarding the Memrah (Word of God) being a person and God Himself, check for example what the Targum Pseudo Jonathan (printed in the rabbinic Bibles, Mikraot Guedolot) says in Deuteronomy 4:7: "[...] The Memrah [Word] of Adonay is seated upon his high and exalted throne and hears our prayers every time we pray before him and that we make our petitions."
המשך שבוע טוב
Hello Daniel,
I want to reiterate that there is no context in Deuteronomy 6:4 pointing to the complex nature of God. The word echad doesn't count as context because the word itself may be ambiguous (which we covered). You shouldn't assume the point that you're trying to prove.
Regarding your first point about "Mariana," that can be true of any created thing, but not of God. Because no gods actually exist, saying "Hashem is my God" is by definition an exclusive statement, while saying "Mariana is my sister" does not preclude the existence of other siblings. In other words, the words "Hashem is our God" are used to disqualify the very existence of other gods, and therefore indicates quantity. It does not mean that many gods exist although I have an allegiance to God only.
God has many Names, and "Elokim" is the only grammatically plural one; the rest are singular. Nevertheless, this Name is plural to indicate the many (nay, infinite) powers of God, not multiple Persons.
Haven't we already discussed Genesis 1:26, 11:5-9, and 19:24? The answer to all three of these verses is the same; God is speaking in the third person as He does this in the very first verse in the Torah. "In the beginning of God's creation of the heavens and the earth" is in the third person. It does not read "In the beginning of My creation of the heavens and the earth..." For some reason God chose to refer to Himself in the third person, which is the correct way to understand the verses that you cited.
The other problem with this theory is that you can count the plural "we" and "us" references to God on one hand, which indicates that those verses are not talking about God, but telling us something else. Otherwise we can expect a "copy/replace" of every instance of "I" and "He" with "Us" and "Them," which is of course not what we get.
Regarding the other verses you mentioned, there are good answers for all of them without assuming the Trinity.
Regarding, "That's why He does not say yachid in any passage," that's possible, but it could also be the other reason I mentioned three times.
You said that nobody in the New Testament prays to the Son. Does Stephen pray to Jesus in Acts 7:59 (and 60), "While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, 'Lord Jesus, receive my spirit'"? John 9:38 is also pretty explicit. See also 1 Corinthians 1:1–2, 16:22, 2 Corinthians 12:8 and 9. If Jesus is God, and people prayed to him in the Christian Scriptures, and Jesus revealed himself in the Tanakh, why weren't people in the Tanakh praying to him?
Regarding what you said about "the word," how do you know that "Him" doesn't refer to God and not to "the word"?
Hello Daniel,
I looked up the Targum Yonatan on this verse. While reading through more of it I noticed that the word "Memrah" is used often. As you read it in context you see that it cannot mean a personified transmigration of God. As I suspected, you're reading out of context here as you have been with the Tanakh.
For example, the first instance of says, "Was it not in the wilderness at Mount Sinai, that the law was given to you? and on the plains of Moab was shown you what miracles and mighty acts the Word of the Lord had wrought on your behalf.
Notwithstanding that this (non-Jewish) author capitalizes "Word," the "word of God" clearly indicates that the mighty acts were done through God's speech.
Later it says that "The Word of the Lord our God hath multiplied you..." Firstly, it again seems that this refers to God's speech, for God said that He would multiply the Jewish people. Secondly, it specifically says "The Word" followed by "of the Lord," indicating that the word belongs to God, i.e., that He uttered it.
The fourth chapter also says, "Hath it ever been that a people should hear the voice of the Word of the Lord, the Living God, speaking from the midst of fire, as you heard, and remained alive?" This is a very specific reference to God's speech.
The verse that you mentioned is preceded by, "Your eyes have seen what the Word of the Lord hath done to the worshippers of the idol Peor..."
What did their eyes see? Did their eyes see Jesus, or did their eyes see the outcome of the fulfillment of God's speech regarding the worshippers of Peor: "The Lord said to Moses, 'Take all the leaders of the people and hang them before the Lord, facing the sun, and then the flaring anger of the Lord will be removed from Israel.'" (Numbers 25:4).
By the way, notice that here it is the death of wicked that brings forgiveness, not the death of the innocent.
The part that you mentioned in Deuteronomy 4:7 says, "...but the Word of the Lord sitteth upon His throne high and lifted up, and heareth our prayer what time we pray before Him and make our petitions..."
The word of the Lord is with Him, but the verse above means that God (not the word) hears our prayers and petitions. We both know that neither the Jews in Moses' time nor in the time of the Talmud were directing their prayers to Jesus. In Moses' time they, as you admit, had no knowledge of "the Son," and in the time of the Talmud they passionately disagreed with Jesus' claim that he was "the Son" (and therefore were not praying to him).
Shalom Yaniv,
Although we know that there is only one God, the Jewish people after being delivered from Egypt didn’t know that and even worshiped other gods, so that’s the reason that Moshe says that HaShem is our God, because they should not have other gods, as many other passages say.
You said “Nevertheless, this Name is plural to indicate the many (nay, infinite) powers of God, not multiple Persons.” Why not both? It can be a hint to both.
The one who is speaking “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” is not God but Moses, so your argument is not valid. Moreover, there are two HaShem in Gen. 19:24, see it:
"Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the Lord out of heaven.".
Regarding people praying to Yeshua in the Brit Chadashah, you are right regarding Acts 7:59. I didn’t remember this passage regarding that. The other passages are not prayers to Yeshua. When the word Lord (adon) and Lord (HaShem) are the same word in Greek, which is “kurios”. Regarding people in the Tanakh praying to the Son, the Word of God, you can see that, for example, in Judges 6:16-18, where Gideon prays to the Angel of the Lord, who is the Son of God, His Word, who even accept a sacrifice from Gideon:
“And the Lord said to him, “But I will be with you, and you shall strike the Midianites as one man.” And he said to him, “If now I have found favor in your eyes, then show me a sign that it is you who speak with me. Please do not depart from here until I come to you and bring out my present and set it before you.” And he said, “I will stay till you return.” Judges 6:16-18.
You said “Regarding what you said about "the word," how do you know that "Him" doesn't refer to God and not to "the word"?” Because the subject of the sentence is the Memrah, and not the Lord, thus it is most likely referring to the Memrah, and not the Lord.
Regarding the Memrah of the Lord being God’s speech, you are right, that’s the way it is called the Word of the Lord. This is not the issue. The issue is that this Word of the Lord, this speech of Him is a person, and not mere words as our words for example. That’s why the Memrah of the Lord can actually sit upon a high and exalted throne, as the Targum says. A mere speech cannot do that.
Check also the Targum in Genesis 3:8: “And they heard the sound of the Word of the LORD God walking in the midst of the garden.” Genesis 28:20–21 reads, “If God will be with me and will watch over me on this journey I am taking and will give me food to eat and clothes to wear so that I return safely to my father’s house, then the LORD will be my God.” The Targum says, “If the Word of the LORD will be with me . . . then the Word of the LORD will be my God.” The Word of the Lord will be Jacob’s God!
The Targum Pseudo-Jonathan says: Deut. 2:21:“The Memra of the Lord destroyed them from before them and drove them out and they lived in their place”. Deut 4:7: For what people is (so) great as to have a god close to them as the Name of the Memra of the Lord our God?”. Deut. 28:63: “And it shall be just as The Memra of the Lord rejoiced over you doing good to you and multiplying you, so The Memra of the Lord will rejoice (in sending) foreign nations against you to cause you to perish and to destroy you;” Deut. 30:3 “his Memra will accept with pleasure your repentance and will be gracious to you and will return and gather you from all the nations where the Lord scattered you.”
The Targum Neofiti says: Deuteronomy 34:10: “And there did not arise again in Israel a prophet like Moses, whom the Memra of the Lord knew speech against speech”. Deut. 1:27: ‘It is because the Memra of the Lord hated us that he has brought us out of the land of Egypt”. Deut. 5:28: “And the Memra of the Lord heard the voice of your words at the time you spoke with me”. Deut. 9:20: “And the Memra of the Lord was angry with Aaron as to want to blot him out”.
As you can see, the Memra is indeed a person and God Himself.
Shabbat Shalom!
Hello Daniel,
I had to split my response into two parts (I quoted relatively large portions of text for background).
First of all, the verse "Hashem is our God" is in Deuteronomy 6:4, and the worship of the Golden Calf is in way back in Exodus 32. Immediately after the worship of the Golden Calf Moses says, "Whoever is for the Lord, [let him come] to me!" (Exodus 32:26) He makes a direct reference to God without identifying Him, and doesn't even bother telling them, as you said, that the foreign gods are not real. This indicates that they were already aware of that. According to your reasoning "Hashem is our God" should have been written somewhere around Exodus 32. This indicates that they did know that there was only the One God, but that they lapsed into an idolatrous practice for reasons beyond the scope of this specific discussion.
Secondly, if the Jews had no knowledge of Who God was, then the following (earlier) dialogue makes no sense: "And Moses said to God, 'Behold I come to the children of Israel, and I say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?" God said to Moses, 'I will be what I will be,' and He said, 'So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'I will be' has sent me to you.'" Moses' response to the questioning Jews is not an introduction to God, it's a reassurance that the God Who they know about has sent their deliverer. If they had no awareness of Who God was then their response should have been something like Pharaoh's in Exodus 5:1-2; 'And afterwards, Moses and Aaron came and said to Pharaoh, 'So said the Lord God of Israel, 'Send out My people, and let them sacrifice to Me in the desert.'' And Pharaoh said, 'Who is the Lord that I should heed His voice to let Israel out? I do not know the Lord, neither will I let Israel out.''"
When delivered, the Jews' response is opposite to that of Pharaoh's, "So Moses and Aaron went, and they assembled all the elders of the children of Israel. And Aaron spoke all the words that the Lord had spoken to Moses, and he performed the signs before the eyes of the people. And the people believed, and they heard that the Lord had remembered the children of Israel and that He saw their affliction, and they kneeled and prostrated themselves. This all indicates that they knew exactly Who God was, the same God who made the promise to their forefather in Genesis 15:12-14.
Thirdly, by the time they were taken out of Egypt after all ten plagues and received the Torah, they definitely know Who God was (even if they hadn't known until this point, which of course is not true). This beautifully explains Aaron's statement to them, "When Aaron saw [this], he built an altar in front of it, and Aaron proclaimed and said: 'Tomorrow shall be a festival to the Lord.'" Which Lord? Of course the Lord that took them out of Egypt and gave them the Torah.
You said, "Why not both? It can be a hint to both."
Because the rest of His Names are all in the singular.
You said, "The one who is speaking 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth' is not God but Moses, so your argument is not valid."
It's true that Moses wrote it, but God is telling Moses what He did. See Jeremiah 2:1, "And the word of the Lord came to me, saying: 'Go and call out in the ears of Jerusalem, saying: so said the Lord: I remember to you the lovingkindness of your youth, the love of your nuptials, your following Me in the desert, in a land not sown.'" Here Jeremiah is relating God's words, but the words that God told him to say are all first person references to a past event. This indicates that God could have told Moses to write, "In the beginning of My creation of the heavens and the earth...," but He apparently told him to write it in the third person. Let me just get this straight; you don't believe that God speaks in the third person in the Tanakh?
You said, "Moreover, there are two HaShem in Gen. 19:24, see it: 'Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the Lord out of heaven.'"
I told you about an alternative understanding that makes quite a bit of sense.
You said, "Regarding people praying to Yeshua in the Brit Chadashah, you are right regarding Acts 7:59. I didn’t remember this passage regarding that."
How do you make sense of this verse?
You said, "Because the subject of the sentence is the Memrah, and not the Lord, thus it is most likely referring to the Memrah, and not the Lord."
No, the subject is "the Word of the Lord," not just "the Word." If "the Word" is Jesus, does it make sense to say "Jesus of the Lord?" The "Word" is obviously God's speech. See the context.
Hello Daniel,
You said, "Check also the Targum in Genesis 3:8: 'And they heard the sound of the Word of the LORD God walking in the midst of the garden.'"
I'm requesting your maturity (and close attention) here, which this topic requires.
First of all, we need to ask a basic question; why are you turning to the Targum when you can find the verse in the Torah? Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, why are you turning to the Targum when, as a Christian, you do not consider the words of the Pharisees to be binding, but do consider the words of the Torah to be binding? Is it that you will side with the words of the Pharisees when they seem to support your pre-existing conclusions? If so, then you are trying to deceive both you and me, and I don't appreciate that.
Let's look very carefully at the text in the Torah: And they heard the voice of the Lord God going/walking in the garden... (Genesis 3:8) Contrast that with what the Targum says, "And they heard the voice of the word of God, Elokim, going/walking in the garden..."
In the other Talmudic passages that you referenced, the word Memrah is also added to the Torah's use of "God." Therefore we can use the passage above as our basis for understanding this addition in the other Talmudic passages that you referenced.
Why did the Rabbi's interject the phrase of the word into these Torah passages? This must be what Mark is speaking about in 7:8, "You have disregarded the commandment of God to keep the tradition of men." Dear Daniel, either adhere to the "tradition of men," like me, or do not.
By the way, I believe I can show you evidence from the Tanakh that these "traditions of men" are actually Divine imperatives. Would you like me to show you?
Ultimately I want to thank you, because as I was reading through the passages in the Targum I felt my heart alive with curiosity and interest, which I admit, regarding learning the Talmud I have sometimes experienced difficulty with.
By the way, the verse says that they heard the voice of God in the garden, it does not say that they saw anything. This indicates that what they experienced was an audible interaction and not a visual one. That's amazing because it aligns with what we see in Deuteronomy 4:12, "The Lord spoke to you out of the midst of the fire; you heard the sound of the words, but saw no image, just a voice."
Daniel, please come and reason.
Shalom Yaniv,
I didn't say that Israel didn't know the Lord, but that they didn't know (or believe) that He was the ONLY God. If even after they were delivered from Egypt they worshiped the golden calf, much more before they were delivered from Egypt. During the 40 years in the desert they also committed idolatry, as it is written:
"Did you offer Me sacrifices and meal-offerings in the desert forty years, O house of Israel? And you carried Siccuth your king and Chiun your images, Kochav your god, which you have made for yourselves." Amos 5:25-26.
Therefore, they didn't really know that there was only one God. And this even in the years that they were in the land of Israel. That was the reason why they went to the exile.
I said: "Why not both? It can be a hint to both."
You said: "Because the rest of His Names are all in the singular."
But Elochim is in the plural and the Messiah Himself receives the name of YHWH in Jeremiah 23:5-6. No other person in the entire Tanakh receives that name.
You said: "Let me just get this straight; you don't believe that God speaks in the third person in the Tanakh?" If it occurs, what does it has to do with the "two" "Lord" in Gen. 19:24?
Regarding Acts 7:59, it makes me understand that according to the Brit Chadashah we can also pray to the Word of God, Yeshua. Interestingly, the Targum also says that the Word of the Lord hears our prayers.
You asked: "why are you turning to the Targum when, as a Christian, you do not consider the words of the Pharisees to be binding, but do consider the words of the Torah to be binding?"
I am just showing you that not only I but also rabbinic Judaism understood that the Word of God is a person, and as you believe in what they said this is relevant to you, and actually even to me, because even they, who didn't believe in Yeshua, had this understanding.
And I believe that all the passages that I sent you are more than enough to show you that the Memrah is indeed a person in the Targum. By the way, there are many other passages that show this, but I would need to spend days in order to find all of them.
I'm happy to know that your heart felt alive while you were reading these passages. It very likely happened because you are closer to the truth now. What the Brit Chadashah wrote about Yeshua being the Word of God is not a Christian invention, but an idea coming from the Targumim which were read in Aramaic at the synagogues at that time because the majority of the Jews there were not fluent in Hebrew.
Regarding what the Torah says, the Jewish people in general did not see any image in order that, as the continuation of the verse in Dt. 4:15-16, they would not build any image of God and worship it as if it were Him.
However, Moses and the elders of Israel saw God, as it says in the Torah:
"Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up, and they saw the God of Israel. There was under his feet as it were a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness. And he did not lay his hand on the chief men of the people of Israel; they beheld God, and ate and drank." Exodus 24:9-11.
Chanukkah sameach, Yaniv!
You said, "...but that they didn't know (or believe) that He was the ONLY God."
That's correct, and the Jewish tradition explains why they did this. However, if the interpretation you gave is correct, then the Shema should have been said after the Golden Calf and not as late as Deuteronomy. That was my main point.
Also, I think the understanding of idolatry that you gave is not right. In the cases of the nations it's possible (or likely) to say that idolatry indicates a genuine belief in other gods. However, in the case of the Jews, idolatry was often committed as an act of giving in to temptation to worship them and seduction by false prophets, not driven by a genuine belief. See for example Deuteronomy 13:5 and Jeremiah 23:26-27, "...But they are prophets of the deceit of their hearts, who think to cause My people to forget My name with their dreams that they tell, one to another, as their forefathers forgot My name through Baal."
Regarding Amos 5:25-26, the past tense of "carry" in the translation above is not right, it should be the future tense: "And you shall carry (future) Siccuth..." not "And you carried." Amos 5 is referring to events in his own time, while verse 25 is flashing back to the desert after the Exodus. This has to do with the letter "vav" preceding the verb, which turns the past tense into the future tense. By the way, this is the same as most of the verbs in the Shema, "And you shall love the Lord, your God...," not "And you loved the Lord, your God...."
You said "...and the Messiah Himself receives the name of YHWH in Jeremiah 23:5-6. No other person in the entire Tanakh receives that name."
Is Jesus called "the Lord is our righteousness" in the Christian Scriptures?
Secondly, you must not abandon the context of the verse, which says, "In his days, Judah shall be saved and Israel shall dwell safely..." How can this be Jesus if "In his days" Judah was not saved and Israel did not dwell safely? To the contrary, things became very dangerous for the Jews in Jesus' time, making it very easy to reject him as the Messiah. This is clearly a reference to something that has not occurred yet.
You said: "If it <the third person occurs, what does it has to do with the "two" "Lord" in Gen. 19:24?
It has everything to do with it: if you say the following sentence, you are speaking about yourself in the third person: "Daniel went to the store and Daniel bought eggs." We see this sentence structure with other normal human beings in the Torah in several places:
1. Exodus 32:5 - "When Aaron saw [this], he built an altar in front of it, and Aaron proclaimed and said: 'Tomorrow shall be a festival to the Lord.'"
Are there two different manifestations of Aaron in this verse, or is the verse simply referring to Aaron twice?
2. Exodus 4:31 - "And the people believed, and they heard that the Lord had remembered the children of Israel and that He saw their affliction, and they kneeled and prostrated themselves."
3. Exodus 32:16 - "Now the tablets were God's work, and the inscription was God's inscription, engraved on the tablets."
Which of the Persons made the tablets and which of them wrote the inscription? If there are three Persons in the Trinity, why does this verse only mention two of them? Did one of them take that day off?
4. Exodus 33:9 - "And it would be that when Moses entered the tent, the pillar of cloud would descend and stand at the entrance of the tent, and He would speak with Moses." By the way, is the "pillar of cloud" God?
You said, "Regarding Acts 7:59, it makes me understand that according to the Brit Chadashah we can also pray to the Word of God, Yeshua."
Excellent, so if Jesus revealed himself in the Tanakh, people should have been praying to him. Otherwise, God was concealing His true nature until the pagan Greeks and Romans were able to ascertain it correctly and teach it to the Jews (and oppress them for disagreeing), who had not been able to for thousands of years... That is an astounding coincidence...
By the way, see Jeremiah 23:34. It's very easy to see Paul in this verse, "And the prophet and the priest and the people who will say, 'The burden of the Lord,' I will visit retribution upon that man and upon his household." Paul taught that the Torah was a burden and a curse (Galatians 3:10-13 is the famous one): "...For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them." There is probably no better way to express that the Law is a burden than by this verse. Paul was a very intelligent soothsayer, the exact type of person that Jeremiah is speaking about.
You said, However, Moses and the elders of Israel saw God, as it says in the Torah..."
What they saw was what you call "the Father," and it was ascertained in a prophetic vision that did not occupy space. If somebody else was not in the same prophetic state that they were in, they wouldn't have seen it.
There is no sapphire pavement in Heaven, but I'm sure that the landscaping is pretty good.
Shalom Yaniv,
Regarding Amos 5:26, there is no way to know if the Waw there is a Waw conversive or not, but very likely it is not a Waw conversive because the verse before it is speaking about the desert, so of course the verse 26 should be translated in the past and not in the future. Moreover, even the Targum and the Septuagint translate this passage in the past tense and not in the future.
Regarding Jeremiah 23:5-6, as you should know, the names of the Messiah point to His characteristics and not to literally His name. The Messiah has many names in the Tanakh. And yes, Yeshua is our righteousness, since He made His followers righteous before God through His atoning death.
Regarding Judah being saved and dwelling safely in His days, this does not refer to the first coming of the Messiah but of His return on the clouds of heaven to reign, as Daniel 7:13-14 prophesies.
Sorry, but I couldn't see the point of you quoting the passages you quoted about the third person. They didn't mean anything to me. And do you really want to compare those passages with Gen. 19:24:
"And the Lord caused to rain down upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire, from the Lord, from heaven."?
Regarding praying for the Word of God, the sages of the Targum understood that by reading the Tanakh. Moreover, the revelation of God in the Scriptures occurs gradually, progressively, so the Brit Chadashah reveals God in a deeper manner than in the Tanakh.
Paul never said that the Law is a curse or a burden. He himself obeyed the whole Law, as he says:"as to righteousness under the law, [he was] blameless." Philippians 3:6.
He does not say that the Law is a curse but that those who disobey it are under a curse, as the Torah says. Paul also says about the Law:
"So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good." Romans 7:12.
What the elders of Israel saw in Exodus 24:9-11 was not a prophetic vision, for it is written there "And he did not lay his hand on the chief men of the people of Israel; they beheld God, and ate and drank." They did not see the Father either, but the Son there. God reveals Himself through the Son in the Tanakh.
Now, why do you try to relativize every appearance of God in the Tanakh? Just to sustain a Greek Platonic teaching from Maimonides that God has no form, while both the Torah and the Tanakh say thousands of times that He does have a form? Why should someone follow a Greek philosophy instead of what is clearly and with all letters written in the Torah and the Tanakh? Let's come back to the Scriptures.
Regards,
There is a way if we start with a basic question: are these idols, Siccuth, Chiun, and Kochav, mentioned somewhere in Exodus when the Jews were in the desert for forty years? If they aren't, then it is conjecture to assume that they were worshipped (or even known of) during that time. So that's one way of knowing whether we are dealing with the Vav conversive. If this event didn't happen in the past, it "happened" in the future.
Secondly, the theme of much of Amos is things that will happen in the future. There are many statements like this starting with Amos 1:2-15 and spilling over into Chapter 2. The Vav conversive is used repeatedly all throughout in this way (and generally in Biblical Hebrew). Therefore, a sudden break from this pattern to refer to the past is grammatically unlikely. This is another way of knowing that we are dealing with a future event.
Amos does speak about past events, which is indicated by the verb being preceded with the letter "hey." The first instance of this is the word "הַגְלוֹתָ֛ם" (they carried away) in Amos 1:6. In Amos 5:25 the past tense "הַזְּבָחִ֨ים" (did you offer?) and "הִגַּשְׁתֶּם" (did you bring?) is used - both past tense, followed by "וּנְשָׂאתֶ֗ם" (you shall carry) and "וְהִגְלֵתִ֥י" (And I will exile) - both future tense. Translating "וּנְשָׂאתֶ֗ם" in the past tense deviates from how it is commonly used, indicating that it is most likely translated this way to prove a point (the same one that you are).
How do you know that the Targum translates Amos 5:25 in the past tense and not the future? The word used is "וּנְטַלְתּוּן". Do you know what this word means aside from English translations?
You said, "Regarding Jeremiah 23:5-6, as you should know, the names of the Messiah point to His characteristics and not to literally His name."
Understood, but even if Jesus wasn't actually named "Immanuel," the Christian Scriptures do not apply the appellation "the Lord is our righteousness" to him. If Matthew 23:1 quotes Isaiah 7:14, the Christian Scriptures should also quote Jeremiah 23:6. That they don't quote it indicates that early Christians did not believe that "the Lord is our righteousness" referred to Jesus. The Christian tradition does refer to it, but not the Christian Scriptures themselves.
You said, "Regarding Judah being saved and dwelling safely in His days, this does not refer to the first coming of the Messiah but of His return on the clouds of heaven to reign, as Daniel 7:13-14 prophesies."
The Torah doesn't talk about a Second Coming of the Messiah. We both believe "one like a man was coming" to be the Messiah, but Daniel 7:13 doesn't say that this was the "Second Coming." There is no reason to believe that it wasn't the first (and only) coming.
You said, "And do you really want to compare those passages with Gen. 19:24: "And the Lord caused to rain down upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire, from the Lord, from heaven."?
Yes, why not?
You said, "Moreover, the revelation of God in the Scriptures occurs gradually, progressively, so the Brit Chadashah reveals God in a deeper manner than in the Tanakh."
Very well, but Paul also says that the Law was created to show us that we are sinners, which the Tanakh doesn't say. If you hold by the idea of progressive revelation, it has to progress to your conclusion within the Tanakh and not in the Christian Scriptures. Is there anything that you are aware of to that effect in the Tanakh? So far the only things the Tanakh says about the commandments is how beautiful and valuable they are.
I'll get to your second comment later.
Regarding Jeremiah 23:6, if you read, for example, 1 Corinthians 1:30 you can see an allusion of this passage. Nevertheless, there are many passages in the Tanakh that Yeshua fulfilled that are not present in the Brit Chadashah. Remember that it was written by different authors and not by just one that wanted to give all the possible proofs about Yeshua being the Messiah. Actually none of its writers has this goal to show ALL the possible proofs in the Tanakh. Actually, the majority of the New Testament is letters of instructions to the community of followers of Yeshua.
Daniel 7:13 cannot be the first coming of the Messiah because the Messiah is supposed to be born from the descendance of David and in Bethlehem according to Micah 5:1. He is not supposed to be born in Heaven. So, if Daniel 7:13 says He will come to reign from Heaven, it means that first He is supposed to ascend to there, "until God makes his enemies his footstool" Psalm 110:1.
If you read the Torah and the Tanakh, you will see all the time that the Torah showed time after time that we are sinners, disobedient to God, and for this reason our Jewish people went to exile so many times. Therefore, it is very clear that the Torah exposes we all as sinners, and for this reason there was a sacrifice system in order to provide us atonement, as well as the Yom Kippur.
Regarding the idols not mentioned in Exodus, just because their names are not mentioned there we should assume that they were not worshipped by our Jewish people at that time? Do you suppose that they didn't exist at that time?
Moreover, Amos 5:25 speaks about the past. It is the context of the next verse, so why should we abruptly change the tense to the future in verse 26? We need to translate it according to its immediate context.
I know that the Targum translates 5:26 in the perfect and not in the imperfect because of the academic English translation of it that I have, which translates it in this way:
"Did you bring holy sacrifices and offerings before me for forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel? 26. You carried Sikkut your statue and Kiyyun your idol, your astral images which you had made for yourselves. 27. So I will send you into exile beyond Damascus”, says the Lord; the God of hosts is his name. (Cathcart, K. J., McNamara, M., & Maher, M. (1990). Editors’ Foreword. In K. J. Cathcart, M. Maher, & M. McNamara (Eds.), K. J. Cathcart & R. P. Gordon (Trans.), The Aramaic Bible: The Targum of the Minor Prophets (Vol. 14, Am 5:25–27). Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press).
Regarding the meaning of וּנְשָׂאתֶ֗ם
נטל verb
peal 1 BibArDan,Palestinian,JLATg,Syr,LJLA to lift up
2 Palestinian,JLA,JLATg,LJLA to move on
3 Syr to weigh down
4 Syr to preponderate
(Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon. (2004). Targum Lexicon. Hebrew Union College).
Shabbat Shalom, Yaniv!
Let's get back to the root of my point about Jeremiah 23:6. My point was that the Christian understanding of the Jewish Scriptures was a work in progress, and that Christianity developed a tradition over time to reflect its changing view of those Scriptures. This includes supplementing more and more verses to support Jesus, in contrast to the relative few that were employed in the years after Jesus' death. Christians like to pretend that they have no tradition and believe only in Sola Scriptura, but this is obviously not true, and it cannot be true as long as communities must continuously apply their beliefs to a changing world. At the end of the day, Christianity developed a method of application not too unlike the Rabbinical application of their own religion, and Christianity would have disappeared without it.
I don't say this as a criticism - I say it as a perfectly normal, respectable, and necessary development. The difference between Judaism and Christianity is that this fact is built in to Judaism (and is supported by the Torah), while with Christianity it occurs in spite of its belief in the authenticity of such a process. This creates a serious internal conflict within Christianity that is difficult to resolve.
I think we're going in circles with this Daniel 7:13 thing, so I don't really see how it will help either of us to flog this dead horse. I will only say what I said the last time(s) we spoke about this verse, is that Daniel is being shown a prophetic vision of the person who will be the Messiah.
But let's look at it from your view. If the Torah says that the Messiah will come down from Heaven, alluding to his resurrection and return, why doesn't the Torah say that he will die? And if you quote Zechariah 12:10 note that it says, "And they shall look to me because of those who have been thrust through," while John 19:37 says, "They will look on the one (or to him) they have pierced." This translation makes it seem like they are looking at him, which is not what Zechariah actually says, which is that the Jews will look to God for consolation after a particular individual's death (during Gog and Magog in the future). From my understanding, John refers to this verse as something that the Roman soldiers did to Jesus to accelerate his death, while most Christians see this verse to support God's dispensation of the Jews for killing their Messiah.
This too is an indication of Christianity's developing tradition, for Christians generally and apparently don't understand this verse in accordance with John.
The Torah doesn't "expose" us as sinners, but it addresses this issue head on and lets us know that the relationship between God and Man cannot be severed because of sin. The theology that it can be completely broken is only found in Christianity (and not Judaism). I've quoted Hosea 14:2-3 before to you; what are your thoughts on it?
You said, "Regarding the idols not mentioned in Exodus, just because their names are not mentioned there we should assume that they were not worshipped by our Jewish people at that time? Do you suppose that they didn't exist at that time?
I take the Torah's words at face value, but see this (although I'm not really sure why we're still talking about this fine point), "This is the reading in some English versions (e.g. RV) at Amos 5: 26, following a mistake in the Hebrew text for Sakkuth, a Mesopotamian stardeity; the idols of Sakkuth and Kaiwan were being carried in processions in syncretistic worship, which the prophet condemns. These gods were connected with the planet Saturn." (https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100504430) The deity Saturn was a Roman deity, not an Egyptian one. Biblia.com (https://biblia.com/factbook/Sikkuth) associates Sikkut instead with the Babylonian god "Sag-kud", saying that "The Israelites’ adoption of this god for worship may have resulted from their association with the Assyrians after the fall of the northern kingdom," which is where Amos prophesied.
Even if they did worship those specific idols during the Exodus, it doesn't detract from my original point that the purpose of the Shema was not to introduce the Jews to the concept of God. I offered the explanation that the purpose of the Shema was to relate two fundamental truths of the Jewish faith, that God is one in a) quantity and b) quality. You offered the alternative explanation that the purpose of the Shema was to introduce the Jews to the concept of God. Even if that it were true, it doesn't negate that the Shema focuses on declaring God's oneness in both ways I mentioned. The two phrases in Deuteronomy 6:4 would otherwise be redundant.
Regarding the abrupt tense switch in Amos 5:25, this isn't unheard of in the Tanakh. It's true that we have to read things in context, but rules of grammar are cues that help determine that context as well and so cannot be ignored. To shed light on this ambiguity, we can state with certainty that the reference to the 40 years in the desert is a past event, which we cannot do for these idols. Because the Exodus was mentioned explicitly in the past, and these idols were not, we cannot assume that verse 26 inherits the properties of verse 25.
Because the Vav Conversive always (as far as I know) indicates future, you'd have to find me a verse where the Vav precedes a verb in the past tense. Only by comparing it (or them) with Amos 5:25 would this analysis be fruitful. For example, Genesis 17:11 - וּנְמַלְתֶּ֕ם (And you shall circumcise). Genesis 45:19 - וּנְשָׂאתֶ֥ם אֶת־אֲבִיכֶ֖ם (And you shall carry your father). Deuteronomy 4:27 - וְנִשְׁאַרְתֶּם֙ (And you shall remain). 4:28 - וַֽעֲבַדְתֶּם־שָׁ֣ם אֱלֹהִ֔ים מַֽעֲשֵׂ֖ה (And there you shall worship gods). 4:29 - וּבִקַּשְׁתֶּ֥ם מִשָּׁ֛ם (And from there you will seek), etc... Because it seems that the Vav Conversive seems to apparently indicate future the overwhelming majority of the time, the past tense would probably be an exception.
The translation of the Targum that you have isn't necessarily correct. The Jewish translations translate it in the future, even though it wouldn't be particularly damning to translate it in the past. That leaves us with the simple conclusion that translating it in the future is simply the more accurate way to do it.
First of all, the Rambam isn't the only rabbi to posit that God is incorporeal, which is one of the principles of faith in Judaism held by the Ramban, Rashi, and every other commentator.
But let's deal with this question this way: if the rabbis did believe that God was a complex singularity, they would have had no real objection to the Trinity. And if that's true, then they would have been able to streamline Jewish thought with the Trinity, and to integrate it into Judaism. The result of that would have been the complete merger between Judaism and Christianity, to the extent that you and I would not be having this discussion. The fact that the Trinity continues to be one of the major dividing lines to this day indicates clearly that they understand there to be a huge fundamental difference between what they believe and what you believe.
Further, and to demonstrate this, the Persons of the Godhead are "masculine" - they are all "He". Now we both know that this is not a biological trait, as they are not male, but masculine, as opposed to feminine. This includes the Holy Spirit, which is understood as being masculine. Interestingly, Christians like yourself correlate the Holy Spirit with the Shechinah, which is strange because according to Jewish thought the Shechina is decidedly feminine. This means that it does not map out correctly onto your understanding of the Holy Spirit. There is an essential and fundamental mismatch between them, indicating that the rabbis (and most Jews with a nominal understanding of their faith) considered the Trinity to be something completely opposed to Jewish thought on a fundamental level, and erroneous. You are trying to forcefully shove a square peg into a round hole, and it just doesn't fit.
And regarding the Rambam specifically, it's no Greek philosophy at all, and there are distinct and fundamental differences between these philosophies. What can be said in some capacity is that the Rambam noted the aspects of Greek philosophy that were supported by Jewish thought, and rejected the rest. Note, for example, that according to Plato, "God is not the author of everything because some things are evil," which is not the Rambam's view. As well, "Plato is not committed to monotheism, but suggests for example that since planetary motion is uniform and circular, and since such motion is the motion of reason, then a planet must be driven by a rational soul. These souls that drive the planets could be called gods." The Rambam would obviously disagree with this unequivocally.
Shalom Yaniv!
Regarding Zechariah 12:10, your translation of is not accurate and is in contradiction even with the interpretation of the sages in Sukkah 52a, which says that this passage is talking about the Messiah son of Joseph and not to a plurality of people. This bogus translation that you mentioned here was made just to put Yeshua out of the picture. It is what is called a theological defense.
Zechariah 12:10 says:
וְהִבִּ֥יטוּ אֵלַ֖י אֵ֣ת אֲשֶׁר־דָּקָ֑רוּ וְסָֽפְד֣וּ עָלָ֗יו "And they shall look to me, whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn over him". Where in the world are you seeing "because of those who have been pierced"? The word "eth" refers to the word which precedes it, elay (to me), as you should know about the function of the word "eth". As you can see, the Jewish translations today have Yeshua in focus, in focus to deny that He is the Messiah.
Regarding John referring to the Romans piercing Yeshua, this is what YOU are saying, not what the Gospel of John says if you read it. Nevertheless, it is irrelevant if John is referring to the Romans or the Jews, for Yeshua was pierced because He was delivered into the hands of the Romans by the Jews.
Concerning the teaching that our sins separate us from God, it is grounded in the Tanakh, in Isaiah for example:
"but your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you so that he does not hear." Isaiah 59:2.
Regarding the Waw conversive, it always change the tense of the verb. The question is if we are talking about a Waw conversive or not. Sometimes in the Scriptures the Waw without a Patach does not change the tense of the verse, and this is known even by people who are starting to study biblical Hebrew, so it really amazes me that you want to discuss that.
Regarding what you said about the rabbis and the trinity, this is not true at all. Just se the example of Isaiah 53. You can find in all the Jewish tradition that it is talking about the Messiah, but the rabbis still argue with Christians that it is speaking about Israel and not the Messiah. Therefore, it does not really matter if the Jewish tradition believes that God is a complex unity, as you know it believes, because the focus will always be first denying that Yeshua is the promised Messiah.
Regarding the Triune nature of God in the Torah, read, for example, Shemot:
"I am sending an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I have made ready. Pay heed to him and obey him. Do not defy him, for he will not pardon your offenses, since My Name is in him;" Shemot 23:20-21.
This "angel" can forgive sins according to that passage (only God can forgive sins) and the name of God is in him, in other words, he has the name of God. As you can see, this "angel" is God Himself and thus another person of God because God says that would send him.
Actually, this "angel" is Yeshua, who forgave sins in the Brit Chadashah in the Gospel.
David Kimchi says the Angel of the Covenant in Malachi 3:1 is the King Messiah. Rambam says in his letter to Yemen that the Adon (Lord) of Malachi 3:1 is speaking about the Messiah.
Ibn Ezrah says the Angel of the Covenant in Malachi 3:1 is the Messiah Son of Joseph and the Lord (Adon). And Rashi says that the Lord (adon) is the God of justice.
שבת שלום
Daniel, I looked up this specific combination of words in a concordance – et asher + past tense verb. In none of the verses does “et asher + past tense verb” refer to an individual or thing upon whom an action took place, but rather only to an action that took place. In other words, this combination of words doesn’t refer to a recipient of an action.
I can see why you’re confusing this verse. The problem has to do with running “elai” and “et asher dakaru” together, when they should be separate. Because you won’t take my word for it, take a look at Ruth 2:18, which has the same exact sentence structure.
That verse says, “And she carried [it] and came to the city, and her mother-in-law saw what she had gleaned.” The Hebrew for “and her mother-in-law saw what she had gleaned” is “va’teyreh chamotah et asher liktah.” This maps on to “elai et asher dakru.”
If you translate this verse the way you’re translating Zechariah 12:10 it reads as follows, “and she saw her mother-in-law, who she had gleaned.” Ruth did not glean her mother-in-law! She showed her mother-in-law what she had gleaned. I’m not even sure what it would mean for someone to glean their own mother-in-law, but I’m comfortable saying that some women may like to do such a thing!
You also have this in Ecclesiastes 2:12, “And I turned to see wisdom and madness and folly, for what is the man who will come after the king, concerning that which they have already done?” - “ha’melech et asher kvar asuhu.” If we read this phrase as above, it translates as, “the king, whom they had already done” or “already created.” Did these people create the king?
This also occurs in I Chronicles 4:10. The phrase, “and God fulfilled that which he had requested” would be rendered as “and God fulfilled what He (God) requested,” when the verse clearly means that God fulfilled what Jabez requested.
By tampering with the verses this way we actually get some pretty ridiculous results!
Further, the past tense of “stab/pierce” is “dakru.” This is not the word used in our original verse, which is “dakaru.” In Hebrew, especially Biblical Hebrew, even a singular vowel in a verb can adjust the meaning of that word, to the extent that we cannot say that “dakru” and “dakaru” mean the same thing.
When you combine “et asher” 1) not referring to a recipient of an action with “dakaru” 2) not being a past tense verb, you get something like “they looked upon me for having been stabbed.”
According to Rashi, Targum Yonatan understands it as follows, “And they shall supplicate Me because of their wanderings. And they shall look to Me to complain about those of them whom the nations thrust through and slew during their exile.”
“Elai” means “to me,” while “alav” means “over him/it.” Why does the verse switch from the first person to the third person? You can see why Targum Yonatan, and our sages in general, understood it the way they do.
Further, “elay” (with an alef) means “to me,” while “alay” (with an ayin) means “at me.”
The Rabbi’s understand Zechariah to mean that somebody important will die in battle, Messiah ben Yosef. Either way, Jesus is not a descendant of Joseph, but of Judah.
Regarding the Vav Conversive and what you said about the Trinity:
Yes, that's true, there is such thing in Hebrew as the past tense preceded by a latter Vav.
What I said was, "...if the rabbis did believe that God was a complex singularity, they would have had no real objection to the Trinity." I'm talking about the Trinity, not the Messiah, who was not seen by early Jews as a part of a Trinity, but strictly in line with Jewish teaching that he was a natural man. Even if you say that Isaiah 53 refers to the Messiah, it doesn't say that the Messiah is God, and hence no Trinity and no complex unity. If the Messiah is not God, God is simple. So yes, if the rabbis understood there to be a Trinity, they would have had no objection to it.
You didn't say anything in response to the Holy Spirit being masculine in contrast to the Shechinah being feminine. That difference didn't strike you as curious?
Regarding Exodus 23:20-21:
I have a very different way of understanding "for he will not forgive your transgression." First of all, every angel is sent with one task to complete at a time; this angel's task is "to bring you to the place that I have prepared." Because that is his sole task, he cannot forgive you, which is not his task. Second of all, to rely on anything or anybody other than God to forgive you is inappropriate, as only God can forgive. To rely on being forgiven by, or praying to, anything other than God is tantamount to idolatry. The verse doesn't say "for he will forgive your transgression," but that "he will not," indicating that he cannot, so don't even try it. You're assuming that he will not forgive simply as a choice, or because God's Name is in him, but the verse doesn't say that, and you can just as easily read it "my way". Quite the opposite, if this angel is the Second Person, his possession of God's Name is the reason he should forgive.
Later on Exodus 32:24 says, "Behold My angel will go before you. But on the day I make an accounting [of sins upon them], I will bring their sin to account against them." "I" will bring their sin to account against them, not he, the angel, will bring their sin to account against them. Why not? Because "he will not forgive their transgression," he neither has the ability to forgive nor to punish, because he is not God.
Further, verse 22 says, "For if you hearken to his voice..." only. If he was God, and was revealed as such, then worshiping him (and asking him for forgiveness) would be appropriate. You were mature enough to acknowledge in one of our earlier discussions about Stephen praying to Jesus that praying to the Second Person is permissible. Just three verses later Verse 25 says, "And you shall worship the Lord, your God..." If the Second Person is being revealed here, and God says "And you shall worship the Lord, your God" in this same context, and it is permissible to pray to the Second Person in the Christian Scriptures, why does our verse in Exodus say nothing about worshiping this angel? You would expect to say that right here! This would have been a great juncture in history to let the Jews know that this angel was God and to reveal the Trinity. That didn't happen. Is it because worshiping it would have been to commit idolatry in their heart, believing it to be an angel and not God (as you said regarding Judges in one of our first discussions), or did God simply forget to reveal the Trinity explicitly here again?
Further, when it says, "for he will not forgive your transgression," which transgression are we talking about here? The immediate context of the verse makes it seems like rebelling against this angel is the transgression, and not "sin" with the capital "S".
The next time we encounter this angel is Joshua 5:13, when the conquest begins, "And it was when Joshua was in Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and saw, and, behold, a man was standing opposite him with his sword drawn in his hand; and Joshua went to him, and said to him, 'Are you for us, or for our adversaries?'"
This being immediately identifies himself, "And he said, 'No, but I am the captain of the host of the Lord; I have now come.'" Rashi identifies this angel as Michael based on Daniel 10:21, which says, "...Michael, your prince." In Joshua 5:13 the word "captain" is the translation of "sar," which is the same word used in Daniel 10, "Michael, sarchem, translated as "your prince."
Shalom Yaniv,
First of all, the grammatical natural reading of Zechariah 12:10 is “They shall look to me whom (Hebrew, ’et ’asher) they pierced", and not "because of those". The Hebrew is straightforward.
Second thing, the continuation of the verse says that "they will mourn over him (and not over them)", what shows that the verse must be translated in the singular, as the Talmud itself does and applies it to the Messiah ben Yoseph!
Is the Talmud mistranslating this verse? If you say "no", then we can finish this discussion. Actually, the Talmud gives 2 explanations to this verse, both of them in the singular.
Regarding "dakaru", why would you say that this Qametz would change the meaning? Which grammar rule are you talking about? Moreover, the "original" text as you said, does not have vowels as you know, so the original Hebrew manuscript did not read dakaru, but dkrw.
Finally, your examples are very different from the sentence that we are discussing. What is the most natural grammar way to read Zechariah 12:10, Yaniv? In the singular or in the plural? Be honest. No one, reading this chapter for the first time would read this verse in the plural as you read.
My point is not that Yeshua is the Messiah ben Yoseph but that the verse must be translated in the singular, and that it is messianic.
Regarding the Shechinah and the Holy Spirit, I have never heard this comparation of the Shechinah with the Holy Spirit. What I heard was that the Shechinah indicates a rabbinic understanding of the complexity and plurality of God's unity.
Regarding Exodus 23, you didn't get it. My point is actually that the "angel" is God, and for this reason he can forgive sins and God's name is in him. And how come you say that if he is God he should forgive? God punished and did not forgive our Jewish people many times in the Torah and the Tanakh. That's actually why the Temple is destroyed for 2 thousand years.
Does the "angel" have not the ability to punish because he is not God? Do you want examples in the Tanakh when God sends an angel to punish the people? Just read 1 Chronicles 21:16: "And David lifted his eyes and saw the angel of the Lord standing between the earth and the sky, with a drawn sword in his hand, extended over Jerusalem, and David and the elders, covered with sackcloth, fell upon their faces."
Isaiah 37:36: "And an angel of the Lord went forth and slew one hundred eighty-five thousand of the camp of Assyria. And they arose in the morning, and behold they were all dead corpses."
Actually, our forefathers in the Tanakh knew that the angel of the Lord is God Himself. It was revealed to them and thus it is revealed also to us in the Tanakh when they themselves said that the angel of the Lord is God Himself: Gen. 32:24-30 (To Jacob), Ex. 33:11 (to Moses), Josh. 5:13-6:5 (to Joshua), Judg. 6:11-23 (to Gideon), Judg. 13 (to Samson’s parents), Gen. 18 (To Abraham).
Regarding disobeying the angel, it is the same of disobeying God according to the passage, because the angel's words are actually God's words. Concerning Joshua 5:13, doesn't it call your attention that the angel commanded Joshua to do the same thing that Moses did when God appeared to him? God commanded Moses to take off his sandals because where he was is a holy ground because God appeared there. This only happened in these two passages in the Scriptures and never more.
Now, imagine if you just had stopped trying to find alternative explanations, Yaniv, to all these passages, and just said: "Yes, this is a possible explanation for these verses, and perhaps they really can point to what he is saying". Now, think about all the many passages that you just despised because you tried to find alternative explanations to them. Don't you think you should consider all this and think: perhaps Yeshua is really the promised Messiah?
Shabbat Shalom!
Daniel, are you going to give me a Hebrew lesson? "Elai" with an alef means "to me," while "alai" with an ayin means "at me" or "upon me." This verse uses both words. Compare this with Psalms 34:6, which says, "הִבִּ֣יטוּ אֵלָ֣יו וְנָהָ֑רוּ וּ֜פְנֵיהֶ֗ם אַל־יֶחְפָּֽרוּ". This verse is uncontroversial and can be used to demonstrate the meaning of Zechariah 12:10. The English translation is, "They looked to Him and they became radiant, and their faces will not be ashamed," not "They looked at Him...," which is "elav" with an ayin. When you look to someone you are looking for consolation, meaning, etc... When you look at someone you are physically taking them in with your eyes. The preceding verse demonstrates this, saying, "I sought the Lord and He answered me..." "Looked" in Psalms 34:6 means "for comfort or meaning," not holding one in your eyes.
Even in Isaiah 51:2 it says, "הַבִּ֙יטוּ֙ אֶל־אַבְרָהָ֣ם אֲבִיכֶ֔ם וְאֶל־שָׂרָ֖ה תְּחֽוֹלֶלְכֶ֑ם", which means "Look at Abraham your father and at Sarah who bore you," even though Abraham and Sarah were not alive at this time, indicating that the verse does not mean "look physically at them." The word "look" here is conceptual, like when I say, "Look, Daniel..." I'm not asking you to physically look at me, but to reason or consider something.
"Alav" can mean "him" or "it," which opens the possibility to interpret this verse in several ways (one of which is that it refers to the Messiah ben Yosef, which is of course legitimate).
Keep reading the verses, however. Verses 11-14 says, "On that day there shall be great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the Valley of Megiddon. And the land shall mourn, every family apart: The family of the house of David apart, and their wives apart; the family of the house of Nathan apart, and their wives apart. The family of the house of Levi apart, and their wives apart; the family of the Shimeites apart, and their wives apart. All the remaining families-every family apart, and their wives apart."
The death of Jesus in Verse 10 was a past event, but the collective Jewish mourning over him in verses 11-14 will be a future event? If I may say, that is also an unnatural reading of the text. It inserts a long delay between two verses. The way it seems to happen in the verses is that the mourning over this individual will happen immediately, without a 2,000 year + with still no sign of collective mourning by the people responsible for his death.
Regarding Exodus 23, I got it, I just don't agree. God punishes people for their sins because He is God, but He also forgives, also because He is God. See Exodus 34:6-7. Forgiving sin and iniquity is part of God's nature - part of the "Father's nature!
Regarding God sending an angel to punish, Daniel, there is a big difference between the executive decision-maker behind a punishment and being the instrument of punishment itself. The angels in these verses are the instruments of punishment, period.
Regarding the verses in the fourth paragraph, let's not go in circles with these verses; I've shown you clearly why I think they are not references to God, but to angels.
Regarding disobeying an angel, YES, that's true because the angel is speaking in His Name, but which would be true even if the angel wasn't God (which it isn't). This is also true, by the way, for disobeying the rabbi's or a genuine prophet, who as you know are not God!
Regarding Joshua 5:13, not necessarily. The angel commanded Joshua to remove his shoes "for the place upon which you stand is holy," as was the case with Moses' prophecy. "Take your shoes off your feet, because the place upon which you stand is holy soil." (Exodus 3:5). When God appeared to the Jews on Mt. Sinai at the giving of the Torah, they saw God (whatever that means), but were not commanded to remove their shoes. Instead, they were simply told to stand back from the mountain. And if you say that they weren't commanded to remove them because they weren't standing on the mountain, Moses was not commanded to remove his shoes, either.
Regarding your last point, I could, and do, say the same to you.
You've heard that from a Christian lens, sure. A more accurate way to think of the Shechina is as a "revelation of closeness" that God imbues upon people or places as He sees fit. Compare this, for example, with the experience you have in the presence of your beloved one - the experience is so real that you can almost "hold" it. Now multiply this infinitely for a Being like God and you get the Shechina, which possesses holiness, that is sure, even without being God itself.
You said a long time ago, "Read Bereshit 1 for example, where God is creating everything through His Word, and His Spirit is hovering upon the face of the waters. Here you can see God, His Word and His Spirit, all of them present in the creation."
Here you seem to be indicating that the Spirit is the Shechina.
The reason the Shechina is feminine is because it receives, while God is masculine because He transmits, or gives. Femininity is considered a receptive, passive force, while masculinity is considered a providing, active force. The best analogy for this perhaps is the union between a man and a woman, the man being the giver and the woman being the receiver.
I also want to add the following:
You have claimed that the "angel of the Lord" is God (which is a free interpretation not explicitly stated anywhere). Nevertheless, even though God explicitly states "I will pass through... and I will smite," (Exodus 12:12) the being sent to execute the tenth plague is not referred to as "the angel of the Lord." And we know that a being other than God is sent because Exodus 12:23 says, "and He will not permit the destroyer to enter your houses..." The destroyer is not God, but the angel of death.
This is important because this is the most explicit declaration of intent made by God that is carried out by an angel (as far as I know), more explicit than the other verses we've looked at (comparatively implicit). Nevertheless, Exodus clarifies that the identities of these beings (God and the destroyer) are mutually exclusive. If they are mutually exclusive in the most explicit verse in the Tanakh, then all-the-more-so they are mutually exclusive in all other verses. In other words, this would be the most likely verse where we could say that the angel is God. Ultimately we can't say this because even here the Torah tells us that this angel is not God, and if the angel is not God here, it cannot be God anywhere.
Shalom Yaniv!
You said: "When you look to someone you are looking for consolation, meaning, etc... When you look at someone you are physically taking them in with your eyes." Where did you take this from? Which grammar rule is that? You just made it up, Yaniv. It makes no sense, chaver, and even if it would make sense, it doesn't change anything. Imagine with me the verse in this way "They shall look to me (for consolation), whom they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as for an only child". What is the issue here? The one they looked (for consolation according to you) was still pierced, and they mourned for him.
The verse 12:10 is in the past, the one they dakaru (pierced), showing that this happened in the past, as it is the case of Yeshua. Why so are they mourning just later? Because just later, after God "poured out upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplications" (Zechariah 12:10a), they were able to realize and see that in fact Yeshua was the promised Messiah who they rejected for 2.000 years, and for this reason they will mourn in repentance, and because they will mourn in repentance and believe that Yeshua is the promised Messiah, “On that day there shall be a fountain opened for the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to cleanse them from sin and uncleanness" (Zechariah 13:1), so they will be forgiven from their sins and then the Messianic kingdom will start in Zechariah 13:2, when "it shall come to pass on that day, says the Lord of Hosts: I will cut off the names of the idols from the earth, and they shall no longer be mentioned. And also the prophets and the spirit of contamination I will remove from the earth".
God forgives sometimes, and not others according to the Torah and the Tanakh. Check for example:
"The Lord will not be willing to forgive him, but rather the anger of the Lord and his jealousy will smoke against that man, and the curses written in this book will settle upon him, and the Lord will blot out his name from under heaven." Deuteronomy 29:20.
"Surely this came upon Judah at the command of the Lord, to remove them out of his sight, for the sins of Manasseh, according to all that he had done, and also for the innocent blood that he had shed. For he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, and the Lord would not pardon." 2 Kings 24:3-4.
"No, my sons; it is no good report that I hear the people of the Lord spreading abroad. If someone sins against a man, God will mediate for him, but if someone sins against the Lord, who can intercede for him?” But they would not listen to the voice of their father, for it was the will of the Lord to put them to death." 1 Samuel 2:24-25.
The parallel between the passages of Moses and Joshua taking off his shoes when God appeared to Moses shows that God also appeared to Joshua in the person of that angel.
Regarding your last comment about Exodus 12:12, have you thought about the possibility that the destroyer is actually another person of the same God? If not, why not? Where does Exodus say that this cannot be the case?
Actually the Midrash and the Talmud say it was God Himself who stroke the firstborns, and not an angel or messenger:
"And I shall pass ("ve'avarti") through the land of Egypt": R. Yehudah says: As a king, who makes the rounds of his kingdom. Variantly: I shall place My wrath ("evrathi") and My fear in Egypt. "evrah" is wrath, as in (Psalms 78:49) "He sent His burning anger upon them — evrah and scorn, and affliction," and (Isaiah 13:9) "Behold, the day of the L rd is coming — fury and evrah and burning wrath, etc."
"and I shall smite": I might think, through an angel or through a messenger; it is, therefore, written (Ibid. 29) "and the L rd (Himself) smote every first-born" — not through an angel or a messenger." Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 12:12:1-3.
"For when the Merciful went to liberate Israel [from Egypt]26, He sent neither messenger nor angel but He went Himself, as is written: I shall pass through the Land of Egypt". Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 2:1:3.
Finally, Ramban says on Exodus 12:12:
"I WILL EXECUTE JUDGMENTS: I AM THE ETERNAL. “I Myself and not by means of the189 messenger.” Thus the language of Rashi. But the Midrash of the Sages is not so. Instead, the Midrash reads:190 “And I will go through the land of Egypt — I, and not an angel. And I will smite all the firstborn — I, and not a seraph. And against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments — I, and not the messenger. I am the Eternal — I am He, and no other.” The purport of the Midrash is as follows: Since this chapter contains the words of Moses to Israel,191 it would have been proper for the verse here to say, “And the Eternal will go through the land of Egypt and He will smite all the firstborn,” [instead of saying, And I will go through]. It is for this reason that the Rabbis interpreted the expression, and I will go through the land of Egypt, as meaning “I Myself” and not a messenger sent by Him in plagues, as in the days of David192 and Sennacherib.193 “And I will smite all the firstborn — I, and not a seraph,” means that the striking of the plague will be done by the Holy One, blessed be He, and not like a king who wreaks vengeance on his enemies through his executioners, their counterparts on high being the seraphim from whom the fire comes forth consuming His enemies, as in the case of Elijah and the captain of the fifty."
Even if it is not the case of the angel being God Himself, this passage is so different from the other ones. The other ones have so much more additional information than this one that actually show that the angel there is actually God.
I'm fully aware of that, and didn't mean to intend that God always forgives. I said that He punishes and forgives both due to His being God. As a side note, I find it interesting that He forgives "as the Father," which raises the question: why do we need "the Son" if the Father forgives on His own?
I'm not going to look through all of the verses you quoted right now (perhaps another time), but you're absolutely right that He doesn't always forgive, and I'm sure that each of these verses relate to different circumstances. Even without looking through them, what is nevertheless true is that sometimes God decides it is correct to forgive, and other times not. That is a perfectly true statement and I have no problem with it.
It's interesting that you quoted 1 Samuel 2:24-25. The rhetorical question in Verse 25 is quite interesting from a theological perspective, "If, however, he will sin against God, who will intercede in the judgment in his behalf?" Being a rhetorical question, the answer seems to be "nobody." Nobody will intercede on the behalf of a man who sins against God. Does "nobody" include Jesus? Even when God forgives, He does not do so through interceding as it doesn't make sense that He intercedes between Man and Himself. He forgives simply because He decides to forgive.
So how does a man repent for his sins against God? He goes straight to the source without going through any intercessor or intermediary. If you have another way of explaining this verse, as you might, go ahead. It would have been great if the verse followed up with an answer: "Jesus will intercede in the judgement on his behalf," but alas, it does not say that and does not provide an answer.
You said, "The parallel between the passages of Moses and Joshua taking off his shoes when God appeared to Moses shows that God also appeared to Joshua in the person of that angel."
One may read it that way, expect that both verses provide the reason God told them to remove their shoes, "because the place upon which you stand is holy soil." This was the reason they were told to remove their shoes, and not because they saw God. While it is true that they encountered God in both situations, the Torah emphasizes that what they had in common was that the location was holy. Are there no other places where people encountered God in the Tanakh and did not remove their shoes? See Exodus 14:31, 19:3, and 19:11.
In response to the response you left on January 11, 2022 at 11:31 PM:
"Regarding your last comment about Exodus 12:12, have you thought about the possibility that the destroyer is actually another person of the same God? If not, why not?"
Why would I default to the most extreme possiblity before exercising all other simpler solutions? I will not settle on such a conclusion as long as other conclusions are perfectly reasonable. You have to disqualify them before showing that other conclusions may be true. As long as two conclusions are reasonable, and one is more reasonable than the other, I won't settle on the less reasonable one. It's less reasonable because it's a greater stretch of the imagination.
"Where does Exodus say that this cannot be the case?"
Where does Exodus say that it is the case? An omission of information is a weak reason for accepting that something is true. That will get you into trouble in many areas of life, especially this one. The Torah also doesn't say that God is made up of four Persons, or that He is a chicken, so maybe one of those propositions is true... The point is that can't make an extreme assumption without an explicit statement demonstrating the conclusion you wish to accept, and it is an extreme position to say that God is a Trinity. An explicit statement would be something like "God is three Persons, and the destroyer is the Second Person."
What you're saying about the interplay between God and the Angel of Death in Exodus 12:12 has generated much discussion among the rabbis due to this specific difficulty. Note that the other verses we've discussed about "the angel of the Lord" have not generated as much discussion. Why not? Because Exodus 12:12 is the only verse where God says that He would do something on His own, and then sends an angel to do it. What the other verses all omit is "I (alone) will do ..." You don't need to turn to the Midrashim to highlight this difficulty, it's right there in the text.
See here: https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/121065/in-shemot-1223-was-%d7%94%d6%b7%d7%9e%d6%bc%d6%b7%d7%a9%d7%81%d6%b0%d7%97%d6%b4%d6%94%d7%99%d7%aa-ha-mashchit-the-destroyer-actually-hashem-h/121073#121073
So yes, it's true that this verse is different from the other ones. The question is why? All answers can be addressed from the standpoint of Judaism without assuming a Trinity. One sensible reason is that God "took is so personally" that His nation was afflicted so cruelly by the Egyptians that He wanted to exercise judgment on them Himself. It highlights His love for his treasured Jewish nation and, in a sense, for the Torah. There are many plausible reasons short of being forced into the Trinity.
"Regarding your last comment about Exodus 12:12, have you thought about the possibility that the destroyer is actually another person of the same God?"
Are you saying you believe the executing angel here to be God also? Is "the destroyer" the angel of the Lord? If so, why doesn't the Torah refer to it as such. It's one thing to repeatedly claim that the "angel of the Lord" is Jesus even though the Torah explicitly and plainly says that it's simply an angel, but it's a whole other can of worms to additionally claim that the angel of the Lord is also the "destroyer." Is Jesus the Angel of Death, or is he the one that has come to give life?
Typo: "The Torah also doesn't say that God is made up of four Persons, or that He is a chicken, so maybe one of those propositions is true..."
Correction: "The Torah also doesn't say that God is not made up of four Persons, or that He is not a chicken, so maybe one of those propositions is true..."
Shalom Yaniv,
We need the Son because the Father has means to forgive, for example through animal sacrifices in the Torah, and in the Brit Chadashah through the atoning death of the Messiah.
You said: "Even when God forgives, He does not do so through interceding as it doesn't make sense that He intercedes between Man and Himself. He forgives simply because He decides to forgive."
That's not what the passage we are talking about says. See what it says:
"If someone sins against a man, God will mediate for him". 1 Samuel 2:25. Can it mean that God intercedes to Himself so that a person be forgiven? How is it possible? This is completely possible if you think about the Son interceding to the Father in behalf of someone who sinned. That's actually what the Brit Chadashah says Yeshua does in the behalf of the believers:
"Consequently, he [Yeshua] is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them." Hebrews 7:25.
You said: "So how does a man repent for his sins against God? He goes straight to the source without going through any intercessor or intermediary."
The answer is, he offers sacrifices to God and repent from his sins. Remember that the Son is God Himself, being His eternal Word or Memrah as the Targum says. You can understand this verse as saying that in this case the Memrah, who is God, will not intercede to the Father in behalf of that man.
You said: "While it is true that they encountered God in both situations, the Torah emphasizes that what they had in common was that the location was holy".
The questions is: why was that location holy? You have already answered it: because they encountered God there, in the form of an angel. That's what the text says.
You said: "Are there no other places where people encountered God in the Tanakh and did not remove their shoes? See Exodus 14:31, 19:3, and 19:11."
I checked the passages you quoted and I couldn't see anything. What did you see in those passages?
Regarding the destroyer being God Himself, that's what the text actually seems to be saying. The same happens in many other passages in the Tanakh, so it would not be something hard to believe that the destroyer is actually God Himself. Check, for example, Gen. 18 (To Abraham), Gen. 32:24-30 (To Jacob), Ex. 33:11 (to Moses), Josh. 5:13-6:5 (to Joshua), Judg. 6:11-23 (to Gideon), Judg. 13 (to Samson’s parents).
By the way, I didn't see another explanation of yours about the destroyer not being God Himself.
Yeshua came to give life through His atoning death in the Brit Chadashah, not in the Tanakh. But even in the Brit Chadashah, Yeshua also comes to destroy sometimes. See what Yeshua says in the book of Revelation after His resurrection and going up to Heaven:
"But I [Yeshua] have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality. Behold, I will throw her onto a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her works, and I will strike her children dead. And all the assemblies will know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you according to your works." Revelation 2:20-23
So then I think you're misunderstanding how animal sacrifices work. It is not the sacrifice per se that acquires forgiveness, but rather God's decision to forgive. This has to be true because nothing controls God, and if He decided not to forgive someone who brought a sacrifice He would be perfectly capable of doing that. This sort of thing did happen in the Tanakh, such as when Hosea (6:6) says, "For I desire loving-kindness, and not sacrifices, and knowledge of God more than burnt offerings," and Psalms 51:18, "For You do not wish a sacrifice, or I should give it; You do not desire a burnt offering." The purpose of the sacrifices was to cause introspection, which in turn was supposed to be used to help the person stop sinning. If the person misunderstood how this worked and tried to "buy off" God by bringing him dead animals, God would reject them because they completely missed the point.
The word "intercedes" is more correctly translated as "judges," as it is used in Exodus 21:22, "... and he shall give [restitution] according to the judges' [orders]."
Let's get to the heart of this matter. There is a very serious issue with worshiping Jesus, because it attempts to "have your cake and eat it, too." It combines the greatness of God with the accessibility of an accessible intermediary. I once heard Pastor Mike Winger (a popular YouTube pastor) say something to the effect of that "The Father is too distant and lofty to reach, and so Jesus gave us the ability to have a relationship with Him by interceding." Whether he meant intercession through death for sin, or intercession by making it easier to relate to God, there is a problem.
The ancient idolaters invented idols and gods for this very purpose. If you look at virtually polytheistic religions, they all have a chief father or mother god that gives birth to or creates other lesser deities. It's often the case that people don't actually pray to the original chief god, who is considered to be too lofty and inaccessible to relate to. Therefore they create a relationship with Divinity by relating to his children. Further, the gods experienced life as human beings do, making them relatable. This is virtually identical to believing in Jesus, who provides people with the ability to interract with a form of Divinity that they can relate to a human level.
This is virtually completely absent in Judaism - we cannot relate with God on a human level as He is completely different than us. This is why God provides us with means by which to relate to Him without creating theological absurdities. He gave us the Torah to relate to Him, provided methods of atonement, accepts repentance today through prayer even when those methods are impossible (because there is no Temple), and accepts humility, contriteness, and embracing His will despite imperfections as valid methods of repentance. There are verses in the Tanakh that back up all of these concepts.
You said, "You have already answered it: because they encountered God there, in the form of an angel."
That cannot be true because God appeared to them at other instances without telling them to remove their shoes, such as Genesis 18 in the episode of Abraham and the three angels, one of which you claim was the Second Person.
This is my response to your comment from January 18, 2022:
In all three of the passages above (and others) the Jews encountered God, yet they were not told to remove their shoes. This indicates that the reason Moses and Joshua were told to remove their shoes was not because they encountered God, but because they were standing on holy ground. Not in every case when somebody encounters God does the ground become holy.
In Exodus 14:31 the Jews encountered God at the sea. In Exodus 19:3 Moses encountered God on Mt. Sinai. In Exodus 19:11 God says that He will reveal Himself to the entire nation, and each time the Torah completely omits anything about taking off their shoes. Now you may say that the text implies this based on Exodus 3:5 and Joshua 5:13, but you would be making a conjecture. Apparently there is no necessary causality between these two things.
You yourself said, "This only happened in these two passages in the Scriptures and never more." That's true, so can you explain why this only happened twice even though God revealed Himself more than twice?
"Regarding the destroyer being God Himself, that's what the text actually seems to be saying. The same happens in many other passages in the Tanakh, so it would not be something hard to believe that the destroyer is actually God Himself."
Well then, let's go to perhaps what may be the most destructive event in the entire history of the Tanakh, the Flood. There is no mention anywhere during that entire series of events of any angel or destroyer at all. God Himself killed off the human race.
Regarding the passages you cited, they are all very different from each other. An accurate study of each would show that different things are occurring in each one, and so they must be treated differently. For example, God's will to destroy Sodom is very different than the angel fighting with Jacob; Sodom was being punished for their sin, while the angel attacked Jacob for a completely different reason.
By the way, if Jesus was the angel who fought with Jacob, why doesn't he ever refer to such a thing in the Christian Scriptures? For that matter, why doesn't he refer to any of the destructive events that took place through him? In John 8:57 says, "Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.'" What you are sharing with me now is in no way supported by your Scriptures! Jesus claims to be God, but does not claim to be the Angel of Death (which is what the destroyer is)! Daniel, you are holding on to this idea just to prove me wrong, but I think you're commitment to your position is leading you to posit an essentially bizarre and divergent proposition (from other Christians). I'm sorry, and I mean no offense here. The reason he doesn't refer to those events is because he didn't do them, but an angel did!
Your example from Revelation notwithstanding, Jesus does not identify himself as the destroyer of Exodus. He is free to destroy anything that he wants, but simple destruction is much too general to correlate with the very specific purpose of the destroyer in Exodus. My point is that the destroyer, and all other angels in the Tanakh, are not Jesus. And if they are not Jesus, then Jesus is not found in the Tanakh. And if Jesus is not found in the Tanakh, then perhaps he is not who you and he say that he was.
Shalom Yaniv!
You said: "The purpose of the sacrifices was to cause introspection, which in turn was supposed to be used to help the person stop sinning."
That's not what the Torah says. It says that the purpose of the sacrifices is to atone for sins. It is the substitution principle of life for life. Check it:
"For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life." Leviticus 17:11.
Jerusalem Talmud Yoma 5:6:10:
"It was stated217: “One commits larceny with blood218, the words of Rebbi Meïr and Rebbi Simeon, but the Sages are saying, there is no larceny with blood.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, for the blood is it, it atones for the person219. You only have atonement of persons from it."
Yomah 5a:
“And he shall place his hand on the head of the burnt-offering, and it shall be accepted for him to atone on his behalf” (Leviticus 1:4). Does the placing of hands atone for one’s sins? Isn’t atonement accomplished only by the sprinkling of the blood, as it is stated: “For it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life” (Leviticus 17:11).
You said:
"This is virtually identical to believing in Jesus, who provides people with the ability to interact with a form of Divinity that they can relate to a human level. This is virtually completely absent in Judaism."
Really? What about the sephirot? What about the shechinah? What about the many times where God appears in human form in the Tanakh as we have discussed many times already? What about the Ruach HaKodesh? What about the Memrah? What about the angel of the Lord? Do you see? You have so many reasons to believe that what you just said is not true at all.
You said: "You yourself said, "This only happened in these two passages in the Scriptures and never more." That's true, so can you explain why this only happened twice even though God revealed Himself more than twice?"
Good question, Yaniv. I don't have this answer. Do you? Why were those lands holy grounds and the others were not, since God appeared in all of them? Or if they all were because God appeared there, why just two times they were supposed to take off their shoes?
You said: :Well then, let's go to perhaps what may be the most destructive event in the entire history of the Tanakh, the Flood. There is no mention anywhere during that entire series of events of any angel or destroyer at all. God Himself killed off the human race."
Why are you saying this? Do you agree that God is the Angel of death in Exodus?
Regarding the passages where God appears in the form of an angel in the Tanakh, church fathers wrote about that, so I'm not going against other Christians saying these things, and if you read the Tanakh as these passages appear there, you will see very clearly that the text says that the angel of the Lord there is actually God.
Shavua tov!
Daniel, please see the post I wrote titled "All You Need is Blood," where I deal with this subject matter directly - https://hashemisbeautiful.blogspot.com/2021/09/all-you-need-is-blood.html
All of the Torah and Rabbinic sources you cited below have to do with atonement, while I was referring to repentance, which are related, yet different things. Many of our (as well Rabbinic) sources on repentance describe that the "ritual" used for atonement had many steps, the final of which was the sacrifice. The steps leading up to the sacrifice were regret, confession to God, asking for forgiveness, and setting up personal safeguards to keep oneself away from that same sin. The reason this process included these steps was to attempt to transform the person, and not to let him think that he can bring an animal and wipe away all of his sins and be on good terms with God again. The change has to be internal, not external.
By the way, and this is very important, the Torah actually deals with people who make the mistake I mentioned above, i.e., with people who think that they can make everything right with God by bringing sacrifices. There is a difference between atonement/forgiveness and repairing a broken relationship. I can ask my wife for forgiveness for something that I've done wrong, and she may forgive me, but I still have to repair the damage that I've created between us. Atonement is forgiveness, repentance is correction, and they are mutually exclusive. Christians seem to overlook this, relegating Judaism (the Torah, and God) to a shallow and childish attempt to relate to God. This is why I get angry with Christians; they project silly, childish ideas onto Judaism and then reject them. They don't realize that we also reject their fallacious understandings of Judaism, but they don't listen.
By the way, the final step (sacrifice) was omitted for deliberate sins, as described in the Torah. The reason for that is that deliberate sins contain an element of rebellion, which can only be properly uprooted through the first four steps I mentioned above. For a person who has sinned rebelliously against God, the sole focus is the internal transformation with none at all given to the external sacrifice. This should confuse you, for the Torah itself only prescribes sacrifice for indeliberate sin, indicating that one who committed a rebellious sin is forgiven with no sacrifice at all (if he is repentant). It flies in the face of all you've been taught in Church about blood.
But reason for a moment had it been otherwise, and that this ritual included no steps to achieve internal transformation. This would be like trickling water into a bucket with a big hole in the bottom. Is God really this foolish to think that people will improve their character and repent simply by bringing animal sacrifices, or perhaps it is your understanding that is foolish? If he thinks that, he will simply go out and sin again the next day. I have often struggled to comprehend how Christians can understand the Torah as being so apparently one dimensional and flat, while still believing it to be true and applicable to the human experience. I am perplexed by this.
As I've said ad infinitum, you are completely wrong about the Jewish understanding of these concepts, but it's as if you refuse to listen. Why should I continue to address these points when it falls on deaf ears?
Response to your comment from January 24, 2022 at 2:28 PM (Part 1):
Okay, so now we're talking!
The Ramban quotes a Midrash saying that one must remove his shoes wherever the Shechina rests, which he applies to the verse in Joshua as well. He also refers to the Cohanim removing their shoes while serving in the Temple. Because the verses you cited didn't tell anybody to remove their shoes, we can infer that the Shechina was not revealed there. For example, when Jacob wrestled with the angel the Shechina was not revealed.
On the other hand, I have a feeling that the Ramban does not necessarily mean that these are the only three instances where the Shechina was revealed, as he discusses it in other places. This points to the known principle in Torah study that the Torah sometimes (or often) omits mentioning things that actually occurred, such as Cain's and Abel's wives, who are not explicitly mentioned in the text. We know that they had wives because they had children. If so, then it's quite possible that in all instances when the Shechina was revealed that people removed their shoes even if the Torah does not explicitly report it every single time. The question only becomes then why it was explicitly stated in these two verses.
To offer an explanation, we can consider a unique aspect of Moses' and Joshua's encounters. Regarding Moses, it seems that his encounter at the bush was his first encounter with the Shechina, which would explain why God told him to remove his shoes - it can be understood as an "introductory" session to experiencing the Shechina, and hence he was told something that he previously didn't know.
Regarding Joshua, there is also something unique about his encounter. We know for a fact that he received prophecy before this, and was not told to remove his shoes. However, in my understanding there are two possible explanations that make this encounter unique. Firstly, the Jews were about to enter the Land of Israel in fulfillment of the prophecy given to Abraham. Secondly, the angel that appeared to Joshua identifies himself as "captain of the host of the Lord," who Rashi says was Michael (see Daniel 10:21), which is related to the first explanation. Each and/or both unique elements are plausible understandings for the Shechina to have been revealed to Joshua. What this also indicates is a general rule, which is that not every prophecy accompanies the Shechina.
To offer another approach, the Malbim says that the angel told Joshua to remove his shoes in preparation for prophecy. This is a bit difficult for me to understand given that God spoke to Joshua earlier with no mention of removing his shoes. I understand this in of the following ways: 1) either the Shechina does not accompany all prophecy, 2) this prophecy was unique, or 3) that he was actually told to remove his shoes with earlier prophecies as well, but it was not recorded in the Torah.
A different explanation comes from one of our later commentators (Midrash Lekach Tov), who notes a subtle, yet very significant, difference between Exodus and Joshua. When Moses received his revelation he was in Egypt, which is not a holy place (to say the least). However, the location where he was standing became holy due to the revelation that occurred there. To contrast, Joshua received his revelation in Israel, all of which is a holy place. This explains why Exodus says "... holy soil," to indicate that this specific patch of land became holy in contrast to its surroundings. Joshua didn't need to say "holy soil" because the entire land of Israel is holy, which would have wrongly limited the holiness only to the specific area where he was standing. I think you're kind of forced into saying (based on this) that both holiness and the Shechina need to be present to require removing one's shoes, as we are allowed to wear shoes in Israel!
Response to your comment from January 24, 2022 at 2:28 PM (Part 2):
Why am I saying this? I'm saying this because the Flood account makes no mention of any angel. I can't tell from the tone of your writing, but does this bother you? God certainly has the moral justification to kill anybody that He wants (I don't think that's what's bothering you because I assume that you accept that fundamental point).
I don't necessarily agree that God is the destroyer (not the Angel of Death) in Exodus, although that's one acceptable view.
Regarding "the passages where God appears in the form of an angel in the Tanakh," it should be clear to you by now that I don't accept this to be true. I accept that the Church fathers supported this view, but I disagree with them, too. It isn't so clear that the angel is God, and there are many supports to the contrary. It's clear to you because you already believe it.
Shalom Yaniv,
I completely agree with you that the sacrifices of the Tanakh had to be done with repentance, this is something very basic from the Tanakh, specifically from the Neviim. But it is not just repentance, it is repentance and sacrifice, for as Leviticus says, it is the blood that atones for the sin.
In the Brit Chadashah, the message is also the same, repentance is spoken there all the time, repentance and faith in the atoning death and resurrection of the Messiah Yeshua.
Now, regarding the sacrifices not atoning for intentional sins, this is just a myth spread by counter-missionaries. Read what the Torah says:
"For on this day He shall effect atonement for you to cleanse you. Before the Lord, you shall be cleansed from all your sins." Leviticus 16:30.
Thank you for your answers about why only twice in the Tanakh Moses and Joshua took off their sandals. Your explanation that Joshua took of his sandals because of the revelation of the Shechinah there just indicates more to me that the "angel" that he saw there was actually God, otherwise the Shechinah would not be revealed there to him, as it was when God appeared to Moses.
If it is one acceptable view that God is the destroyer, then God is the Angel of Death who He Himself sent, and this by itself shows that God exists in more than one person.
Now, even if you don't accept the passages in the Tanakh regarding the triune nature of God, you should accept that there is ground in the Tanakh to say that God has a triune nature, or that He at least exists in two persons. These are possible understandings of the texts in the Tanakh that we have already discussed.
Regards,
Daniel, we should be very careful regarding the words that we use, as they mean different things. Repentance and atonement are not the same thing. Atonement focuses on the past (forgiveness), repentance on the future (correcting one's ways). Even if you atone for your sins you must correct your ways, or you will sin again. And if blood is the only way to atone for sin, how do you explain Leviticus 5:11? Have you had a chance to see this post? https://hashemisbeautiful.blogspot.com/2021/09/all-you-need-is-blood.html
Are you so sure that this is counter-missionary propaganda? Let's go to the verses.
Leviticus (4:1-3) starts by saying, "And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 'Speak to the children of Israel, saying: If a person sins unintentionally [by committing one] of all the commandments of the Lord, which may not be committed, and he commits [part] of one of them If the anointed kohen sins, bringing guilt to the people, then he shall bring for his sin which he has committed, an unblemished young bull as a sin offering to the Lord.'" See also 5:15 and 5:17-18.
What is mentioned repeatedly is that he must bring an offering when he "incurs guilt," which means at the point in time at which he realized that he had committed a sin, such as in 4:14 (the entire community), 4:23 (a leader), and 4:28 (a lay individual).
Immediately after all of this in Chapter 6 it skips to speaking about the continual offering, which 6:5 indicates is a peace offering. The Torah continues to speak about the different types of offerings until Chapter 9, and there is no mention of what is done when a person sins deliberately.
I'm not interested in what the Christian Scriptures say. I'm only interested in what the Tanakh says. No offense.
Your reference to Leviticus 16:30 is a reference to Yom Kippur, which is unique and different from all of the verses mentioned above. Verse 16 indicates that this offering atones for both unintentional and intentional sins, and it is unique in this regard, "...from their rebellions and all their unintentional sins..."
Numbers 15:24 (and 27, 29) briefly speaks about sin offerings as well, "If because of the eyes of the congregation it was committed inadvertently, the entire congregation shall prepare a young bull as a burnt offering for a pleasing fragrance for the Lord, with its prescribed meal offering and libation, and one young he goat for a sin offering."
Then in 5:29-31 we see an interesting contrast:
One law shall apply to anyone who sins inadvertently from the native born of the children of Israel and the proselyte who resides among them. But if a person should act highhandedly, whether he is a native born or a proselyte, he is blaspheming the Lord, and that soul shall be cut off from among its people. For he has scorned the word of the Lord and violated His commandment; that soul shall be utterly cut off for its iniquity is upon it.
Verse 30 is speaking about a person who sinned deliberately, and it doesn't prescribe a sin offering anywhere.
You said, "Your explanation that Joshua took of his sandals because of the revelation of the Shechinah there just indicates more to me that the "angel" that he saw there was actually God, otherwise the Shechinah would not be revealed there to him, as it was when God appeared to Moses."
You haven't yet addressed why the angel of the Lord appears in other places without people being told to remove their shoes, as with Abraham in Genesis 18 or 22:15. Because you are claiming that seeing the angel of the Lord requires people to take off their shoes, you must provide a reason explaining why the Torah only says it twice. I gave you several possible answers in the previous response.
By the way, Exodus 3:2 says, "An angel of the Lord appeared to him," not "The angel of the Lord appeared to him." The Hebrew says "an" (by omitting the definite article) and not "the" as well. The wording "an angel of the Lord" indicates that there were several angels worthy of this title.
If it is one acceptable view that God is the destroyer, then God is the Angel of Death who He Himself sent, and this by itself shows that God exists in more than one person.
Your point is understood, but 12:23 says, "The Lord will pass to smite the Egyptians, and He will see the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts, and the Lord will pass over the entrance, and He will not permit the destroyer to enter your houses to smite [you]." The view that God is the destroyer is a lone opinion not held by anybody else, probably due to this verse. You're free to accept a lone view if you wish, but it's clear that you're doing so only to support your pre-existing belief.
I will accept that it's possible if you accept that there is grounds in the Tanakh to believe that God has more than three Persons. Exodus 2:23-25 says "God" five times. I'm using the same logic that you used regarding Genesis 19:24, which says "Lord" twice, which you indicated refers to two Persons of the Trinity.
Exodus 2:23-25: Now it came to pass in those many days that the king of Egypt died, and the children of Israel sighed from the labor, and they cried out, and their cry ascended to God from the labor. God heard their cry, and God remembered His covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob. And God saw the children of Israel, and God knew.
I forgot to write something because I was very tired.
You said, "If it is one acceptable view that God is the destroyer, then God is the Angel of Death who He Himself sent, and this by itself shows that God exists in more than one person."
That is certainly not the only way to understand this -- see Exodus 33:22-23:
And it shall be that when My glory passes by, I will place you into the cleft of the rock, and I will cover you with My hand until I have passed by. Then I will remove My hand, and you will see My back, but My face shall not be seen."
God's "hand," "back," and "face" are different aspects of Him, but are not different Persons in a triune relationship. The verse describes God separately from these things, while the classic explanation of the Trinity explains that God is three Persons. What I mean is, this verse describes God as possessing these three things, which means that they don't describe who He is. Christians would consider describing God as possessing the Trinity as either simply an incorrect understanding of it, or at most a heretical view.
And to the point, the idea here is that God can "interact with Himself" while maintaining One Personhood.
Hello Daniel,
I've been thinking about this whole mysterious matter of God sending the destroyer to perform the tenth plague even though He says that He would smite the Egyptians on his own.
Take a look at Exodus 12:13, "And the blood will be for you for a sign upon the houses where you will be, and I will see the blood and skip over you, and there will be no plague to destroy [you] when I smite the [people of the] land of Egypt."
I was thinking about this matter not just as a response to you, but also to try to understand it. If we read it carefully, we could say that the wording of this verse resolves the difficulty. God says, "and there will be no plague to destroy you when I smite you." This seems to indicate that two different things happened that night: 1) there was a plague spreading through the land, and 2) the Egyptian first born males were being killed. Because the verse seems to be distinguishing between these two things, it is not necessary to assume that the plague was the cause of the death of the first born Egyptian males.
If that's true, then we can understand why God and the destroyer are both present here. God is present to smite the Egyptians, and the destroyer is present to execute the plague.
This seems to make sense of the verse in-and-of-itself, but it also addresses your suggestion that God is at least two Persons. If the plague is not synonymous with the death of the first born, then God is the one doing the killing, and the destroyer is responsible for the plague. In other words, God is not executing the plague, and therefore is not the destroyer. If He is not the destroyer, then we are left back with the singular Personhood of God.
As a side note, although it's important, one would think that all three Persons would play a role in this momentous act. That may be up for debate, but I recall reading in several Christian sources that all three Persons were present in the creation of the world. Nevertheless, it would be strange to consider that the Holy Spirit had nothing to do with this event. That fact makes it plausible to consider that the destroyer was not God.
Shalom Yaniv,
The application of the oil (Lev 14:29) and the flour (Lev 5:11-13) were on the burnt offer, which was the one responsible for atoning.
So, you agreed that the sin offering of Yom Kippur atones for all sins. That is enough for me. Now, if you read Isaiah 53, you can see there that the atoning death of the Messiah atones for all kinds of sins, pesha (Isaiah 53:5,8), avon (Isaiah 53:5,6) and chata (53:12).
Exodus 3:2 can be translated as "an angel of the Lord" or "the angel of the Lord". The Jewish Publication Society, for instance, translates it as "the angel of the Lord". See it:
"And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush". Exodus 3:2.
Jewish Publication Society of America. (1917). Torah Nevi’im u-Khetuvim. The Holy Scriptures according to the Masoretic text. (Ex 3:2). Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society of America.
I have quoted to you Many Jewish sources saying that God is the destroyer. Are they wrong?
Do you really want to compare Exodus 2:23-25 with Genesis 19:24, which says "the Lord rained sulfur and fire FROM the Lord?
Why don't you read Exodus 33:22-23 literally, as it is? Just because Rambam said, grounded in Greek philosophy that God has no form, while the Tanakh says many times, with all the letters, that He does have one? Let's return to the Scriptures, chaver. Besides that, the hand of God, His back, etc., are not persons, but members of God. Your comparison does not work.
Regarding your last comment, Yaniv, it seems weird that there would be two causes of death: the plague and God striking people. What seems more natural is that God is striking people through a plague, as He very often does in the Torah and the Tanakh.
Concerning the Holy Spirit, why do you think it would be necessary for Him to be present there? What if He was present but the text just doesn't give us the details?
Now, check the 3 persons of God together in the same passage:
"For he said, “Surely they are my people, children who will not deal falsely.” And he became their Savior. In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them; in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; he lifted them up and carried them all the days of old. But they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit; therefore he turned to be their enemy, and himself fought against them." Isaiah 63:8-10.
המשך שבוע טוב
Daniel, if anything, you establish principles from a more common case than from a less common one; the annual Yom Kippur offering was an exception to the rule and not used in the day-to-day life of the people. Regarding daily life, the text repeatedly prescribes sin offerings for inadvertent sins only, and explicitly mentions that a person who sinned rebelliously is cut off from him people (Leviticus 5:30). You will have to struggle with that.
Perhaps the reason the Yom Kippur service atoned for rebellious sins was due its communal nature (it atoned for the entire people). No such offering could be brought on behalf of an individual who committed a rebellious sin. Such a person had to take care of his own sin (through repentance). Also, (I assume) you don't believe that Jesus died as a communal offering, and agree that accepting his death only works on an individual level. If so, Jesus cannot symbolize the (communal) Yom Kippur offering, but the regular, daily offerings (only relevant for inadvertent sins). These are the kinds of issues Christians create when they mix and match symbolism.
Further, Jesus is not the "high priest" as long as you think that he was perfect. Leviticus 16:17 says that the high priest, "shall effect atonement for himself," indicating that he too sins. I know you've heard this before, but I've never received a satisfying response from anybody.
Regarding Isaiah 53, it's true that those are different types of sins, but I don't agree that this is talking about the Messiah. Did you ever notice that 53:8 says, "if his soul makes restitution?" Why does it say "if" if Jesus was destined to die for sin? "If" indicates that he may not have made restitution.
What do you think of Numbers 18:1?
Response to comment from February 9, 2022 at 12:19 PM:
You said, "The Jewish Publication Society, for instance, translates it as 'the angel of the Lord'."
That doesn't mean that this is the correct translation. The word "malach" literally means "angel" without the definite article. Does the JPS translate other words lacking the definite article as "the as well?" Can you show me at least once instance?
You said, "I have quoted to you Many Jewish sources saying that God is the destroyer. Are they wrong?"
Your understanding is wrong. The destroyer in the tenth plague is introduced in a specific context, and should not be associated with other things just because the word "destroy" is used. By the way, the Hebrew word "mashchit" is not used in the verses you cited! Deuteronomy 2:21 uses vayashmidem - smite them, 28:63 uses lehaabid - annihilate, lehashmid - smite, and 30:3 uses hefitzchah - scattered you".
You said, "Do you really want to compare Exodus 2:23-25 with Genesis 19:24, which says 'the Lord rained sulfur and fire FROM the Lord?'"
Absolutely, and I would really like to you hear your answer to this question. This is your second time avoiding it. I don't understand why you're opposed to answering this question, please take a look at my response from November 29, 2021 at 9:38 PM and respond to it directly.
You said, "Why don't you read Exodus 33:22-23 literally, as it is?"
It isn't just Platonic, and I've addressed this in my comment on December 21, 2021 at 1:45 PM.
If you read Exodus 33:22-33 literally you are left with the ridiculous notion that Jesus walked past Moses and hid his face from him, but let him see his back! This is childish and ignorant and I refuse to believe it! I expect my children to ask me this question, but not a grown man! You said in your response on December 13, 2021 that, "They did not see the Father either, but the Son there. God reveals Himself through the Son in the Tanakh." Believe this at your own peril! What do you make of Deuteronomy 4:12, "The Lord spoke to you out of the midst of the fire; you heard the sound of the words, but saw no image, just a voice." This was a direct revelation from God with no physical appearance.
Response to your comment from February 9, 2022 at 12:52 PM:
You said, "Regarding your last comment, Yaniv, it seems weird that there would be two causes of death: the plague and God striking people."
Please read what I said more carefully. I said, "Because the verse seems to be distinguishing between these two things, it is not necessary to assume that the plague was the cause of the death of the first born Egyptian males." The plague was not causing death, but was a plague, and not all plagues cause death.
You said, "What seems more natural is that God is striking people through a plague, as He very often does in the Torah and the Tanakh."
Yes, that is true, I would agree in general unless the Torah explicitly mentioned otherwise. There are several notable examples of plagues, about some of which the Torah explicitly says it was the cause of death, such as Numbers 25:9. Exodus 32:35 says, "Then the Lord struck the people with a plague, because they had made the calf that Aaron had made." The verse doesn't explicitly say that they died from this plague, but the accepted view among our commentators is that they did.
You said, "Concerning the Holy Spirit, why do you think it would be necessary for Him to be present there?"
It isn't necessary, but given the importance of this event you would expect the Spirit to have contributed His presence as well there. I'm not sure what role He would play, but that's for you to figure out.
The term "Savior" is an appropriate term to attribute to God even if you don't assume that He took on the form of a man. In addition, the verse above doesn't say anything about saving us from our sins, but just that He saved us, plain and simple. This word is used elsewhere, such as in Isaiah 42, in the context of bringing the Jews back to Israel. See 42:3 in which God says that He is the Savior and that He "given Egypt as your ransom, Cush and Seba in your stead." Did Jesus give Egypt, Cush, and Seba as ransom for the Jews? Were you to carry this out to its full conclusion you would end up with a ridiculous position. This is so simple, and when you read it in context you easily see that it is not what you are making it out to be.
As with "Savior," the mere presence of the term "Holy Spirit" doesn't prove that it's a Person in a triune relationship. In summary, if taken individually these terms do not necessarily indicate Persons, putting them together in one verse doesn't demonstrate it either. I'm sorry to say, but there is quite a bit of wishful thinking going on here. You can still be a Godly, good person without the Trinity. It is not in the Heavens...
Shalom Yaniv! Nice talking to you again.
No, Yeshua did not die for individuals but to the whole world. It was a communal sacrifice. See what the Brit Chadashah says: "He [Yeshua] is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." 1 John 2:2. Besides that, the faith in Yeshua which provides forgiveness is the faith which produces repentance, for faith without works is dead according to the book of James. So, there must be repentance. Moreover, all Israel who is alive will be saved when Yeshua returns, as the Brit Chadashah says in Romans 11, therefore it will also be a communal sacrifice to Israel as a nation.
Yeshua is not a High Priest after the order of Levi, but after the order of Malchizedek (Psalm 110:4). The High Priests after the order of Levi were supposed to do sacrifices to atone for their own sins. However, the question also is, what if the High Priest has no sin at all, should he make atonement for his sin?
Regarding Isaiah 53 speaking about the Messiah, do you think Rambam, the Talmud, Zohar, Midrashim, Moshe Alsheich and many other ancient rabbis are all wrong when they say that Isaiah 53 is talking about the Messiah? Regarding the "if" issue, this is interesting, because it indicates that perhaps the Messiah was not obligated to die as an atonement for our sins, but that He chose to do this out of love for us and for Elohim, as Yeshua did.
What is the issue with Numbers 18:1?
Yes, there are many examples where something without the article is translated as "the", for example in 1 Chronicles 21:12. You can also see this translation of this passage in the translation of Chabad website.
Regarding Exodus 2:23-25, Yaniv, there is nothing to be said about that passage. It is just repeating different things that God did. Like "God did this, that, etc.". Now the passage of Sodom is saying that "the Lord rained sulfur and fire FROM the Lord", what shows two persons being the same God. Think about that.
Actually, in Exodus 33 I believe Moses saw the back of the Father, not of the Son. That is the only passage when someone was able to see the Father, but not His face. That is my personal opinion. Regarding Deuteronomy 4:12, they saw no image there because otherwise they would build statues similar to that image and worship them. That's why only Moses and few others were able to actually see God, because they were mature enough not to make idols and worship them, as, for instance, in Gen. 18 (To Abraham), Gen. 32:24-30 (To Jacob), Ex. 24:9-11 (to the elders of Israel).
Regarding Isaiah 63:8-10, Did you see that the Holy Spirit was grieved with the Jewish people in that passage. Don't you think that this indicates that the Holy Spirit is a person?
Read also the passage with me. Isaiah 63:8: "He thought: Surely they are My people, Children who will not play false. So He was their Deliverer." Who was their Deliverer? Do you agree with me that this passage says is God?
Now, read the following verse:
"In all their troubles He was troubled, And the angel of His Face delivered them." Isaiah 63:9. Who did deliver them? God or the angel of His Face? Or perhaps God is the angel of His face? Two persons, one God.
Shabbat Shalom!
Regarding your comment from February 18, 2022 at 11:26 AM:
You said, "Yes, there are many examples where something without the article is translated as "the", for example in 1 Chronicles 21:12. You can also see this translation of this passage in the translation of Chabad website."
I'll look into them, but you'd have to consider the context of each one.
Regarding Exodus 2:23-25, I appreciate what you're trying to do, but the verse's use of the word "from" doesn't make it SO strange that it can only be explained by assuming multiple Persons; there are less extreme explanations that are equally valid. Whichever, it certainly doesn't make it any stranger than it already is, i.e., using the word "Lord" several times, which is not the most natural way to speak in the vernacular. However, using a proper noun several times in one verse is natural in the Tanakh. Because "the Lord" is one performing the action, it follows that "from" is used in conjunction with "the Lord."
You said, "Actually, in Exodus 33 I believe Moses saw the back of the Father, not of the Son. That is the only passage when someone was able to see the Father, but not His face. That is my personal opinion."
Very well, but how can you see an immaterial entity? What does such a thing look like? Could anybody else see it too?
You said, "Regarding Deuteronomy 4:12, they saw no image there because otherwise they would build statues similar to that image and worship them. That's why only Moses and few others were able to actually see God, because they were mature enough not to make idols and worship them..."
That is an interesting argument, but you would still have to address Genesis 3:8, which says, "And they heard the voice of the Lord God going in the garden to the direction of the sun, and the man and his wife hid from before the Lord God in the midst of the trees of the garden." Like Moses, Adam and Eve were mature enough not to make and worship idols, and yet they only "heard the voice of the Lord God going in the garden." Please use only the original Hebrew of the Torah for this verse and not the Targum. The former was revealed by God, the latter was not.
Shalom Yaniv!
Regarding your comment on Exodus 2:23-25, I have an important comment to do. I can see that you are always trying to find alternative explanations for each verse I bring to you, as if the alternative explanations, even some of them being unlikely to be true, would destroy the evidence that Yeshua can be the Messiah. Have you ever thought, though, that the what I am saying regarding these verses are possible explanations, and thus biblical ground for the things I am telling you? And if they are so, don't you agree with me that it is not possible anymore to say that there are no biblical grounds in the Tanakh to say that God cannot be triune?
You said: "Very well, but how can you see an immaterial entity? What does such a thing look like? Could anybody else see it too?"
God is Spirit, and angels are spirit too. Many times angels are seen in the Bible, seraphim, cherubim... if they are immaterial and can be seen, why would not God be seen too, as Moses himself says that saw His back? I understand that you have Maimonides' ideas in mind, but let's think for a while what the Scriptures, and not Maimonides speak about that issue.
Regarding Genesis 3:8, don't you think that it is implicit in the text that Adam and Eve actually saw God in the garden for God was "walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden" (Genesis 3:8). God was walking in the garden, He was present there, and why would Adam and Eve hid from Him if they were never able to see Him before? Moreover, do you remember that Adam and Eve sinned against God? Therefore, were they really mature people? Maybe only before they sinned against God.
Shabbat Shalom Yaniv.
I had to break my response into two because it was too long.
Part I:
Daniel, Jesus is essentially an avatar of God. An avatar is a Hindu concept and is "the incarnation of a deity in human or animal form to counteract an evil in the world." The evil counteracted by the avatar Jesus is the defeat of sin. On the "theological spectrum of possibilities," the Trinity bears more resemblance to the Hindu brand of polytheism than to Judaism's strict and exclusivist monotheism.
If you were forced to categorize the Trinity in a binary fashion as either variegated polytheism or exclusive monotheism, you would automatically see that it more intuitively belongs in the first category. You can only categorize it as monotheism through complex arguments, but if no "shades of gray" were available to you, and no way of appealing to theological complexities and ambiguities, you would be forced to classify the Trinity as polytheism. It is only through a mere technicality that you can label the Trinity monotheism. That technicality is that the Trinity can be considered monotheistic if all three Persons are in fact God. This is not identical, but extremely similar, to the formulation that the Hindu pantheon. According to hinduwebsite.com, "Hinduism is unique because it is essentially a monotheistic faith which acknowledges polytheism as reflective of the diversity in God's creation."
Think about it as a radio dial with pure unadulterated idol worship on the far right, and pure strict monotheism on the far left. The world's expressions of polytheism are extremely creative, and there are many, many forms of it. Some of them are very different from each other, and some of them express fundamentally identical ideas in slightly different ways. You can plainly see that if you just pushed the dial a little bit to the right that a picture resembling polytheism would begin to emerge. This leads me to think that the Trinity is a product of "compromised polytheism" to the left rather than a true expression of monotheism.
You cannot transition into monotheism by continually moving to the left - it is a fundamentally different world view.
Part II:
It's also noteworthy to say that Hinduism has a concept called "Trimurti," which means, "'having three forms,'" refers to the three main Hindu gods: Brahma , Vishnu, and Shiva. Brahma is the creator god, Vishnu is the perserver and Shiva is the destroyer or the transformer. These three forms together represent the highest Hindu deity, the Supreme Divine." This is clearly different than the Trinity in that it recognizes three gods, but it's easy to see that you could arrive at the Trinity by simply compromising this idea just a little bit to streamline it with monotheism. This type of evolution is common in the polytheistic world. The same site says, "Initially, the Trimurti was worshipped as a single entity -- the Supreme Being. Later, the three gods were separated from the single entity and accepted as separate deities." Interestingly, this is the same exact process described by the Rambam in the Mishna Torah for the advent of polytheism.
That site also says, "As the creator, sustainer and destroyer of the worlds, He (Brahman) is also the Trinity, Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesa. They are but one though they appear differently to the mortal world." The only multiplicity you get in Judaism is the Sefirot, which we do not relate to as God, but are expressions of God's interactions with the world. They can be thought of as the channels through which God affects change in the world, each in their own unique manner, but they are not personal. The Shechina itself is a mere manifestation of God's presence. The Shechina is not required to form a relationship with God as there are times when it is present and times when it is not. This is fundamentally different than the Holy Spirit, without which one cannot truly said to have a relationship with God.
In other words, there is no "three for the price of one" package in Judaism; you have a relationship with God even in the absence of the Shechina, which is true even if the Shechina is said to "go into exile" with the Jews. Nevertheless, you yourself said (comment from December 31, 2021) that you have not heard of the comparison between the Shechina and the Spirit, so this is a moot point.
The Trinity is the polytheist's way of understanding "the Jewish God." It lets him have his cake and eat it, too. It lets him believe in the One God of the Torah while not abandoning the multiplicity that he's comfortable with. Let's be frank, the Jewish understanding of God as a strictly uniform Being was completely foreign to polytheists and a real stumbling block to them. The Trinity is an acceptable compromise that they were able to relate to, but from Judaism's perspective it is an unacceptable compromise. After all, God is a jealous God and His people, the Jews, are a stiff-necked people.
Hello Daniel,
This is my response to your comment from February 18, 2022 at 10:30 AM:
I suspected you would say this. The communal offering brought by the High Priest atoned for people whether or not they accepted (or even knew) of the offering. This is certainly not what Christians believe of Jesus, whose death only atones for individuals who accept it. According to Christianity, I, who have not accepted Jesus, am not saved even though Jesus has died. Therefore even though Christianity teaches that Jesus' death is potentially communal, a person activates atonement through individually accepting it, which makes it like an individual offering. And if it is an individual offering, it only atones for indeliberate sins.
I wasn't trying to say that Christianity doesn't believe that you must repent, I was saying that Christianity overlooks that the Torah requires it (and distinguishes between it and atonement). The reason Christianity overlooks it is that it often gets so caught up in the "blood issue" as a means to support Jesus that it neglects the other half of the equation. One would expect any valid religion to require at least both of these elements.
Having said that, I wasn't aware that Christians considered repentance to be a work. From my understanding, which could be wrong, "works" refers to the observance of the commandments, which Christianity understands as acts incapable of acquiring salvation for you. If repentance is a "work" then it too cannot save you and is therefore secondary to atonement. If true, this underscores a certain issue that probably came up in the early Church (and in a real way has survived to this day), which is that the Christian model of salvation prioritizes atonement over improvement. Of course, this was the reason for the debate over "faith vs works," which proves this tension to be real and attempts to iron out this issue.
Another interesting point is that Christianity ended simply duplicating and modifying Judaism's program of forgiveness. The Torah addresses both atonement and repentance, providing an effective solution to the problem of sin. If both elements are present in Judaism, and are accessible to the common man, then Christianity's program of salvation is redundant and unnecessary. You should take this to heart, but not personally; Islam has the same exact issue. Islam too tries to find fault in both of its predecessors as a means to justify itself; both the Torah and Injeel (Gospels) are assumed to be flawed, necessitating the Quran. Likewise, Christianity assumes Judaism's program of forgiveness to be flawed and ineffective, necessitating Jesus. The variables are different, but the equation is identical.
You said, "However, the question also is, what if the High Priest has no sin at all, should he make atonement for his sin?"
The Torah says that there is "no righteous man upon the earth who does not sin."
There is debate in Judaism about who Isaiah 53 speaks about, with many sources understanding it as the Messiah ben Joseph, which I've think we've discussed a few times in the past.
Regarding the "if" issue, if Jesus was not obligated to die for sins, how were people supposed to get back on good footing with God according to Christianity? By the Will of God it had to have been built in "to the cosmos" as a mandatory act, the absence of which would damn everybody to Hell forever. Keep in mind that in terms of typologies, the sacrificial goat brought to atone had no say in the act. If we're going to use events in the Torah as typologies for Jesus they have to correlate in all aspects, not in just some of them. Otherwise you could use the Torah to prove anything that you wanted, and it has been used this way by several cults.
You said, "What is the issue with Numbers 18:1?"
Numbers 18:1 says that the priests atoned for the "sin of the Sanctuary."
In response to your comment from February 25, 2022 at 12:16 PM:
Part I:
"I can see that you are always trying to find alternative explanations for each verse I bring to you..."
Daniel, I have given considerable thought to the things that you've said, but in my estimation the majority of them are based on principles that I hold to be false, and therefore I reject them. I don't try to find alternative explanations, but rather I'm showing you that alternative explanations exist, the majority of which are either simpler, more intuitive, or more sensible than the ones that you've offered me. Daniel, that's the right way to study texts, i.e., through cross-referencing and comparing, and I'm using the same methodology of study that I use for "non-Christian" questions.
There is a great wealth of scholarship in Jewish thought, and so when you propose a verse to me that you suggest means a particular thing, I study that verse and its commentaries to get my own understanding of it and to see what has been said about it. The truth is that the majority of commentaries on verses are not reactions to Christianity, because answering Christianity was not among the highest priority of the majority of our commentators. Nevertheless, the ideas expressed in those commentaries often inadvertently end up challenging Christian theology, even when that was not their express intent.
In the case of Exodus 2:23-25, I answered you without looking up what any of the commentators said. We don't even need to go that far. Your assertion regarding Genesis 19:24 is plainly and directly contradicted by the question I asked about Exodus 2:23-25, which is a straightforward question produced by the literal reading of the text.
"God is Spirit, and angels are spirit too. Many times angels are seen in the Bible, seraphim, cherubim... if they are immaterial and can be seen, why would not God be seen too, as Moses himself says that saw His back?"
Daniel, angels temporarily take on physical human form when they visit the earthly realm, a form which is a deviation from their fundamental, immaterial nature. Remember that you are talking about "the Father" here, not "the Son." You may say that "the Son" took on temporary physical form, but you seem to be saying that "the Father" assumed one as well. As far as I know, Mormons are the only Christians to believe that the Father had a material form, and they are considered by most Christians to be utter heretics and not even Christians.
Nevertheless, when angels take on material form they can be seen by everybody around them, not just by select individuals. If they were seen only by select individuals that would indicate that they were being seen as part of a prophetic vision. The reason for that is that a prophetic vision is seen only by the individual(s) who God desires to see it - it is shown only to him (or them) and is therefore not a physical apparition. This is why I asked you if anybody else would have been able to see what Moses saw on Mt. Sinai. When God showed Moses His back, which you say was "the Father" and not "the Son," was this a physical, tangible appearance of God that Moses was able to reach out and touch, or was it a spiritual vision that only he was privy to?
Part II:
"I understand that you have Maimonides' ideas in mind, but let's think for a while what the Scriptures, and not Maimonides speak about that issue."
You really need to stop saying this. The majority, if not all, of Jewish thought disagrees with your point of view, which is why Judaism and Christianity are separate religions. That much is obvious. Let's think about what the Scriptures say, and not what became the Catholic Church says, which formulated and developed Christian thought (including the Trinity, for example) into what it is today.
"Regarding Genesis 3:8, don't you think that it is implicit in the text that Adam and Eve actually saw God in the garden...?"
No, because Genesis 3:8 says, "And they heard the voice of the Lord God going in the garden..." Have you ever seen a walking voice? Where does Genesis 3 say anywhere that they saw God in the garden? The simplest understanding is that God called out to them, they were afraid, and they hid. They did not need to see Him for this to happen, sort of like when you hear thunder and recoil.
"God was walking in the garden, He was present there, and why would Adam and Eve hid from Him if they were never able to see Him before?"
That they hid from Him is actually a very deep question that gets a lot of attention in Jewish scholarship. The question is a valid question even if you don't assume anything Christological about it. This is just a tip of the iceberg in terms of an answer, but they hid from God due to their shame in disobeying Him. It is understood, among other things, as the prototypical shame response that people have when they've done something wrong. Take, for example, any sin that you've ever done in your life at any point in time. People actually fool themselves into thinking that they can hide from God in the dark of their home or behind closed doors, but the truth is much deeper than that. When a person sins, he fools himself into a state of mind in which he thinks that God cannot see him - he "thinks God out of existence". Of course he intuitively understands that this is not true and impossible, but his desire for the sin completely overshadows his spiritual and rational thought, and he acts like God doesn't exist. This is one what explanation of what it means to "hide from God," and it is similar (though not identical) to what happened in the Garden. Genesis is very, very deep.
"Moreover, do you remember that Adam and Eve sinned against God? Therefore, were they really mature people? Maybe only before they sinned against God."
Yes, they were mature even though they sinned, but they were utterly transformed by their sin, which is as well an incredibly deep subject beyond the scope of this discussion. If you're interested in having a genuine discussion about it I'm happy to consider it.
Regarding Isaiah 63:8-10, Did you see that the Holy Spirit was grieved with the Jewish people in that passage. Don't you think that this indicates that the Holy Spirit is a person?
No, because this is like saying that you heard something that "troubled your spirit," meaning that it troubled you in a very deep way. Compare this with 63:4, which says, "For a day of vengeance was in My heart..." What is God's "heart"? Obviously this is a reference to the "most internal" part of God, as He does not possess a literal heart. The Torah is written in terms that human beings can understand and integrate because God's ways are not our ways (Isaiah 55:8-9).
Who was their Deliverer? Do you agree with me that this passage says is God?
Isaiah 63:4 sheds light on this, "For a day of vengeance was in My heart, and the year of My redemption has arrived." This supplements what I already said, that the term "Savior" is an appropriate term to attribute to God even if you don't assume that He took on the form of a man. Putting your belief in the Second Person aside, do you think that my statement is true or false?
"And the angel of His Face delivered them." Isaiah 63:9. Who did deliver them? God or the angel of His Face? Or perhaps God is the angel of His face? Two persons, one God.
An angel, Daniel. When an angel is sent on a mission it speaks in the Name of God because it has no free will. This is a simpler and more straight forward explanation than the angel was God. Such a belief requires more evidence than that because it is a more extreme claim. When a king sends a dignitary to his subjects with a message, the dignitary speaks in the name of the king. This is a very simple idea.
See Hosea 12:3-5:
"Now the Lord has a contention with Judah, and to visit upon Jacob according to his ways; according to his deeds He shall recompense him."
"In the womb, he seized his brother's heel, and with his strength he strove with an angel (אֱלֹהִֽים - elohim)."
"He strove with an angel (מַלְאָךְ֙ - malach) and prevailed; he wept and beseeched him; In Bethel he shall find Him, and there He shall speak with us."
In its generic context as a spiritual being, the word elohim can be used to refer to an angel, but the word "angel" (malach) cannot be used to refer to God (Elokim). You also need to answer how a human being can overpower God, which is what Jacob did in this encounter if the angel was God.
For the record, see also in Isaiah 55:7 the Torah's view of sin and forgiveness: "The wicked shall give up his way, and the man of iniquity his thoughts, and he shall return to the Lord, Who shall have mercy upon him, and to our God, for He will freely pardon." Does this say anything about blood, and if not, does it contradict the verses in Leviticus that do? The verse says that a wicked man who abandons his sinful way and his thought patterns is a man who returns to the Lord. God has mercy on and pardons such an individual.
Shalom Yaniv,
Your attempt to try to compare Christianity and Hinduism, which believes in millions of gods, make no sense at all. These two religions having absolutely nothing to do with each other. Instead of trying to do these absolutely crazy comparations, answer the comments I wrote you about indications in the Tanakh about the Triune nature of God, than you will be in the right path to find the truth.
The offering of the High Priest did not atone for all the people if they were living a sinful life and refused to repent. We can see this throughout all the prophets. Sacrifices needed to be followed by repentance. The same with the faith in Yeshua, for faith without works is dead according to the Brit Chadashah, and Yeshua said "repent and believe in the besorah".
The death of Yeshua is not an "individual offering". Yeshua died for all. It is clearly a communal offering, as the one did on Yom Kippur. And as Isaiah 53:5,12 says, he died for all our sins, peshah, avon and chet, as I have already shown you and you agreed.
Repentance does not save anyone, what saves people is the faith in Yeshua which produces repentance. If the faith in Yeshua does not produce repentance, then this faith is a dead faith and cannot save the person according to the Brit Chadashah.
The Torah does not produce an effective and definitive solution for sin, for every year the same sacrifices for sin are offered, time after time. The problem of sin is not resolved. But with Yeshua, the problem of sin and atonement is resolved definitively, for by one only sacrifice Yeshua atoned for the sins of the past, present and the future, therefore there is no need anymore to offer sacrifices every year to atone sins, as it was needed before in the Torah.
Remember, through a specific transgression of one only man, Adam, we all became sinners, although we did not commit the same specific transgression that he committed. Now, through the act of obedience of one only man, Yeshua, all those who put their trust in him become righteous.
Regarding the typologies, that's not how they work. They absolutely don't have to much with all the details, as you suggested about the goat and Yeshua. Typologies are figures, shadows of what will happen in the future, not the exact image of the future. That's why they are call typologies.
What exactly are you asking about Numbers 18:1?
Regarding the angels, some times they appear in human form, physically, and some time as spirits. See for example Isaiah 6:
"Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to another and said:
“Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts;
the whole earth is full of his glory!” Isaiah 6:2-3.
I don't believe that when Moses saw God's back that he was seeing Him in physical form, but in spiritual form.
Have you ever seen a voice "walking" in a garden, Yaniv? Genesis says that God was walking in the garden. Thus, it was not just a voice there.
Regarding the angel of the covenant, he is the Messiah according to Malachi 3:1, and according to Genesis he is also Elohim, who fought with Jacob, and who also made the same question "why do you ask for my name?" in Judges 13, and that, although he didn't reveal his name to Jacob after making this same question to him, he did reveal it in Judges 13:8, saying that his name is "wonderful", the same name that the Messiah receives in Isaiah 9:6. In Isaiah 63 he is again identified as Elohim, and called "the angel of his face", and this because when we see him, we are seeing God.
Regarding your question about how a man can overpower God, do you think that a man can overpower an angel? Of course not, for angels are much more powerful than us. This event just showed that Jacob, because of his perseverance, convinced God to bless him, even though he had sinned against his brother Esau.
Do you think that every time the Tanakh speaks about forgiveness it must speak every time about sacrifices? It is implicit, for the Torah in Leviticus 17:11 says that it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life, and God gave the sacrificial system exactly to provide atonement. If sacrifices were not needed, but just repentance, as you said, why would God command the Jewish people to offer sacrifices, so that their sins could be atoned?
Hello Daniel,
Christianity and Hinduism cannot be compared as a whole, I agree, and there are significant differences between them. However, they share other notable elements that are very similar and require attention. These similarities are theological in nature and are both rooted in the same thing. Hinduism takes it much farther than Christianity, but they come from the same tree. You need to get beneath the surface of how polytheism works; the fact that Christianity has adopted Jewish wording and imagery doesn't make it any more Biblical. Granted, I think Christianity is a huge step in the right direction, but it's not quite there. It wants to do the right thing, but it doesn't quite know how. It's like a car that's stuck in idle.
But did you read my entire response? According to the site I quoted, Hindus believe that Hinduism is a monotheistic faith! MONOTHEISTIC! How in the world can Hinduism possibly be a monotheistic faith with their millions of gods, as you correctly said? Here's what the site says, "Hinduism is unique because it is essentially a monotheistic faith..." That's preposterous, yet that's what many Hindus actually believe. Now tell me, if people who believe in millions of gods can maintain that their religion is monotheistic, certainly people who believe in a Godhead composed of three Persons can as well!
I disagree with your understandings, so you can't justifiably ask me to accept something that I think is a wrong understanding. That you think this comparison is crazy may indicate that you don't have a good grasp on theology and/or how polytheism functions, which is probably why you don't see the Trinity as an issue. When you're wearing red glasses, everything looks red.
Response Part I to comment from March 2, 2022 at 12:54 PM:
You said, "The offering of the High Priest did not atone for all the people if they were living a sinful life and refused to repent."
Ah, well here is where you have to show me that the Torah says that. Where do the passages of atonement (in Leviticus) say anything about repentance? It focuses exclusively on atonement, as in Leviticus 4:26, "Thus the kohen shall make atonement for his sin, and he will be forgiven." Because the verses say nothing anything about repentance, you can easily believe that the offering atoned for sins even for people that had no intention of stopping. You'd have to look elsewhere to demonstrate that a person had to repent as well.
You said, "We can see this throughout all the prophets. Sacrifices needed to be followed by repentance."
Please show me what you mean.
You said, "The same with the faith in Yeshua, for faith without works is dead according to the Brit Chadashah, and Yeshua said 'repent and believe in the besorah'".
I don't live my life according to Jesus, so you have to stick to the Tanakh.
You said, "The death of Yeshua is not an "individual offering". Yeshua died for all. It is clearly a communal offering, as the one did on Yom Kippur."
So you disagree with the logic I presented, okay. It is an individual offering because it doesn't save you unless you accept it as an individual. The goat of Yom Kippur atoned for every individual in the community, even if they didn't know that it had been brought. That's why I said that it is more like a potentially communal offering, but is ultimately individual because it doesn't do anything for you unless you yourself accept it. Is that true or false?
You said, "And as Isaiah 53:5,12 says, he died for all our sins, peshah, avon and chet, as I have already shown you and you agreed."
I agreed with that? Please show me what I said.
"Repentance does not save anyone, what saves people is the faith in Yeshua which produces repentance."
The Torah doesn't say that a person's sins are cleansed by believing in God. A person has to address and deal with his sins in order to repent for them.
Response Part II to comment from March 2, 2022 at 12:54 PM:
You said, "If the faith in Yeshua does not produce repentance, then this faith is a dead faith and cannot save the person according to the Brit Chadashah."
So what do you say about people who have accepted Jesus and continue to sin and sin and sin? I have met such people. Or do 100% of the people who accept Jesus repent and never sin again?
You said, "The Torah does not produce an effective and definitive solution for sin, for every year the same sacrifices for sin are offered, time after time. The problem of sin is not resolved."
So how do we atone for our sins today without a Temple? I've given you the answer, but you have not responded to it. You're not the only one; Christians have rarely responded to me when I've asked them this same question. They just don't know what to do with the answer.
You said, "Remember, through a specific transgression of one only man, Adam, we all became sinners, although we did not commit the same specific transgression that he committed. Now, through the act of obedience of one only man, Yeshua, all those who put their trust in him become righteous."
How do you understand Ezekiel 18:20, which says, "The soul that sins, it shall die; a son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and a father shall not bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself." If Adam is my father, and he sinned, and "a son shall not bear the iniquity of the father," then how have I become a sinner through the action of Adam? Recall that God told Cain that he could rule over his sin (Genesis 4:6-7), which occurred after Adam ate the fruit. The verse in Ezekiel also says, "the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself," not that "the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon somebody else". This verse is saying that one person cannot inherit the penalty of another.
You said, "Regarding the typologies, that's not how they work. They absolutely don't have to much with all the details, as you suggested about the goat and Yeshua. Typologies are figures, shadows of what will happen in the future, not the exact image of the future. That's why they are call typologies."
If that's how typologies work then you can use them to prove a whole host of things, many of which you find disagreeable. You realize that Muslims find typologies for Muhammad in the Tanakh, don't you? It's a joke, of course, but they refer to several.
You said, "What exactly are you asking about Numbers 18:1?"
I was referring to the part where it says that the priests atoned for the "sin of the Sanctuary." Rashi says this means, "I [God] impose upon you the punishment of the outsiders who sin regarding the sacred objects entrusted to you..." If so, God imposes sins of others upon an imperfect person who himself sins. As long as you're in the business of using typologies, then I understand this as a typology teaching that even a sinner can be accepted as an atonement for others.
Response to your comment from March 2, 2022 at 1:05 PM:
I agree with what you said about the angels appearing in either physical or spiritual form. What you refer to as "seeing them in spiritual form" is what I referred to as "seeing something in a prophetic vision". I also agree that Moses saw God in spiritual form, which is true by necessity because He (who you refer to as "the Father") has no physical form.
Response to your comment from March 2, 2022 at 1:30 PM:
You said, "Have you ever seen a voice "walking" in a garden, Yaniv?"
No, but I haven't received prophecy either, and yet I'm sure that it exists.
The verse says, "And they heard the voice of the Lord God going in the garden to the direction of the sun..."
Compare that with Ezekiel 1:13, which says, "And the likeness of the living beings; their appearance was like fiery coals, burning like the appearance of firebrands; it was going among the living beings; and there was a brightness to the fire and from the fire came forth lightning." The word "it was going" is the same word used in Genesis 3:8, "מִתְהַלֶּ֖כֶת". The "it" in this verse is the fire, meaning that the fire was walking. Of course the fire wasn't walking, which is why it's translated as "going".
I looked up some Christian translations of this verse. They use words like "going back and forth" and "darting." I haven't looked at all of them, but I haven't seen "walking" yet. Even the Complete Jewish Bible, which is a Messianic translation, says, "With them was something that looked like fiery coals burning the way torches do, with the fire flashing here and there between the living creatures; the fire had a brilliance, and out of the fire went lightning."
I don't see any point in continuing to talk about angels. We aren't going to convince each other. And yes, a man can overpower an angel if God decides to make the angel relent. This makes sense if angels don't have free will.
You said, "Do you think that every time the Tanakh speaks about forgiveness it must speak every time about sacrifices? It is implicit, for the Torah in Leviticus 17:11 says that it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life, and God gave the sacrificial system exactly to provide atonement. If sacrifices were not needed, but just repentance, as you said, why would God command the Jewish people to offer sacrifices, so that their sins could be atoned?"
Hosea 14:2-3 refers to forgiveness without sacrifices, as do Genesis 18:26, Leviticus 5:11, Jonah 3:8-10, and Samuel II 12:13. Leviticus 17:11 is speaking about a specific type of sacrifice at specific points in time (like when there was a Temple), which is why it doesn't contradict the four verses I quoted above.
Hello Daniel, I forgot to address something you said. You said, "The offering of the High Priest did not atone for all the people if they were living a sinful life and refused to repent."
The Yom Kippur service clearly says that it atoned for both "their rebellions and all their unintentional sins." (Leviticus 16:16) "Rebellions" indicates deliberate sins, and the only people who were committing rebellious sins were those that refused to repent. In other words, it atoned for them even if they were living a sinful life.
Shalom Yaniv,
So, because a site says that Hinduism, a religion which believes in millions of gods is monotheistic, you say that according to Hinduism it is a monotheistic religion? You say that because you read that in a website? If I write a website and say there that Islam is a Jewish religion you will also believe that according to Islam it is a Jewish religion? Do you understand what I mean?
What I mean when I say that in the Tanakh sacrifices needed to be followed with repentance, I mean what the prophets spoke time after time, as Jeremiah, that God would not accept the sacrifices if the people kept living a sinful life. Read Jeremiah 7, where Jeremiah preaches that in the gate of the Temple, where people were going to offer sacrifices. But you know that, I don't understand why you are asking me to show you this.
The offering of Yom Kippur did not atone for the sins of those who lived a sinful life and didn't repent from it. So, in your logic, the Yom Kippur is also an individual offering, what I also completely disagree with.
You said: "The Torah doesn't say that a person's sins are cleansed by believing in God. A person has to address and deal with his sins in order to repent for them."
It is as I told you, faith and repentance. And the Torah does say that faith in God justifies a person before God. See what the Torah says about Avraham:
"And he believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness." See also Rahab, who believed in the God of Israel and for this reason she was saved from the destruction of Jericho. See also Daniel, who because he trusted God he was saved from the lions.
"So Daniel was taken up out of the den, and no kind of harm was found on him, because he had trusted in his God." Daniel 6:23.
Read also the Brit Chadashah in Hebrews 11 and you will see many examples of the Tanakh like that when people were counted as righteous because of their faith in God.
I say about people who have accepted Jesus and continue to sin and sin and sin that they are not saved. See what Yeshua Himself says about it:
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’" Matthew 7:21-23.
People who put their true and living faith in Yeshua sin because the Brit Chadashah and the Tanakh say that there is no one who never sins, but they walk striving to live a holy life.
The sins today can only be atoned through the atoning death of Yeshua, the Messiah. What didn't I answer you?
You know about the evil inclination the rabbis say we have today. Actually Adam was not able in the beginning to commit any sin but only the one regarding not eating from the forbidden tree. But after he sinned we inherited an evil inclination which made us able to commit all kinds of sins, which before in Adam we were not inclined to commit. And remember, Adam was not supposed to die before eating the fruit, but after he ate it all of us started to die. How do you explain that? Don't you think we inherited all of this because of the sin of Adam? How do you also explain what the Torah says in Shemot?
"You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments." Shemot 20:5-6.
Regarding a sinner being accept as an atonement for others, look at the lambs which were supposed to be sacrificed. Could they have any defect? No, they had to be perfect. Look at the servant of Isaiah 53. He was a righteous, who did not commit hamas (violence or wrong), nor any deceive was found in his mouth. (Isaiah 53:9-11).
Daniel, I read it on a Hindu website.
Response to your comment from March 10, 2022 at 1:20 PM:
Let's not lose the forest for the trees. My original point was that the typology of Jesus as the lamb doesn't work for a number of pretty simple reasons; thre are many "mismatches" between the conditions surrounding the Yom Kippur sacrifice and the death of Jesus. The minutae that you've brought up don't resolve these fundamental mismatches, but simply needlessly complicate the matter.
Regarding "The offering of Yom Kippur did not atone for the sins of those who lived a sinful life and didn't repent from it," you have not demonstrated any proof for that, but have simply restated your position.
You said, "And the Torah does say that faith in God justifies a person before God. See what the Torah says about Avraham: 'And he believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness.'"
Sorry to be a stickler with context (actually, I'm not), but if you read this verse in context you'll see that Abraham's faith was in God's promise to give him a son through Sarah, it was not faith in God as a means to salvation, however you choose to define it. Indeed the verse says, "And he believed the Lord," not "And he believed in the Lord..."
Regarding Rahab and Daniel, that's true, but this faith is not the same faith as in Christianity's "faith vs. works" dilemma. No such tension exists in Jewish thought, only a perfect harmony between the two. The "faith" found with Rahab and Daniel means trusting in God at all costs, even at the cost of death. But read Daniel 6:23, "My God sent His angel, and he closed the mouths of the lions and they did not hurt me because a merit was found for me before Him, and also before you, O king, I have done no harm." This verse specifically says that he was saved due to the merit found for him before God. This is merit-based salvation, i.e., works. This idea is present all over the Tanakh.
Regarding Hebrews 11, The majority of the examples there are of people doing things that God asked them to do. "Doing" = "works." The rest of the examples are faith in God that He would do what He said. Regarding the first, of course, their motivation for doing God's Will was because they had faith in Him, but it is not their faith in-and-of-itself that qualified them as obedient servants of God. By definition a servant is one who does what his master instructs, not simply one who believes in the greatness of his master without obeying.
You and I agree that "faith and works" are both absolutely imperative (both mandated in the Torah), but where we disagree is that faith has the capacity to save while works do not. This is of course entirely untrue, for if the forefathers believed in God without following His Will they would not have been considered "servants". We have a tongue-in-cheek term for this - "cardio-Jews" - Jews who say "I believe in my heart," but don't act out that will, i.e., don't keep the commandments. You can't say, "I believe in keeping kosher" and eat anything you want. You can apply this to every single commandment.
Am I misunderstanding or misrepresenting Christianity? Does faith not supersede works in its importance? Can you earn your way into Heaven, or can you only get there through your faith?
Response to your comment from March 10, 2022 at 1:46 PM:
Not sinning seems like a very inaccurate metric by which to measure whether a person can have a relationship with and/or really cares about God. While logically demonstrable, let's focus instead on the verse "For a righteous man can fall seven times and rise..." The term "fall" here means "sin," which means the Torah calls a person who sins "righteous." This challenges our view of what it means to be righteous, especially from the Christian perspective.
That a righteous person sins is also found in Ecclesiastes 7:20, "For there is no righteous man on earth who does good and sins not." Is it saying that there are no righteous people on earth, or is it saying that all righteous people sin?
Realize for a moment that the Christian theology sets the bar so high that it is simply unavailable to virtually everybody. You don't see this in the Torah. Case-in-point, God tells Cain that he can conquer sin (Genesis 4:7). Note that Cain was born after Adam's sin, which means that he was essentially just like you and me are today, born into Adam's corrupted state. In other words, where Christianity says that the bar is too high to jump over, the Torah says that the goal is attainable. "It is not in the Heavens..."
Striving is insufficient! At least that's what I hear Christians saying much of the time. Striving is completely irrelevant as long as "All fall short of the glory of God".
As long as we have verses like Hosea 14:2-3, you don't need Jesus to atone. You say that Jesus replaced the sacrifices, but Hosea says that prayer has replaced the sacrifices.
Note that a person who properly loves God (without Jesus) as well experiences his desire for sin to wither and die, to the point where he may find it repulsive. This spiritual reformation occurs by following God's will and through properly nurturing one's soul and mind. It is completely extraneous to say that you need Jesus to achieve this state. Jesus is like Dumbo's feather.
"You know about the evil inclination the rabbis say we have today."
What do you mean?
"...which before in Adam we were not inclined to commit."
We did not exist before Adam. However, how was Adam able to commit any sin before eating the fruit if he had no evil inclination?
"...but after he ate it all of us started to die. How do you explain that? Don't you think we inherited all of this because of the sin of Adam?"
We inherited his corrupt state, but not his sin, and there is a great difference between the two. Even if you're right about the verse in Exodus 20:5-6, it can only be true to the third or fourth generation (after Adam).
"...look at the lambs which were supposed to be sacrificed. Could they have any defect?"
Daniel, you are missing the surrounding context again! The unblemished lambs were physically unblemished, and Jesus was certainly not physically unblemished when he was supposedly brought as a sacrifice. He was whipped, bruised, and battered. If the lamb was either naturally blemished, or received some sort of injury before being sacrificed, it was invalid and could not be used. You're trying to say unblemished means "without sin," but the verses are certainly not saying that the lambs were without sin! Don't you see that?
I believe that people in the Tanakh can be considered righteous although they have sinned. I have never said otherwise. My point is that there is no one who never sinned. That is what we were talking about. Hosea does not say that prayer has replaced sacrifice, and we have already talked about that in our emails.
The right translation of Hosea 14:3 is: “and we will pay the fruit of our lips”, meaning, “we will pay the vows of our lips to God”. The word shillem means “to pay”, “to fulfill”, as it appears in every Hebrew dictionary and, for example, in Ecclesiastes 5:3: “When you make a vow to God, do not delay in fulfilling it [shillem]. He has no pleasure in fools; fulfill [shillem] your vow.” This is the most frequent use of the word shillem in the Tanakh: in a context referring to paying a vow. No where in the whole Tanakh is the word shillem used with reference to making an animal sacrifice.
The Septuagint, which was written before Yeshua was born, translates פָרִ֖ים as “fruit”, and not bulls.
The Mem in the end of the word "pri" in Hosea 14:3 is what Semitic scholars refer to as "the enclitic mem", referring to the well-attested phenomenon in which the Mem at the end of a word is grammatically superfluous. On this, check the seminal study of the scholar Horace D. Hummel "Enclitic Mem in Early Northwest Semitic", Journal of Biblical Literature 76 (1957): 85-107; and not the more recent works cited in Bruce K. Waltke and M. O'Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 159, n 45.
There are leading Jewish scholars, such as Robert Gordis and Menahem Mansoor, who suggest that the best translation of this verse of Hosea is the one in the Septuagint, reading the word "fruit" instead of "bulls".
Another point is, even if you translate Hosea 14:3 in another way, you need to recognize that the Hebrew of this verse is somewhat obscure grammatically, and by no means should anyone use a verse like this to build such a major, life-critical and Torah revising doctrine such as “Prayer replaces sacrifice”.
Regarding the evil inclination, I'm talking about the yetzer hara. Adam could commit only one sin in the garden, eat the forbidden fruit, and not other sins which we can commit today. And yes, we inherited Adam's corrupt state, we agree with that. I also don't think we inherit the guilty of his sin, but its consequences.
Regarding the lamb, the lamb without any physical defect is a figure of the Messiah who would be spiritually without any defect. It is a typo.
Response to comment from March 17, 2022 at 12:43 PM Part 1:
I had to break my response into three parts because there was a lot to unpack in what you said.
Regarding Hosea:
I forgot that we've spoken about Hosea 14:2. I don't know if we touched on this, but "parim" means "bulls," not "fruit." This is because "fruit" is a feminine word and is "perot" in the plural. "Pri" (fruit) becomes "perot," and "par" (bull) becomes "parim," which is the word in our verse in Hosea.
Regarding how the word "shalem" is used, please see Leviticus 3.
Regarding vows, please see Numbers 30, which refers to a "vow" as a "neder." Ecclesiastes also refers to a "vow" as a "neder," but indeed uses the verb "le'shalmo" - "to pay it." However, the verb "lidor" refers to the initial act of making the vow, as in Numbers 30:3, while "shalem" means to fulfilling it.
The question is, which verb is Hosea using? Is he talking about sacrifices or vows? If the context of Hosea is about pre-empting the destruction of the First Temple in the Northern Kingdom, we can say that he's talking about sacrifices and not vows. The question of how to atone for sins became a very practical one when the First Temple was destroyed, and this is what God was addressing through Hosea. Secondly, fulfilling one's vows is not done with the lips, but through action. The part of the vow that requires one's lips (speech) is the initial act of making it. It's therefore unlikely that Hosea is referring to fulfilling vows, which is not done through one's mouth. Either way, making vows doesn't require a Temple, so it would be hard to understand the verse translated this way.
Response to comment from March 17, 2022 at 12:43 PM Part 2:
Regarding the enclitic mem:
There are a few reasons for religious people not to accept it "as Gospel truth."
First of all, how can the mem at the end of a word be superfluous if it is used to indicate plurality, and how is one supposed to find the Trinity in the Torah if there is no way in Hebrew to create plural words? Is "Elohi" the same as "Elohim?"
Secondly, the proposition of the existence of the enclitic mem is "has cleared up scores of grammatical and logical inconcinnities of the Hebrew text." (W.L. Moran, "The Hebrew Language in Its Northwest Semitic Background," quoted in Chapter 7 - "Are There Examples of Enclitic mem in the Hebrew Bible?" of "Studies on the Language and Literature of the Bible," Emerton) In other words, the proponents of this view operate under the assumption that what you and I hold to be a Divinely revealed text is full of "grammatical and logical inconcinnities."
Thirdly, not all scholars agree with this view.
Fourthly, the same paper says, "The letter m is added at the end of some words in Ugaritic... It has, therefore, seemed plausible to suppose that there may be traces of it in the Hebrew Bible, especially in early Hebrew poetry." This view is also predicated upon a presupposition that the Hebrew texts were not Divinely revealed, but simply fallible Hebrew texts bearing resemblance to other non-revealed Semitic literature. Further, it says that it merely "seemed plausible... that there may be traces of it in the Hebrew Bible." Plausible? Maybe. Probable? Less sure. It also says that enclitic mem is found "especially in early Hebrew poetry." To that I looked up some sources that seem to classify the early chapters of Hosea as poetry, but not the latter ones, including Chapter 14. Either way, if we understand it as poetry then it doesn't matter whether we render it "bulls" or "fruit," as neither provide any real practical instruction or application, but only perhaps insight into how to live life.
He also says, "Some of these enclitics survived later editings and revisions until the time came when it was sacrilege to alter the consonantal text." This statement indicates that the authors and editors did not consider it sacred and were hence permitted to remove (and add) letters until only a relatively late point in time. This naturalistic view of the Tanakh definitely does not fit in with our world view of the Tanakh as a Divinely revealed text.
This seems to make for "strange bed fellows." The enclitic mem is useful to you in this specific case to illustrate that Hosea is not talking about sacrifices, but realize that properly applied, the academics and scholars that promote this view do so based on the presupposition that the entirety of the text is a fallible work of social and political literature that the authors themselves perhaps did not take literally. In other words, it certainly does not contain prophecy, which they assume doesn't exist (not to mention God Himself). Therefore as a believer you should exercise great caution (and critical thought) in how much fidelity you attribute to such scholarly discourses. Are you ready to accept their conclusions if they challenge your fundamental faith in other areas, such as that Genesis was a primitive attempt to explain Creation, or that the Hebrews borrowed "El" from the Babylonian pantheon (El, Marduk, Tiamat, etc...)? Note that the enclitic mem is based on tablets found at Ras Shamra, the same texts in which "El appears to be the creator deity in the pantheon..." https://religionthink.com/2007/11/25/dragon-slayers-indra-marduk-yahweh-and-baal-pt-4-of-4/
Response to comment from March 17, 2022 at 12:43 PM Part 3:
Regarding Adam:
You said, "Adam could commit only one sin in the garden, eat the forbidden fruit, and not other sins which we can commit today." If Adam had no yetzer hara, why was he able to commit any sin, period, before eating the fruit? If the fruit gave him a yetzer hara, it should have been impossible to commit a sin before eating it.
You said, "And yes, we inherited Adam's corrupt state, we agree with that. I also don't think we inherit the guilty of his sin, but its consequences." The question is, according to the Torah, how do we rectify ourselves in this inherited corrupt state? What is the Torah's earliest solution to rectifying it?
You said, "Regarding the lamb, the lamb without any physical defect is a figure of the Messiah who would be spiritually without any defect. It is a typo." Wait, what's a typo? How do you get from no physical defect to no spiritual defect?
Hello Daniel. I thought about this a little more and wanted to address this specific point you made, "Another point is, even if you translate Hosea 14:3 in another way, you need to recognize that the Hebrew of this verse is somewhat obscure grammatically, and by no means should anyone use a verse like this to build such a major, life-critical and Torah revising doctrine such as 'Prayer replaces sacrifice'."
If the Torah itself had not said it, then yes, you would be right, it would have been incorrect to assume such a drastic modification as "a major, life-critical and Torah revising doctrine." If the Torah is our Divinely revealed guide then it must also guide us in times of destruction. This is the reason that God sent this prophecy to Hosea - it is a preparation for things that would come, and temporarily substituted blood with an alternative method of atonement.
Such a "doctrine" would have been totally unnecessary had the Temple not been destroyed, but God does not ignore the reality on the ground and is "responsive" to it (which we would expect Him to be as a caring Father). Therefore that it is grammatically obscure can be forgiven, as urgency precedes grammar. Nevertheless, the prophets often spoke in such language.
To assume that it means something else, such as vows, is to miss the historical context of what was about to happen. Put yourself in the shoes of a First Temple Jew; how in the world would you propose to deal with the destruction of the only way you knew of to atone for sins? Some other method had to be chosen. Reason that prayer was already part and parcel of the Jewish mindset and was done daily. In light of that it makes sense for God to utilize that practice and to expand it to address atonement as well. We pray for the things that we need, why can't we pray for forgiveness as well?
Shalom Yaniv! Sorry for the delay to answer you.
Regarding Leviticus 3, shalem is not used as a verb there, but as the name of a sacrifice שְׁלָמִ֖ים , therefore the word shalem is not used as a verb to offer a sacrifice, as in Hosea 14:3 some want to interpret it.
I am not saying that pri means vow, I said that it should be understood as vow (the fruit of our lips). Hosea is not saying that the vow if fulfilled by the lips, but that he will fulfill the vows of his lips (by doing something).
Regarding Hosea 14:3 referring to a vow or to a sacrifice, it is very clear that it is about a vow. Just read verse 4, where a vow is made after saying in verse 2 that they will fulfill the fruit of their lips:
"Assyria shall not save us; we will not ride on horses; and we will say no more, ‘Our God,’ to the work of our hands. In you the orphan finds mercy.” Hosea 14:4.
Regarding the enclitic mem, the Tanakh is a Divine revelation through inspiration. It means that God inspired the writers, as Hosea, to write it according to His will, using the language of the time as it was. Hebrew and Ugarit are cognate languages, so there is nothing wrong in comparing them to know the usage of these languages, as the scholars did regarding the enclitic mem. It does not affect in anything the Divine revelation. The fact that the enclitic mem is a phenomenon in the Tanakh is just about the usage of the language. It does not empty in nothing the Divine revelation. See the Hebrew word life, for example "hayim". It means life, however it is written with a mem sophit in the end.
And yes, Hosea 14 is poetry. See it: "It is compact and dense poetry, marked with signposts that point to all that has gone before in the book, yet it still finds a way to say something of its own in the final crescendo." https://www.preaching.com/sermons/take-words-hosea-141-9/ This website is not talking about the enclitic mem.
Regarding what modern scholars say or think about the Tanakh, do you doubt that there are good things that they studied and found out in the Tanakh? Of course there are good things, and of course many of their thoughts are also not good, because many of them don't believe in God.
Regarding Adam, he had no evil inclination to commit any sin, but he had the free will to commit one sin alone, which was to eat from the forbidden tree. Regarding how the Torah says in its beginning that we should rectify the evil inclination, it is ruling over our sin (Gen. 4:7). And how does God say that He will rectify the evil inclination when the Messiah comes? Read Jeremiah 31:32. Regarding a typo, physical things in the Tanakh foreshadows spiritual things that will happen in the future when the Messiah comes. You also know this by the many symbols of the Jewish faith in the Tanakh, which have each of them a spiritual meaning.
Regarding your last post, it still does not make any sense that such a critical theology that prayer replaces sacrifice would be written in such an obscure way and just in that passage of the entire Tanakh. Don't you think it is quite strange? If that was the case, you can be sure that it would be written with all the letters in the Tanakh and in many other passages too. Think about that, Yaniv. It does not make sense.
Hello Daniel, glad to hear from you, I was beginning to get concerned.
I think you're missing something here, which is fine because you don't speak Hebrew. While you're right that the words "shalem" and "shillem" are used in different contexts (one as a sacrifice and the other a verb associated with vows), they have the same root. Both words relate to making something whole or completing it. But that's besides the point.
The point is that you're trying to say that Hosea 14:3 is speaking about vows, which have nothing to do with the context of Hosea. What they say in 14:4 are not vows never to ride horses again, but a figurative reference not to fight in war (horses). See Psalms 33:17, "A horse is a false hope for victory, and with his power, he will not escape." Regarding "nor will we say any longer, our gods, to the work of our hands," in Jewish Law you cannot make a vow not to commit a sin. The prohibition to commit the sin is already binding, while a vow is used to bind yourself from something technically permitted to you (such as the Nazirite vow to abstain from drinking wine and cutting his hair).
Hosea 14:2 actually supports "my understanding" in referring to iniquity. "You have stumbled in your iniquity," for which "You shall forgive" by teaching "us [the] good [way]," and letting "us render [for] bulls [the offering of] our lips." The context of 14:2-3 is sin, and 4 shifts to something else. If not, you have to explain the purpose of verse 2.
"...the Tanakh is a Divine revelation through inspiration..."
We disagree here regarding the actual prophets, who received direct prophecies from God, not just Divine inspiration.
Being cognate languages doesn't mean that all aspects of those languages map out perfectly. I speak a little Arabic as well and know for a fact that while very closely related, each has unique features. For example, Arabic has the superlative form, while Hebrew does not. The word "kabir" in Hebrew and Arabic means "great." In Hebrew there is no way to say "the greatest" in one word, while in Arabic you can say "akbar," "the greatest." The enclitic mem in Ugaritic doesn't necessarily cross over into Hebrew, where the mem at the end of a masculine plural word is required to make it plural. Regaring the word "life," that's a good point, but it's actually exceptional in this case.
Yes, secular (and atheist) scholars may contribute positive things, but which excludes ideas that directly contradict what the Torah says/intends. For example, if they say (as many do) that the function of the dietary laws is nutrition or health related, that misses the point. The objective of such interpretations is to rationalize things that are hard to understand, or to apply naturalistic understandings to them, which in this case is incorrect.
Response to your comment from April 25, 2022 at 5:03 PM:
"Regarding Adam, he had no evil inclination to commit any sin, but he had the free will to commit one sin alone, which was to eat from the forbidden tree."
Daniel, free will is the product of having an evil inclination.
Yes, you're right, Genesis 4:7. But Daniel, when God told Cain that "you can rule over it," the Messiah had not yet come, meaning that Cain was able to rule over his sin on his own.
"And how does God say that He will rectify the evil inclination when the Messiah comes? Read Jeremiah 31:32. Regarding a typo, physical things in the Tanakh foreshadows spiritual things that will happen in the future when the Messiah comes. You also know this by the many symbols of the Jewish faith in the Tanakh, which have each of them a spiritual meaning."
You are not free to freely make any symbolic association that you want, and no understanding of a verse can violate its plain meaning.
"Regarding your last post, it still does not make any sense that such a critical theology that prayer replaces sacrifice would be written in such an obscure way and just in that passage of the entire Tanakh. Don't you think it is quite strange? If that was the case, you can be sure that it would be written with all the letters in the Tanakh and in many other passages too. Think about that, Yaniv. It does not make sense."
I don't think it's that obscure. Everybody knew that bulls were used for atonement, and it would have been plainly understood by his Jewish audience/readership. Many things that the prophets said were references to other areas of the Torah, as in Hosea 14:3. And it doesn't necessarily follow that something established by God has to be repeated over and over to be true. The new covenant of Jeremiah 31 isn't repeated in many places, yet it is true.
Does it make sense in theory that people can pray for forgiveness?
Another point about what you said here, "Regarding your last post, it still does not make any sense that such a critical theology that prayer replaces sacrifice would be written in such an obscure way and just in that passage of the entire Tanakh."
Let's assume you're right that Hosea 14:3 is about vows. If that's true, how were Jews supposed to atone for sins without a Temple? If the Temple was destroyed in 420 BCE, we're talking about a period of 453 years (before Jesus came and died) with no way to atone for their sins at all. That's a serious problem.
Shalom Yaniv!
Don't you think it is quite weird that the word shalem is never used as verb meaning to offer a sacrifice in the entire Tanakh? And then you want to get this word and use it with that meaning in an obscure passage and say that prayer replaces sacrifice, such a crucial doctrine that never appears in the Tanakh? Do you really think this is a solid ground to create such a crucial doctrine? It is quite the opposite.
And for your knowledge, I have studied both modern and biblical Hebrew (biblical Hebrew for 2 years) and I do know how to identify the root of a Hebrew word. I don't know what your purpose is to say that I would not know such a basic thing.
Regarding Hosea 14:4 being a vow, I think you don't have clear in your mind what a vow is. A vow is a promise that someone will do or not do something. See what Hosea 14:4 says: "we will not ride on horses; and we will say no more, ‘Our God,’ to the work of our hands." Isn't this a vow? Doesn't it need to be fulfilled, as Hosea 14:3 says that they will fulfill or pay the fruit of their lips? Don't you see the connection? Regarding the "Jewish law", what is not the "Jewish law" but the "rabbinic law", I don't know why you are quoting this since it is not in the Tanakh but in the teachings of the rabbis, which, as we all know, add thousands of rules which are not in the Tanakh.
Now forget about "vow" technically speaking, and remember that Hosea 14:3 just say that they will pay the "fruit" of their lips (and not vows), which are, according to the next verse, "we will not ride on horses; and we will say no more, ‘Our God,’ to the work of our hands." Do you see now what 14:3 is talking about?
The purpose of verse 2 of Hosea 14 is, Israel have stumbled because of their iniquity, therefore they should "take words" and return to the Lord. Which words are they supposed to take? Words that say that they will not sin anymore against God, as Hosea 14:14 says: "we will not ride on horses and we will say no more "Our God" to the works of our hands", because we have stumbled because of our iniquities in the past but we will not sin anymore. We will fulfill these words we are saying right now!
You said "We disagree here regarding the actual prophets, who received direct prophecies from God, not just Divine inspiration." But they received prophecies, many times through a vision, through the language that they spoke, which is cognate of other languages, so if you want to understand the words of their prophecies accurately, you need to compare them with cognate languages sometimes.
Regarding free will being fruit of an evil inclination, I actually don't agree with that. Free will, instead, is a fruit of a lack of a good inclination in the case of Adam and the forbidden fruit. In other words, Adam did not have an evil inclination to eat the fruit, nor a good inclination not to eat it, instead, he was neutral about that.
"Yes, you're right, Genesis 4:7. But Daniel, when God told Cain that "you can rule over it," the Messiah had not yet come, meaning that Cain was able to rule over his sin on his own."
We were able to rule over our sin before the Messiah came, but the point is that we didn't do it, for we all have sinned. That's why the Word of God had to come in the flesh to live the sinless life that none of us were able to live, and took upon Himself the penalty of our sins, so that we could be forgiven.
"You are not free to freely make any symbolic association that you want, and no understanding of a verse can violate its plain meaning."
They are not freely associations but associations made grounded in other passages of the Tanakh and they don't violate the plain meaning of the text, as the rabbis do in the Talmud.
"And it doesn't necessarily follow that something established by God has to be repeated over and over to be true".
Don't you think it is quite weird that you think like this regarding this issue of prayer replacing sacrifice, however you say that God has not a triune nature because you say it does not appear with all letters in the Tanakh and all over it? You say that a crucial doctrine of prayer replacing sacrifices can be somewhat obscure and appearing just in one passage in the entire Tanakh, but the triune nature of God, which appears in many passages is not enough to you and you will always try to find a way to reinterpret them, so that they speak other thing instead of that? Why don't you do the same thing with Hosea 14:3?
People can pray to forgiveness, but the Torah says that it is the blood which atones for sin, and not the prayer alone. Leviticus 17:11.
"Let's assume you're right that Hosea 14:3 is about vows. If that's true, how were Jews supposed to atone for sins without a Temple? If the Temple was destroyed in 420 BCE, we're talking about a period of 453 years (before Jesus came and died) with no way to atone for their sins at all. That's a serious problem."
The first Temple was destroyed in the year 586 B.C., and the second Temple was completed in the year 516 B.C., its reconstruction starting in the year 537 B.C.
How were the sins atoned during this time? They were atoned through the atoning death of the Messiah, who is "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Revelation 13:8.
The atoning death of Yeshua atones for the sins of those who lived before Him and not only for those who lived after Him. He died for the sin of all.
Hello Daniel,
Response to your comment from May 6, 2022 at 6:51 PM (Part I):
"Don't you think it is quite weird that the word shalem is never used as verb meaning to offer a sacrifice in the entire Tanakh?"
No, I don't. It isn't used as a verb, but it is used as a noun: the word "shlamim" means "peace offerings." Your question should really be, "Why is the word "le'hakriv" (to bring near) the verb used with sacrifices in general, in contrast to "le'shalem" here in Hosea 14:2. The answer to that could be that Hosea speaks in poetic form. Either way, it's a greater stretch of the imagination to remove the "im" from the word "par" to render it "fruit" than to use the "wrong verb" with "bull," which clearly refers to a form of sacrifice.
"I don't know what your purpose is to say that I would not know such a basic thing."
I rather assume a person's unfamiliarity with a language than to assume he's making an argument I consider to be bad (or ill-willed).
"Regarding Hosea 14:4 being a vow, I think you don't have clear in your mind what a vow is. A vow is a promise that someone will do or not do something. See what Hosea 14:4 says… Isn't this a vow?"
Daniel, I constantly feel antagonized by your assuming that I don't understand my own religion. Yes, I know what a vow is, and in Jewish Law vows have a very specific and unique role. Nevertheless, making a vow not to ride on horses doesn't seem to make any sense if taken literally. Why would they vow never to ride horses again? What's so wrong with riding horses? And who is speaking here? Is it only the people of the generation, so that everybody after them can ride horses, or is it that all Jews for all time have taken a vow not to ride on back of a horse? If so then I've violated that vow a few times because I've ridden a horse. Regarding a vow not to say "our god" to the work of our hands, have you ever actually seen somebody say these exact words in reference to something that they made? The point is that both make absolutely zero sense when taken literally. They are therefore figurative references to the things I mentioned in my previous response, and not literal vows.
"Doesn't it need to be fulfilled, as Hosea 14:3 says that they will fulfill or pay the fruit of their lips? Don't you see the connection?"
No, see above.
“… since it is not in the Tanakh but in the teachings of the rabbis, which, as we all know, add thousands of rules which are not in the Tanakh."
Daniel, do you know the difference between Rabbinic Law and Jewish Law? Does the Torah refer to and support the existence of binding Rabbinic Law? Heck, the Christian Scriptures even support the validity of Rabbinic Law, as do certain things that Jesus himself said.
"… remember that Hosea 14:3 just say that they will pay the "fruit" of their lips (and not vows)..."
Daniel, I will say again that "par" means "bull." If "parim" doesn't mean "bulls," and we are free to ignore the suffix "im," we have no way of expressing masculine nouns in the plural in Hebrew! By the way, do we ignore the feminine plural suffix "ot," or just the masculine? Please be consistent.
Hello Daniel,
Response to your comment from May 6, 2022 at 6:51 PM (Part II):
"Which words are they supposed to take? Words that say that they will not sin anymore against God..."
And say again that it makes no sense to make a vow for something that you have already been commanded against doing (Exodus 24:3-7). It makes no sense to make a vow never to sin again. For example, you cannot say, "I vow not to murder" because there is already a commandment forbidding you from murdering. To make a vow to not sin indicates you don't believe the original commandment to be binding. Vows are reserved for forbidding or obligating you in things that you have not been commanded, as in the case of the Nazirite vow.
"But they received prophecies, many times through a vision, through the language that they spoke, which is cognate of other languages, so if you want to understand the words of their prophecies accurately, you need to compare them with cognate languages sometimes."
Even if that's true, Hosea received prophecy in Hebrew, so I see no reason to refer to Ugaritic grammar in deciphering what he was saying! Why not compare Hebrew with Hebrew?! You can only make this argument (possibly) with Aramaic, which is the only other language used in revelation of text (Daniel), and a few words in ancient Persian (Esther). There is nothing complicated or hard to understand about the fact that the "im" in Hebrew is the masculine plural suffix. You don't need to bend over backward to try to understand what this super basic element of the Hebrew language means. It's like writing a dissertation on the word "ha" - "the" - based on what it means in another Semitic language. It's completely immaterial!
Response to May 6, 2022 at 7:34 PM:
We don't agree on the timeline, and we shouldn't bring up that topic again. Even if we don't, according to your timeline, how did Jews atone during the seventy years between 586 and 516? You only answered how they atoned after Jesus' death. There was no Temple and no Jesus, so they must have had been doing something to atone for their sins during that time. This is the problem that Hosea 14:2 comes to resolve.
Response to comment from May 6, 2022 at 7:10 PM:
"In other words, Adam did not have an evil inclination to eat the fruit, nor a good inclination not to eat it, instead, he was neutral about that."
If he was neutral, why did he make any choice in the first place? That can't be true. Think about it like this: if I have two forces pulling me in opposite directions, one to the good direction and the other to the bad, I am given the opportunity to do either. In that condition I can make a choice to do good or evil. If one or both of these forces was not acting on me (or did not exist), my free will would not be activated. Therefore Adam's free will was active because he was created with an evil inclination. Granted, it became stronger when he ate the fruit, but it existed beforehand anyway.
"We were able to rule over our sin before the Messiah came, but the point is that we didn't do it, for we all have sinned."
Wait, Daniel, you and I both know that "for we all have sinned" means that we completely lack the ability to refrain from sin. It does not mean that we possess the ability to refrain from sin, but failed anyway. If Christianity believed that people had the ability to refrain from sin it would have been a very different religion.
"They are not freely associations but associations made grounded in other passages of the Tanakh and they don't violate the plain meaning of the text, as the rabbis do in the Talmud."
I think they do violate the plain meaning of the text, and I've given you a few examples of how.
"Don't you think it is quite weird that you think like this regarding this issue of prayer replacing sacrifice, however you say that God has not a triune nature because you say it does not appear with all letters in the Tanakh and all over it?"
First of all, yes, that's right, it is enough for the Torah to say something once for it to be true. And no, I never said that the Trinity isn't true on the grounds that it isn't mentioned all over the place. It isn't true because there isn't one explicit or contextual reference to it that doesn't fundamentally contradict other passages. All the discoveries of the Trinity in the Tanakh you've found are nothing more than creative, absurd, interpretations.
"You say that a crucial doctrine of prayer replacing sacrifices can be somewhat obscure and appearing just in one passage in the entire Tanakh, but the triune nature of God, which appears in many passages is not enough to you and you will always try to find a way to reinterpret them, so that they speak other thing instead of that? Why don't you do the same thing with Hosea 14:3?"
Because understood in context Hosea is speaking about a way to provide people with a way to atone without a Temple. If Hosea isn't about prayer there was no way to atone before Jesus came, so it doesn't leave you much room to see it any other way. Plus, the majority of "references to the Trinity" you speak of are fundamentally different than each other, making it easier to show that they do not really fit with your a priori assumptions. It's like trying to fit a triangular peg into a round hole.
"People can pray to forgiveness, but the Torah says that it is the blood which atones for sin, and not the prayer alone. Leviticus 17:11."
Why are you being obstinate? I've quoted several notable passages to you where blood is not required for atonement (also in Leviticus), yet you conveniently ignore those passages and demand blood. If the blood is not available, prayer (or another method) can be used if God allows it.
Shalom Yaniv,
You said: "Your question should really be, "Why is the word "le'hakriv" (to bring near) the verb used with sacrifices in general, in contrast to "le'shalem" here in Hosea 14:2."
There is no "le'hakriv" in Hosea 14:2. Where did you see it?
Now, you want to use the word shalem, which never appears as a verb meaning "offering a sacrifice", to say that it means that just because one time it appears as a noun in another book with the meaning of a sacrifice? Don't you think it is too far-fetched? And this ideia of prayer replacing sacrifice through such an obscure verse like that, which has, with your translation, no precedent elsewhere in the Tanakh, don't you think it is quite weird? It is in the minimum something very crazy to think.
Regarding the vow or promise that they made of not riding horses again, they were speaking about not trusting in their own strength against their enemies in instead of trusting in God. And in the other vow or promise they were saying that they will not commit idolatry anymore. They want to fulfill these fruit of their lips.
"Does the Torah refer to and support the existence of binding Rabbinic Law? Heck, the Christian Scriptures even support the validity of Rabbinic Law, as do certain things that Jesus himself said."
The answer is no. There is no support for any "rabbinic" law which has no support in the Torah. That's why God says that no one is supposed to add anything to what is written in the Torah. And in Jewish tradition there is even a difference between rabbinic law and Torah law, the last coming from the Torah and the former from the rabbis. Yeshua never supported that. The "seat of Moses" was a place where the Pharisees were seated to read the Torah according to archeological discoveries, that's why Yeshua said that people should listen to them when they are seated there. Yeshua Himself rebuked the Pharisees because of their tradition which violated the Torah of God.
You said: "And say again that it makes no sense to make a vow for something that you have already been commanded against doing (Exodus 24:3-7)".
Jacob made a vow to God that he was already supposed to do, which is have God as his God. Jacob said:
"Then Jacob made a vow, saying, “If God will be with me and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat and clothing to wear, so that I come again to my father’s house in peace, then the Lord shall be my God, and this stone, which I have set up for a pillar, shall be God’s house. And of all that you give me I will give a full tenth to you.” Gen. 28:20-22.
Another example of a vow of something God had already commanded is in Numbers 21:2, where the Jewish people made a vow of something that God had already commanded them before:
"When the Canaanite, the king of Arad, who lived in the Negeb, heard that Israel was coming by the way of Atharim, he fought against Israel, and took some of them captive. And Israel vowed a vow to the Lord and said, “If you will indeed give this people into my hand, then I will devote their cities to destruction.” And the Lord heeded the voice of Israel and gave over the Canaanites, and they devoted them and their cities to destruction. So the name of the place was called Hormah."
But God had already commanded them to destroy completely the Canaanites before:
"When the Lord your God brings you into the land that you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations more numerous and mightier than you, and when the Lord your God gives them over to you, and you defeat them, then you must devote them to complete destruction." Deuteronomy 7:1-2.
You said: "Even if that's true, Hosea received prophecy in Hebrew, so I see no reason to refer to Ugaritic grammar in deciphering what he was saying! Why not compare Hebrew with Hebrew?!"
To understand properly some specific Hebrew words and their usage at the time of Hosea, sometimes it is needed to recur to cognate languages, so we can understand better the usage of some words and their original meanings. This is something done by Jewish and Christian and any other scholars worldwide. This is not a secret or something that I or a Christian scholar invented.
You said: "how did Jews atone during the seventy years between 586 and 516? You only answered how they atoned after Jesus' death."
I have already answered that and I will answer again. How were the sins atoned during this time? They were atoned through the atoning death of the Messiah, who is "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Revelation 13:8.
The atoning death of Yeshua atones for the sins of those who lived before Him and not only for those who lived after Him. He died for the sin of all "from the foundation of the world" as Revelation 13:8 says.
Response to May 17, 2022 at 11:34 PM:
"There is no "le'hakriv" in Hosea 14:2.”
I said that "le'hakriv" is used in general, not in Hosea 14:2. It's used in many verses.
"Now, you want to use the word shalem, which never appears as a verb meaning "offering a sacrifice…"
You’re trying to say that there is no connection between "shalem" and "korban." However, that isn't true because the verb used with all forms of sacrifices (korbanot) is "le'hakriv." See Leviticus 22:1, which says, "וְאִ֗ישׁ כִּֽי־יַקְרִ֤יב זֶֽבַח־שְׁלָמִים֙" - "V'ish ki yakriv zevach shlamim." According to your reasoning the verse should say, "V'ish ki yeshalem zevach shlamim." Obviously you don't need the word "shalem" to appear in verb form to apply to sacrifices.
"And this ideia of prayer replacing sacrifice… has no precedent elsewhere in the Tanakh…"
I just showed you the precedent, and for the record, your suggestion to obliterate fundamental Hebrew syntax is more far-fetched than mine.
"Regarding the vow or promise that they made of not riding horses again, they were speaking about not trusting in their own strength against their enemies in instead of trusting in God."
I agree with that, indicating that they were not making a standard vow not to ride horses or to worship idols. When anybody makes a vow in the Torah they do not use the phrase "fruit of our lips," but use the phrase "lidor neder," which means "to make a vow." That Hosea 14:4 doesn't say "lidor neder" means that it isn't speaking about vows. It says, "... nor will we say," not "we shall make vows."
“There is no support for any "rabbinic" law which has no support in the Torah.”
You knew what I was going to say. The plainest support for rabbinic law in the Christian Scriptures is when Jesus said, "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So practice and observe everything they tell you." Compare this with Deuteronomy 17:8-11, which says, "According to the law they instruct you and according to the judgment they say to you, you shall do; you shall not divert from the word they tell you, either right or left."
Another example is Acts 1:12, "Then the apostles returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day’s walk from the city." Scholars jump through hoops trying to figure out what "a Sabbath's day walk" means, but it is defined in the Oral Law as "techum Shabbat," meaning that whoever wrote this took the Oral Law for granted as true. There may be more references to the Oral Law in the Christian Scriptures.
"And in Jewish tradition there is even a difference between rabbinic law and Torah law, the last coming from the Torah and the former from the rabbis."
That's true, but how do you interpret what the Torah actually means? If you interpret or apply an ambiguous commandment does it count as Torah Law or Rabbinic Law?
"The 'seat of Moses' was a place where the Pharisees were seated to read the Torah according to archeological discoveries, that's why Yeshua said that people should listen to them when they are seated there."
Even if true, sitting in the seat of Moses would have been a rabbinical tradition, and why would Jesus tell people to listen to them when he didn't care at all about man-made traditions? The correct understanding is that "Moses' seat" is a clear and figurative reference to authority.
Response to May 17, 2022 at 11:59 PM:
"You said: 'And say again that it makes no sense to make a vow for something that you have already been commanded against doing (Exodus 24:3-7)'. Jacob made a vow to God that he was already supposed to do, which is have God as his God."
The last part of the verse is Jacob's vow, which is "...everything that You give me, I will surely tithe to You." It doesn't say "then the Lord shall be my God," it says "and the Lord will be my God" as part of the condition of the vow.
"Another example of a vow of something God had already commanded is in Numbers 21:2... But God had already commanded them to destroy completely the Canaanites before..."
That's a good point, except that Numbers 21 is before Deuteronomy 7, indicating that God had not yet commanded the Jews to wipe out the inhabitants of Canaan.
"To understand properly some specific Hebrew words and their usage at the time of Hosea, sometimes it is needed to recur to cognate languages, so we can understand better the usage of some words and their original meanings. This is something done by Jewish and Christian and any other scholars worldwide. This is not a secret or something that I or a Christian scholar invented."
That maybe true, but we're talking about something as basic as plural endings. We're not talking about something so complex here that they need to dig into Ugaritic to understand it. A lot of these scholars look for sensationalist discoveries to make a name for themselves, and some of them to attempt to discount the veracity of the Torah. It's pride. I take what they say with a grain of salt unless I know that they are not trying to deconstruct the Torah.
Response to May 18, 2022 at 12:08 AM:
Daniel, please listen... Jesus didn't die until 33 CE! I'm talking about the 70 years between 586 and 516, which is 553 years before he died! People can only be saved by Jesus' death once he died, but not before it.
Regarding the talk we had a while back about Zechariah 12:10, I just came across this short video about the grammar of this verse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NPlQMruIuU
The speaker color codes the Hebrew verse to make it very easy to break down.
You said "If one or both of these forces was not acting on me (or did not exist), my free will would not be activated".
If you are neutral, with no forces acting on you, you are free to go the right or to left. You don't need anyone pressing you to any side to go to any of them. What you said makes no sense.
"for we all have sinned" does not mean that we are not able to live without sinning. The New Testament does not say in any place that we are not able to live without sinning, but rather that "we all have sinned". I challenge you to show me a passage in the entire New Testament where it is said that it is not possible to live without sinning. There is none.
You said about the Trinity:"It isn't true because there isn't one explicit or contextual reference to it that doesn't fundamentally contradict other passages."
Really? And do you judge Hosea 14 an explicit reference that prayer replaces sacrifice? Such an obscure passage like that? You can't be serious, Yaniv. And there is no other contextual passage that supports this in the entire Tanakh! Actually it explicitly contradicts the Tanakh which says that without blood there is no atonement.
"All the discoveries of the Trinity in the Tanakh you've found are nothing more than creative, absurd, interpretations."
Actually what I showed you about the Trinity in the Tanakh is just the natural and simple reading of the text. The alternative explanations that you brought, these ones are the one creative and absurd, and not the natural reading of the text.
"the majority of "references to the Trinity" you speak of are fundamentally different than each other, making it easier to show that they do not really fit with your a priori assumptions."
Could you give me some examples?
"Why are you being obstinate? I've quoted several notable passages to you where blood is not required for atonement (also in Leviticus), yet you conveniently ignore those passages and demand blood. If the blood is not available, prayer (or another method) can be used if God allows it."
Which passages are you talking about? I really don't remember you quoting them.
Response to May 18, 2022 at 11:37 PM:
"I challenge you to show me a passage in the entire New Testament where it is said that it is not possible to live without sinning. There is none."
Apparently according to Augustine of Hippo, "After the fall, Adam’s original sin corrupted all mankind such that all men were not able to not sin (non posse non peccare)." According to desiringgod.org, this position comes from Augustine's work "On Correction & Grace XXXIII; The Enchiridion CXVIII". That author also wrote, "Fallen man’s inability to live righteously is so complete that Scripture calls us dead in sin (Ephesians 2:1–2)." Apparently the author (Zach Howard) understands this verse to mean that without grace you cannot avoid the temptation to sin.
"Actually it [Hosea 14:2 as a support for prayer replacing sacrifice] explicitly contradicts the Tanakh which says that without blood there is no atonement."
I referenced the verses supporting alternative (non-blood) methods of atonement at the end of this comment.
"Actually what I showed you about the Trinity in the Tanakh is just the natural and simple reading of the text."
So natural that for thousands of years the overwhelming majority of religious, educated, knowledgeable Jews have continuously rejected it. You say that they're blind and have scales over their eyes, etc, etc, etc, but that just helps you sleep at night. The reason Torah-educated Jews persistently reject the Trinity is because it has too much in common with idolatry to be considered monotheism in any authentic way. If that implicates your belief system then you have to come to grips with that in some way.
"Could you give me some examples [of contradictory references to the Trinity]?"
Let's start with one fundamental example, which is that God tells the Jews that the Torah "is not in the Heavens." This contradicts verses you interpret as references to the Second Person, such as Genesis 18:1, 19:24, and all the "angel of the Lord" verses you spoke about.
"Which passages are you talking about? I really don't remember you quoting them [passages where blood is not required for atonement]."
Genesis 18:26, Leviticus 5:11, Jonah 3:8-10, Samuel 2 12:13, and of course Hosea 14:2-3.
Notice that in Jonah 3:8 the people "call mightily to God," which I think is properly understood as that they prayed to God (for forgiveness). Even in Genesis 18 the entire dialogue that Abraham has with God to forgive the sin of Sodom can be correctly understood as a prayer for forgiveness. These are the only examples I looked up, but I have a feeling that there are many more similar to them throughout the Tanakh.
Shalom Yaniv,
You said: "the verb used with all forms of sacrifices (korbanot) is "le'hakriv."
Really? So why are you saying that in Hosea 14 shalem means "offer a sacrifice"? You yourself said that le'hakriv is the verb used with all forms of sacrifices, and not shalem.
"When anybody makes a vow in the Torah they do not use the phrase "fruit of our lips," but use the phrase "lidor neder," which means "to make a vow." That Hosea 14:4 doesn't say "lidor neder" means that it isn't speaking about vows. It says, "... nor will we say," not "we shall make vows."
How do you know that? You can only say that if you, arbitrarily, say that every promise without the word vow is not a vow, what makes no sense at all.
"Another example is Acts 1:12, "Then the apostles returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day’s walk from the city." Scholars jump through hoops trying to figure out what "a Sabbath's day walk" means, but it is defined in the Oral Law as "techum Shabbat,"
Interesting, I never thought about that. But it has nothing to do with the disciples keeping the oral law or believing that it is biding, if it were so they would write that we were supposed to follow it, but they never did it. That's just an expression used at that time to indicate how much they walked that day.
"That's true, but how do you interpret what the Torah actually means? If you interpret or apply an ambiguous commandment does it count as Torah Law or Rabbinic Law?"
To interpret the Torah you need to use exegesis, just that, without adding or removing anything from the text, as the rabbis do a lot as you know, disobeying the Torah itself which says that we are not supposed to add nor remove anything from It.
"and why would Jesus tell people to listen to them when he didn't care at all about man-made traditions?"
Yeshua was not telling the people to listen the oral law but the written Torah which the Pharisees were reading at the seat of Moses. There is no big deal here.
"That's a good point, except that Numbers 21 is before Deuteronomy 7, indicating that God had not yet commanded the Jews to wipe out the inhabitants of Canaan."
That's not before but after, because in Numbers 21:2 Israel had already destroyed the Canaanites. "When the Canaanite, the king of Arad, who lived in the Negeb, heard that Israel was coming by the way of Atharim, he fought against Israel" Numbers 21:2.
Regarding being careful with what scholars say about the Bible, I agree with you. But in this case of "parim" they are not destroying the Torah nor saying that it is not inspiring, they are just studying the language of the Torah, how it works.
Response to May 25, 2022 at 2:54 AM:
You said, "So why are you saying that in Hosea 14 shalem means "offer a sacrifice"? You yourself said that le'hakriv is the verb used with all forms of sacrifices, and not shalem."
I said, "Obviously you don't need the word "shalem" to appear in verb form to apply to sacrifices." You don't need the matching verb-noun pair, but it would still be correct to use it. Perhaps the word "le'hakriv" is used with all sacrifices generally because they are all sacrifices, and it would still be correct to use the more specific matching verb-noun pair if you wanted. In other words, it's a parent-child relationship: "le'hakriv" is the parent level that applies to all its children. In addition, because Hosea is figurative and poetic, perhaps this is the reason it refers to this type of sacrifice without the verb "le'hakriv." The poetic literature in the Tanakh often applies loose grammatical structures that are not used in strictly legal portions of the Tanakh (such as the description of the sacrifices).
You said, "How do you know that? You can only say that if you, arbitrarily, say that every promise without the word vow is not a vow..."
It isn't arbitrary because, as I've said, in Judaism a vow is not a mere promise and there is a legal distinction between them. If I say "I promise to ," that isn't binding on me in terms my relationship with God (although I should have the integrity to keep it). If I say "I vow to ," I am bound by the vow according to Torah law.
You said, "But it [the reference to a Sabbath's day walk] has nothing to do with the disciples keeping the oral law or believing that it is biding, if it were so they would write that we were supposed to follow it, but they never did it. That's just an expression used at that time to indicate how much they walked that day."
If Jesus said, "So practice and observe everything they tell you," we should assume that Jesus' disciples were instructed by him to consider a Sabbath's day walk (and other rabbinical legislation) binding. Just as they never said that they observed it, they also never said anything about rejecting it.
You said, "To interpret the Torah you need to use exegesis, just that, without adding or removing anything from the text, as the rabbis do a lot as you know, disobeying the Torah itself which says that we are not supposed to add nor remove anything from It."
Please give me an example of the Rabbi's adding or removing something from the Torah.
You said, "Yeshua was not telling the people to listen the oral law..."
Did Jesus mix meat and dairy? As far as I know this isn't addressed anywhere in the Christian Scriptures.
You said, "... [Jesus was telling them to listen to] the written Torah which the Pharisees were reading at the seat of Moses."
Please re-read this carefully: "Even if true, sitting in the seat of Moses would have been a rabbinical tradition..." The Written Torah doesn't say anything explicitly about the Rabbi's sitting in any special seat when they had to legislate laws, indicating that it was a rabbinical tradition (which Jesus would have then rejected).
And Jesus didn't seem to value the Written Torah either, as he says in reference to the Sabbath, "Something greater than the Sabbath is here." The Sabbath is a Biblical (not Rabbinical) law. Jesus didn't say, "Something greater than the Rabbi's rabbinical legislation of the Sabbath is here," he said, "Something greater than the Sabbath (as a whole) is here." And he said it, "It's not what comes in, but what goes out," he seemed to be rejecting kashrut, which is also Biblical and not Rabbinical.
Response to May 25, 2022 at 3:11 AM:
You said, "That's not before but after, because in Numbers 21:2 Israel had already destroyed the Canaanites."
They made the vow (Numbers 21:2) before God commanded them to wipe out Canaan (Deuteronomy 7:2). I said that you cannot make a vow to do something that you have been commanded to do.
You said, "Regarding being careful with what scholars say about the Bible, I agree with you. But in this case of "parim" they are not destroying the Torah nor saying that it is not inspiring, they are just studying the language of the Torah, how it works."
But the language of the Torah doesn't work that way; if you can remove the final mem from a word without changing its meaning, you should be able to do that with all masculine plural words, which you can't. Try it for yourself and see. And can you remove the tav from the end of a feminine plural word, or is it only the masculine? The Torah uses the word "parim" for "bulls," and "parot" for "cows." Can I copy and replace all instances of "parot" with "paro" without altering the meaning? The word "paro" isn't a real word, so just because the word "pri" is a real word I'm free to remove letters whenever I feel like it? Doesn't the Torah say "Do not remove or add from it?" Here you are literally removing a letter! Even Jesus said, "Not one jot or tittle will be removed," and they're removing a full letter!
You said: "Regarding the talk we had a while back about Zechariah 12:10, I just came across this short video about the grammar of this verse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NPlQMruIuU"
Are you serious about this video, Yaniv? The guy there adds a Waw before "et asher" to make his point. I can't believe that you liked that video, my friend. And we have "elai" and "alaiv" in Zechariah 12:10 exactly because of the triune nature of God. It is the Father and the Son, the same God, complex in His unity, echad and not yachid.
Regarding the death of Yeshua atoning for their sins of only those who lived after Him, that's not true. His death also atones for those who lived before Him, that's why I quoted to you the Brit Chadashah saying that Yeshua is the lamb killed before the foundation of the world.
Now, please watch also this video about Zechariah 12:10, since I watched yours. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZQ2QNnw3o8
I'm not following you; where is there a vav before the "et asher?" I looked at the picture he put on the screen of the verse, and I don't see one.
According to insight.org, a person can only be saved from his sin by believing in and accepting Jesus' death. It does not free you from your sin unless you accept it, which is the same message I've heard from Christians my entire life. Are you saying that they are wrong?
Insight.org says the following, "Have you placed your trust in Jesus Christ as the substitute for your sin? Do you believe that Jesus died for you in order to give you eternal life and that He rose from the dead victorious over sin? If not, we encourage you to receive Jesus as your Savior right now."
Why do I need to receive Jesus if his death atoned for my sin without my accepting it?
Here's the URL to that page: https://insight.org/resources/article-library/individual/how-does-the-death-of-jesus-save-me
Hi Daniel,
I watched Dr. Brown's video about Zechariah 12:10, but he didn't say anything that you and I haven't already spoke about, namely regarding the pronouns. The video I showed you broken down the grammar of the very precisely.
Hello Daniel,
Here's another slightly different explanation of Zechariah 12:10: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4HezBaSlSs
Shalom Yaniv!
You quoted Augustine of Hippo saying that it is not possible to live without sinning, but Augustine is not part of the New Testament. If I were a Catholic, perhaps you could quote this, since they follow tradition of men as the Orthodox Jews do, but I and other protestant believer follow only the Scriptures. Again, there is no passage in the entire New Testament which says that it is not possible to live without sinning.
You said: "Let's start with one fundamental example, which is that God tells the Jews that the Torah "is not in the Heavens." This contradicts verses you interpret as references to the Second Person, such as Genesis 18:1, 19:24, and all the "angel of the Lord" verses you spoke about."
I didn't understand how these passages contradict the second Person of the Triune nature of God. Could you explain it?
Gen 18:26 is before the Sinai covenant, where God commanded the Jewish people to offer sacrifices to atone for sin. Besides that, when God says in Gen that He will "forgive" them because of the righteous who live there, it does not mean literally to forgive, but that He will not destroy the city because of them. Of course God will judge the wicked people and not let them unpunished (Nahum 1:3).
The application of the oil (Lev 14:29) and the flour (Lev 5:11-13) were on the burnt offer, which was the one responsible for atoning.
Regarding the Ninevites being forgiven, the sacrifices offered by the Jewish people atoned for them according to the Talmud:
Talmud Sukkah 55b: “Rabbi Elazar said: These seventy bulls that are sacrificed as additional offerings over the course of the seven days of Sukkot, to what do they correspond? They correspond to the seventy nations of the world, and are brought to atone for their sins and to hasten world peace.”
Talmud Sukkah 55b: “Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Woe unto the nations of the world that lost something and do not know what they lost. When the Temple is standing, the seventy bulls sacrificed on the altar during the festival of Sukkot atones for them. And now that the Temple is destroyed, who atones for them?”.
Regarding 2 Samuel 12:13, I don't know why you quoted this, since at that time there were sacrifices being done to atone the sins of the people.
"...but I and other protestant believer follow only the Scriptures."
Maybe I'm wrong, but Protestants don't follow any traditions that have become part of Christian thought? Luther's The Small Catechism is "a guide for fathers in teaching the main points of the gospel to their children and servants," i.e., an understanding of the Christian Scriptures filtered through Luther.
In an article titled 3 Big Problems with the Protestant Doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" (Scripture Alone), churchpop.com (a Catholic site) says, "In 2 Thessalonians 2.15, St. Paul writes: 'So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.' St. Paul is saying that his teachings are authoritative, whether he gave them by speaking (oral tradition) or writing (Scripture)." If so, this is relevant to Protestants as well.
https://www.churchpop.com/2017/08/29/3-big-problems-with-the-protestant-doctrine-of-sola-scriptura/
"Again, there is no passage in the entire New Testament which says that it is not possible to live without sinning."
And this is just the point, because the New Testament, like any other text, passes through a level of human understanding and application. For example, Richard Carlson, Professor of New Testament Lutheran Theological Seminary, says the following of the verses in Ephesians I mentioned, "Previously we were dead because of our trespasses and sins by which we conducted our lives (verses 1-2a). Such existence was also a matter of utter bondage to malevolent powers, which the text describes variously in verses 2b-3 as 'this world,' 'the ruler of the power of the air,' and 'flesh.' Do the words "utter bondage" sound like you have a say in the matter, or that you possess the ability to not sin? It seems that Protestants also believe that you are hopeless against sin.
https://www.workingpreacher.org/commentaries/revised-common-lectionary/fourth-sunday-in-lent-2/commentary-on-ephesians-21-10-2
"I didn't understand how these passages [Deuteronomy 30:12] contradict the second Person of the Triune nature of God. Could you explain it?"
Sure. The Second Person is an intermediary between humanity and the First Person. Deuteronomy 30:12 says, "It is not in heaven, that you should say, "Who will go up to heaven for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?" This is a rhetorical question, as nobody is required to "go up to heaven for us and fetch it for us," because "[this] thing is very close to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can fulfill it." The Father, who we both believe in, is saying "There is no intermediary between you and Me," i.e., there is no Second Person, and that are you are fully capable of fulfilling My Word.
"Gen 18:26 is before the Sinai covenant, where God commanded the Jewish people to offer sacrifices to atone for sin."
That's true, but we see this practice (praying for forgiveness) continuing even after the Sinai covenant was established.
"Besides that, when God says in Gen that He will "forgive" them because of the righteous who live there, it does not mean literally to forgive, but that He will not destroy the city because of them."
Genesis 18:24 says, "...will You even destroy and not forgive ("וְלֹֽא־תִשָּׂ֣א") the place?..." This is same word in Exodus 32:7, "נֹשֵׂ֥א עָוֹ֛ן", which means "forgiving iniquity."
"Of course God will judge the wicked people and not let them unpunished (Nahum 1:3)."
That is an excellent point. However, Nahum starts with the verse, "The harsh prophecy concerning Nineveh..." This seems to indicate that God can forgive completely, but clarifies that in His harsh prophecy against Nineveh (and not in general) that He will not. Perhaps that's why it is a harsh prophecy, i.e., it goes against His forgiving nature.
"The application of the oil (Lev 14:29) and the flour (Lev 5:11-13) were on the burnt offer, which was the one responsible for atoning."
Leviticus 5:11 says he can bring an oil offering if he cannot afford a burnt offering, "But if he cannot afford two turtle doves or two young doves, then he shall bring as his sacrifice for his sin one tenth of an ephah of fine flour." The oil substitutes the blood. You're right about Leviticus 14:29.
Regarding Sukkah 55b, yes and no. On Yom Kippur Jews pray communally for forgiveness for sins they've done during the year, but we don't wait until Yom Kippur to repent for our sins. Similarly, it can be said that the sins of the inhabitants of Nineveh (and other Gentiles) were atoned for over Sukkot, but what about all the other sins they were committing in the meantime? Did those sins get stored in a "sin backlog" until Sukkot, at which point they were deleted? This helps explain why they prayed and repented immediately for their sins. It also confirms that the method of repentance they used was prayer.
"Regarding 2 Samuel 12:13, I don't know why you quoted this, since at that time there were sacrifices being done to atone the sins of the people."
Regarding 2 Samuel 12:13, that may be true, but the verse doesn't say that David brought an offering, but only that God immediately forgave him upon his confession.
Shalom Yaniv,
"because Hosea is figurative and poetic, perhaps this is the reason it refers to this type of sacrifice without the verb "le'hakriv.""
Really? So, why does no other poetic passage in the entire Tanakh use the word shalem as a verb to offer sacrifices? Remember that one third of the Tanakh is poetry!
"If I say "I promise to ," that isn't binding on me in terms my relationship with God (although I should have the integrity to keep it). If I say "I vow to ," I am bound by the vow according to Torah law."
Where is it written in the Torah?
"Please give me an example of the Rabbi's adding or removing something from the Torah".
Lighting the Sabbath's candles for example? There is no place in the Torah commanding us to do so.
Talmud Bava Metzia 59b says that the voice of God must be disobeyed if it disagrees with the majority of the Rabbis. And it even quotes Ex. 23:2 to justify that, saying that there is written “go with the majority” – when actually it is saying the opposite!
"Did Jesus mix meat and dairy? As far as I know this isn't addressed anywhere in the Christian Scriptures."
I'm not sure even if this rabbinic law existed during the time of Yeshua, or if it came some years later. The Brit Chadasha does not tell us what Yeshua ate, except that He and His disciples didn't eat anything that the Torah forbade (Acts 11:8).
"Please re-read this carefully: "Even if true, sitting in the seat of Moses would have been a rabbinical tradition..." The Written Torah doesn't say anything explicitly about the Rabbi's sitting in any special seat when they had to legislate laws, indicating that it was a rabbinical tradition (which Jesus would have then rejected)."
Seriously? Why would Yeshua be against a "seat" named Moses' seat where the Torah was read? Yeshua was against the traditions which invalidate the word of God or that put burdens upon people's shoulders that they didn't need to carry.
"And Jesus didn't seem to value the Written Torah either, as he says in reference to the Sabbath, "Something greater than the Sabbath is here."
That's not the case. Yeshua Himself kept the Shabbat with His disciples. The point is that He didn't keep it in the distorted way that the Pharisees of His time kept it, not allowing even a sick person to be healed in the Shabbat. And yes, Yeshua is greater than the Shabbat because He is the Word of God Who created the Shabbat.
"And he said it, "It's not what comes in, but what goes out," he seemed to be rejecting kashrut, which is also Biblical and not Rabbinical."
He was referring to the tradition of the elders which says that people are supposed to wash their hands before eating. As I showed you here, Yeshua and His disciples only ate kosher.
"They made the vow (Numbers 21:2) before God commanded them to wipe out Canaan (Deuteronomy 7:2). I said that you cannot make a vow to do something that you have been commanded to do."
Of course not, Yaniv. God commanded them to destroy the Canaanites in Deut. 7:2, and in Numbers 21:2 they made the vow and destroyed them. Or are you saying that God would command the Israelites to destroy the Canaanites after they have already destroyed them? It makes no sense.
Regarding the enclitic men sophit, you said: "Here you are literally removing a letter! Even Jesus said, "Not one jot or tittle will be removed," and they're removing a full letter!"
No, Yaniv, the men sophit is still there. That's just how Biblical Hebrew works. Remember the word Hayim, which means life and not lives.
"I'm not following you; where is there a vav before the "et asher?" I looked at the picture he put on the screen of the verse, and I don't see one."
It is not in the image. He speaks that in the video in the minute 8. Check it there.
"Why do I need to receive Jesus if his death atoned for my sin without my accepting it?"
I never said that. What I said is that the death of Yeshua atoned for the sins of those who lived BEFORE He came, and not after He came. I mean, those Jews who were faithful to God.
"Really? So, why does no other poetic passage in the entire Tanakh use the word shalem as a verb to offer sacrifices? Remember that one third of the Tanakh is poetry!"
It isn't a requirement, but a sufficient condition.
[Regarding vows] "Where is it written in the Torah?"
You can learn this principle from Numbers 6:2-8. The Nazirite vow prohibits for the Nazirite things that the Torah permits (grape products, cutting his hair and beard, and burying the dead).
"[As an example of the Rabbi's adding or removing something from the Torah] There is no place in the Torah commanding us to do so [light Sabbath candles]."
Lighting the candles is a Rabbinic mandate, and the Torah supports Rabbinic mandates that don't violate the actual commandments. Lighting Shabbat candles doesn't add to the Sabbath obligations, as it is forbidden to light fire on the Sabbath, and we light them before the Sabbath starts.
"Talmud Bava Metzia 59b says that the voice of God must be disobeyed if it disagrees with the majority of the Rabbis."
Yes, this is part of the understanding "It is not in the Heavens." God instituted a legal system used for determining the correct application of Torah commandments (Deuteronomy 17:8-11).
"I'm not sure even if this rabbinic law [milk and meat] existed during the time of Yeshua, or if it came some years later. The Brit Chadasha does not tell us what Yeshua ate, except that He and His disciples didn't eat anything that the Torah forbade (Acts 11:8)."
Do you think it's more likely that Jesus held a Pharisaic or Sadduccean outlook? Is there any evidence for his holding one over the other? Mark 1:28 said that Jesus went to the synagogue on the Sabbath, which was a Rabbinic practice. He also said in 1:44, "But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them." Regarding Rabbinic dietary legislation, omission of information is not the same as contradiction; if we consider that Jesus referred to and upheld the above we can deduce that he most likely slanted Pharisaic.
Regarding Acts 11:8-9, seee Mark 7:18-19, where it seems that he taught violations of the written Torah as well, such as when he said "Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, since it enters, not the heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer?" (Thus he declared all foods clean). And if you say that he was criticizing the belief that food became impure by coming into contact with something impure, see Leviticus 7:19, "And the flesh that touches anything unclean shall not be eaten. It shall be burned in fire."
"Seriously? Why would Yeshua be against a 'seat' named Moses' seat where the Torah was read? Yeshua was against the traditions which invalidate the word of God or that put burdens upon people's shoulders that they didn't need to carry."
Because the Rabbi's would have used this seat to instruct people in those very man-made Rabbinic mandates he mentions in Matthew 23:4.
[Regarding violating the written law] "That's not the case. Yeshua Himself kept the Shabbat with His disciples. The point is that He didn't keep it in the distorted way that the Pharisees of His time kept it, not allowing even a sick person to be healed in the Shabbat."
I'm not sure why the Christian Scriptures refer to what he did in Mark 3 as healing, as Rabbinic Law describes healing as grinding herbs (one of the 39 forbidden actions) and not as miraculous acts.
Response to June 7, 2022 at 12:00 AM:
In Numbers 21:2 they vowed only regarding "The Canaanite king of Arad, who lived in the south," whereas in Deuteronomy 7:2 they were commanded to wipe out the entirety of all seven nations (Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, [all of the] Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivvites, and Jebusites).
It works with chayim, but not with 99% of masculine nouns. Try to apply this to all other words in ending in a yud and final mem and see what happens. It won't work because there has to be a way to express masculine nouns in the plural. Also remember that you're saying that removing the final mem doesn't change the meaning of the word. This is true with chayim, but it isn't true with "bulls," which is rendered as "fruit" without the final mem.
Response to June 7, 2022 at 12:17 AM:
"It is not in the image. He speaks that in the video in the minute 8. Check it there."
He was talking about the "double accusative" (the direct object et followed by the pronoun asher). Even without that, the pronouns "elai - starting with an aleph" and "alav - starting with an ayin" don't refer to the same being.
Run an experiment and go to Google Translate and translate from English to Hebrew. On the left side (English), type "they looked to me" and see what the Hebrew says. Then in the English type "they looked at me" and see what the Hebrew says. "They looked to me" uses the pronoun "אליי", and "they looked at me" uses the pronoun "עליי", just as in the verse.
"What I said is that the death of Yeshua atoned for the sins of those who lived BEFORE He came, and not after He came."
I don't recall ever learning or reading that Christians believe that. Can you show me a source or two to that effect?
Regarding the other video you sent me about Zechariah 12:10, "et" is not always used before a definite object (Pratico, Gary; Vanpelt, Miles. Basics of Biblical Hebrew Grammar.Zondervan, 2019, p: 51).
And specifically in Zechariah 12:10, "et" is not used neither before elay, nor before alayv: וְסָֽפְד֣וּ עָלָ֗יו , what shows that "et" is not needed before elay to indicate that it is the definite object of the sentence, as it is not used before alayv although it is indeed the definite object of the sentence.
Moreover, I even asked myself and searched here if "et" can be used before a preposition, but I couldn't find anything about it. I don't think "et" can actually be used before a preposition like "el" or "al", that's also why there is no "et" before them.
After I answered this to you, I also found that video answering the specific video you sent me https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql7TnzTPLpM
Please, watch that video, since it perfectly answers the video you sent me. It has just 2 minutes.
"Maybe I'm wrong, but Protestants don't follow any traditions that have become part of Christian thought?"
No, as I told you, Protestants believe that they should follow only the Scriptures. The Catholics, on the other hand, follow traditions of men.
"In 2 Thessalonians 2.15, St. Paul writes: 'So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.' St. Paul is saying that his teachings are authoritative, whether he gave them by speaking (oral tradition) or writing (Scripture)." If so, this is relevant to Protestants as well."
No, the tradition Paul are speaking here are the teachings of Yeshua, which existed orally and just later were written. In other words, at Paul's times the New Testament was not written yet, so what we have written today in the New Testament existed at his time as an oral tradition, but which latter was written, similar to the Mishnah, understand?
"It seems that Protestants also believe that you are hopeless against sin."
You quoted one Protestant teacher, but again, it does not matter what some Protestants say or not, for we don't follow tradition of men but only the Scriptures. What matters is what the New Testament says.
"Sure. The Second Person is an intermediary between humanity and the First Person. Deuteronomy 30:12 says, "It is not in heaven, that you should say, "Who will go up to heaven for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?" This is a rhetorical question, as nobody is required to "go up to heaven for us and fetch it for us," because "[this] thing is very close to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can fulfill it." The Father, who we both believe in, is saying "There is no intermediary between you and Me," i.e., there is no Second Person, and that are you are fully capable of fulfilling My Word."
Remember that among these commandments, a huge part of it is concerned with atoning sacrifices for the sins the people would commit, therefore God knew already that they would not always fully obey His Torah. Yeshua is the fulfillment of the sacrifice of system, since with His atoning death we have everlasting redemption and forgiveness.
"what shows that "et" is not needed before elay to indicate that it is the definite object of the sentence, as it is not used before alayv although it is indeed the definite object of the sentence."
I didn't say that et is used before a preposition, I said that it's used before the pronoun (asher). You're right that it can't be used before elai or alav, but I didn't say that it could.
"Please, watch that video."
The person (Huw Thomas) who made this video seems to have made some mistakes. The preposition el means "toward". In Hebrew you can conjugate prepositions (the "suffixed preposition"), i.e., the yud added to the end of el to render it elai. Thomas says that (et) is required in front of "me," but this is impossible because it's a suffixed preposition.
He also really misunderstands the difference between both verses he cited. In Hebrew (and English) some verbs cannot be used as actions performed on others. The word ve'hibitu (Zechariah) cannot be used as an action performed on other things, while ve'yagidu (Isaiah) can. For example, in English I can't say "they looked me," but have to say "they looked toward me." The "toward" corresponds to the Hebrew el in elai. I can, however, say "they told me."
This becomes more clear if you remove the prepositions elai and lanu from the sentences. I can still say ve'yagidu et asher tikreynah, but I can't say ve'hibitu et asher dakaru. I can't omit the preposition from the first one (Zechariah), but I can from the second one (Isaiah). In English I can say "They told what would happen," but cannot say "They looked what they stabbed." It's more clear if I include the preposition, but the sentence is still valid without it (in the second one).
This is why Zechariah uses the preposition el - elai, while Isaiah uses le - lanu, meaning "[they told] to us" and translated as they told us.
Now, there is a way to use elai with a verb the same way it's used in Isaiah, but you must use a different verb. You can say heru li et asher dakaru, which means "they showed me what/who they stabbed." Saying ve'hibitu li is as wrong in Hebrew as it would be in English to say "they looked me," which you may be able to say if you come from some backwater places like the deep south in America! :)
By the way, at minute 1:10 he cites that asher dakaru can be rendered as "who pierced (me)," but that's untrue. The phrase "who pierced me" would be rendered "asher dakaruni." Without the suffix ni it simply means "they pierced," and you would need to figure out who did the piercing and to what on your own based on context.
The people he cites also say that et "simply refers to אלי, to me," but this ignores the fact that et always precedes the direct object and doesn't follow it. This a moot point because it's wrong to use et with a preposition anyway, as you also stated.
"… so what we have written today in the New Testament existed at his time as an oral tradition, but which latter was written, similar to the Mishnah, understand?"
Yes, I understand perfectly. You're saying that there is a Christian oral tradition that was written down. What is your objection to the Talmud, then?
"What matters is what the New Testament says."
I think there's something missing here. It is impossible to say that one simply follows what the Christian Scriptures (or any text) say, because even the most basic of texts require some level of interpretation to understand even their basic meaning. Let’s use Matthew 19:3-5 as an example. Matthew 19:9 seems to provide his answer, "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."
Apparently, there is disagreement about what Jesus actually meant by these words. According to Mark Ward, who is also Protestant, "Some interpreters take a broad interpretation which reads Jesus as permitting remarriage for the innocent party. Some interpreters take a better-safe-than-sorry approach in which remarriage is not permissible while one’s spouse still lives. So much for the clarity of Scripture. What does the doctrine claim in this case?" Ignoring additional potential understandings, the point is that it is unclear how to understand the above passage.
Another issue is that once Jesus died there was no way to ask him what he actually meant, which creates a unique problem of how to apply his instruction. Such a thing becomes less of an issue when an instruction is passed down from the rabbi's of one generation to the next as part of a tradition; it is kept alive even while the original teacher dies. In the absence of living people to consult with you need to rely on the Holy Spirit to instruct you, and of course, Christians argue with each other consistently over what the Holy Spirit reveals to them, leave each others' churches, and form new ones. And they all warn each other of wolf in sheep's clothing. (Matthew 7:15-20)
The article by Mark Ward I cited: https://www.logos.com/grow/many-christians-disagree-bible/
He also expresses his own anxiety over "pervasive interpretive pluralism," referring to the book called The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism Is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture. The author of that book argues that the approach of "the Bible’s exclusive authority, infallibility, clarity, self-sufficiency, internal consistency, self-evident meaning, and universal applicability" is "misguided and unable to live up to its own claims. If evangelical biblicism worked as its proponents say it should, there would not be the vast variety of interpretive differences that biblicists themselves reach when they actually read and interpret the Bible. Far from challenging the inspiration and authority of Scripture, Smith critiques a particular rendering of it, encouraging evangelicals to seek what he calls a more responsible, coherent, and defensible approach to biblical authority."
"Remember that among these commandments, a huge part of it is concerned with atoning sacrifices for the sins the people would commit, therefore God knew already that they would not always fully obey His Torah. Yeshua is the fulfillment of the sacrifice of system, since with His atoning death we have everlasting."
That is an arbitrary restriction of the scope of the text to sacrifices (these verses don't mention sacrifices at all). The intent of the question seems quite clear in its broadest form: "How can we fulfill the [whole] Torah?" See Deuteronomy 30:8, 10-11, 16.
"That's true, but we see this practice (praying for forgiveness) continuing even after the Sinai covenant was established."
Yes, while sacrifices were being done.
Genesis 18:24 says, "...will You even destroy and not forgive ("וְלֹֽא־תִשָּׂ֣א") the place?..." This is same word in Exodus 32:7, "נֹשֵׂ֥א עָוֹ֛ן", which means "forgiving iniquity."
נֹשֵׂ֥א , as you well know, does not mean "to forgive", but to carry, take, lift... I don't think "to forgive" would be the best translation here, but "to suffer" the city, "to endure" her iniquity. By the way, you gave me the wrong address of the passage you wanted to quote. I didn't find it. Moreover, the Stone Edition of the Tanakh translates tissah lamakom as "spare the place", while the Septuagint translates it as ἀνίημι "let go" the place, "leave" the place [unpunished]. But this is not my point. Even if you translate it as "forgive", what I am saying is that it is not talking literally about forgiving, but about not punishing the city. Or do you think that if there were many righteous in the city of Sodom the wicked people who were there would still inherit the world to come?
"This seems to indicate that God can forgive completely, but clarifies that in His harsh prophecy against Nineveh (and not in general) that He will not."
The forgiveness of God was granted when people repented, and not when there were righteous in the city where they lived. The righteous in the city could only avoid God's punishment upon the city as a whole, and not upon each individual of the city.
You said "Leviticus 5:11 says he can bring an oil offering if he cannot afford a burnt offering... The oil substitutes the blood".
Regarding Leviticus 5:11, just read verse 12, "And he shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it as the memorial-part thereof, and make it smoke on the altar, upon the offerings of the LORD made by fire." (Jewish Publication Society 1917).
In other words, the oil is put upon the blood sacrifices (offerings).
"Similarly, it can be said that the sins of the inhabitants of Nineveh (and other Gentiles) were atoned for over Sukkot, but what about all the other sins they were committing in the meantime? Did those sins get stored in a "sin backlog" until Sukkot, at which point they were deleted? "
How it specifically worked I don't know, but as you can see, rabbinic tradition says that sacrifices were needed to atone for the sins of the Gentiles. It was not just repentance as you are saying. And the fact that the rabbinic tradition is quoting Sukkot does not mean that only the sacrifices of Sukkot atoned for the sins of the Gentiles. Moreover, you can also understand that the sins of the Gentiles were atoned through the sacrifice of Yeshua, who was slain since the foundation of the world, as the New Testament says.
"You can learn this principle from Numbers 6:2-8. The Nazirite vow prohibits for the Nazirite things that the Torah permits (grape products, cutting his hair and beard, and burying the dead)."
Ok, but it doesn't say that a vow must be only about things God didn't command.
"Regarding Acts 11:8-9, see Mark 7:18-19, where it seems that he taught violations of the written Torah as well, such as when he said "Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, since it enters, not the heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer?" (Thus he declared all foods clean)."
He declared all foods "clean" regarding the practice of eating them without washing hands, which is the context of the passage. See that after this neither Yeshua nor His disciples started to eat things that the Torah forbids. But even if we understand it as Yeshua declaring all foods clean, even the rabbinic tradition understands that it will happen when the Messiah comes. Check it:
Midrash Tehillim 146:3: “The Lord allows the forbidden … and will one day allow the eating of all animals now forbidden to be eaten … In the time to come he will allow every thing that he has forbidden.”
Yalkut in regard to Isa. 26:2: “The Messiah Himself will teach the new Torah”.
"Because the Rabbi's would have used this seat to instruct people in those very man-made Rabbinic mandates he mentions in Matthew 23:4."
No, this seat, according to archeology, was a place where the Torah was supposed to be read in the synagogue.
"In Numbers 21:2 they vowed only regarding "The Canaanite king of Arad, who lived in the south," whereas in Deuteronomy 7:2 they were commanded to wipe out the entirety of all seven nations (Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, [all of the] Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivvites, and Jebusites)."
No, no, no. Israel vowed regarding the Canaanites, and not only about the king of Arad. See it:
"So Israel made a vow to the Lord, and said, “If You will indeed deliver THIS PEOPLE into my hand, then I will utterly destroy THEIR CITIES." And the Lord listened to the voice of Israel and delivered up the CANAANITES."
"This is true with chayim, but it isn't true with "bulls," which is rendered as "fruit" without the final mem."
This is not what even some leading Jewish scholars who don't believe in Yeshua as the Messiah say.
"He was talking about the "double accusative" (the direct object et followed by the pronoun asher)".
Et is not a direct object, but a direct object marker. What do you mean with what you said? I just said that they guy in the video added a Waw before "et" to make his point. Do you agree with him adding a Waw before "et"?
"the pronouns "elai - starting with an aleph" and "alav - starting with an ayin" don't refer to the same being."
It is referring to different persons, the Father and the Son, as I told you before. Different persons, but the same God.
"They looked to me" uses the pronoun "אליי", and "they looked at me" uses the pronoun "עליי", just as in the verse."
What do you want to say with that?
You said: "I don't recall ever learning or reading that Christians believe that. Can you show me a source or two to that effect?"
https://www.gotquestions.org/before-Jesus.html "Since the fall of man, the basis of salvation has always been the death of Christ. No one, either prior to the cross or since the cross, would ever be saved without that one pivotal event in the history of the world. Christ’s death paid the penalty for past sins of Old Testament saints and future sins of New Testament saints."
You're right, but either way, they made the vow before it was commanded to them. You can make a vow to do something that hasn't been commanded to you, but it is moot to make a vow after you've been commanded.
What do those scholars say about feminine plural nouns? Scholars disagree about many things, so you're likely to find scholars who don't agree with the enclitic mem.
Response to June 9, 2022 at 11:03 PM:
"Ok, but it [Numbers 6:2-8] doesn't say that a vow must be only about things God didn't command."
God didn't prohibit eating grapes, cutting his beard, or burying the dead, which become forbidden to him when he makes a Nazirite vow.
This Midrash (Tehillim 146:3) says (my direct translation), "There are those who say, 'All animals that is not pure in this world, God will purify it in the future to come.'" This is a matter of dispute in this Midrash, as the opposing opinion quotes Isaiah to demonstrate that the forbidden foods will continue to be forbidden. "Those who prepare themselves and purify themselves to the gardens, [one] after another in the middle, those who eat the flesh of the swine and the detestable thing and the rodent, shall perish together," says the Lord. (Isaiah 66:17) This is why I say that you can't cherry pick what you want from the Talmud; you will always find things that disagree with Christianity.
By the way, Jesus didn't usher in the world to come, so it cannot be said that whatever he taught about it being permitted to eat unkosher food is a reference to the above. This has to happen after the world to come arrives, not while we are still living in this world (which we are).
For the record, the section preceding the section before this one speaks in length about one's actions earning him merit before God, based on the verse, "Do not trust in princes, in the son of man, who has no salvation." (Psalms 146:3)
My translation:
"If a man does not do good in this world, he cannot rely on the deeds of his forefathers. Therefore it says, 'Do not trust in princes.' What should they trust in? On their deeds. As it says (Proverbs 9:12), 'If you have become wise, you have become wise for yourself, and if you scorn, you will bear it alone.' And he also says, 'The soul of a laborer labors for him, when his mouth forces him.' (Proverbs 16:26) A person doesn't eat of the deeds of his forefathers in the future to come, but only of his own [deeds]. As it says (Ecclesiastes 6:7), 'All of a person's toil is for his mouth...' (Ecclesiastes 3:22), 'And I saw that there is nothing better than that man rejoice in his deeds, for that is his portion, for who will bring him to see what will be after him?' And he says, '(Psalms 128:2), If you eat the toil of your hands, you are praiseworthy, and it is good for you.' It therefore says, 'Do not trust in the princes.'" This too contradicts the fundamental Christian teaching that one is not saved by his works.
"Yalkut in regard to Isa. 26:2: 'The Messiah Himself will teach the new Torah'".
Can you please find me the exact passage?
Response to June 9, 2022 at 10:45 PM:
"נֹשֵׂ֥א, as you well know, does not mean "to forgive", but to carry, take, lift... I don't think 'to forgive' would be the best translation here, but 'to suffer' the city, 'to endure' her iniquity."
What's the practical difference between forgiving a city of its iniquity and refraining from punishing it/enduring its iniquity? Either way, the Complete Jewish Bible, which is a Messianic translation, uses the word "forgive" in Genesis 18: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+18&version=CJB
I don't want to open up this can of worms again, but the Complete Jewish Bible in Genesis 18:2 uses the words "My lord..." If my memory serves me correctly I recall you saying that God revealed Himself to Abraham in physical form here. If so, why does the Complete Jewish Bible use the word "lord" while addressing this being instead of God's Name as it does in 18:1?
Sorry, I meant that the reference to "נֹשֵׂ֥א" is in Exodus 34:7, not 32:7.
Regarding Nachum 1:3, I think there is ample evidence in the Tanakh that this is an exception to God's mercy, which is why it is prefaced with "The harsh prophecy..."
Regarding Leviticus 5:11-12, you said, "the oil is put upon the blood sacrifices (offerings)." Even if the flour (not the oil) comes into contact with blood, his flour offering is what atones for him, as Verse 11 says, "for it [the flour] is a sin offering." In contrast, when a blood offering is brought, the act of atonement comes from the animal being killed (and its blood spilled), not from anything the blood touches after the animal has been killed. Either the way, the verses clearly say that the blood and flour don't come into contact with each other. Verse 9 says that the Cohen puts the blood on the wall and base of the altar, while verse 12 says that he puts the flour on the fire on the altar.
You said: "Thomas says that (et) is required in front of "me," but this is impossible because it's a suffixed preposition."
No. Thomas is answering the video you sent me. The guy of the video you sent me is the one saying that. Thomas answers that the guy of the video you sent me is wrong in saying that. Please, watch the video again and read what is in the video. I can see that you didn't watch the video carefully. But if you agree with him about that, then there is no need to answer your next point.
"By the way, at minute 1:10 he cites that asher dakaru can be rendered as "who pierced (me)," but that's untrue. The phrase "who pierced me" would be rendered "asher dakaruni."
He says that using "me" inside of parenthesis because "et" refers to "elai" (whom they have pierced), and is used with asher to mark asher more clearly as an accusative.
"Yes, I understand perfectly. You're saying that there is a Christian oral tradition that was written down. What is your objection to the Talmud, then?"
I believe that the Mishnah existed as an oral tradition before it was written. I just don't believe it was given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai, but that it was created by the Pharisees.
"I think there's something missing here. It is impossible to say that one simply follows what the Christian Scriptures (or any text) say, because even the most basic of texts require some level of interpretation to understand even their basic meaning. Let’s use Matthew 19:3-5 as an example."
Matthew 19:3-5 about the divorce is so clear. Read it by yourself and see it. Yeshua is saying that someone can only divorce and get married with another person if there is adultery. Period.
Now, of course it is possible to follow just the Scriptures. When I say that, I am just telling you that we don't follow traditions of interpretations as the Orthodox Jews, but we are free to interpret the Scriptures by ourselves, using exegesis and hermeneutics.
"Such a thing becomes less of an issue when an instruction is passed down from the rabbi's of one generation to the next as part of a tradition; it is kept alive even while the original teacher dies."
Really? That's not what the Talmud shows, since it has thousands of different and contradictory opinions about the same subject.
"That is an arbitrary restriction of the scope of the text to sacrifices (these verses don't mention sacrifices at all). The intent of the question seems quite clear in its broadest form: "How can we fulfill the [whole] Torah?" See Deuteronomy 30:8, 10-11, 16."
So, you are saying that offering sacrifices is not part of these commandments? Do you know how many commands of offering sacrifices there is in the Torah? You would be shocked to know.
"You're right, but either way, they made the vow before it was commanded to them."
Of course not, Yaniv. God commanded them to destroy the Canaanites in Deut. 7:2, and in Numbers 21:2 they made the vow and destroyed them. Or are you saying that God would command the Israelites to destroy the Canaanites after they have already destroyed them? It makes no sense.
I think understand what's going on here, and I think we're speaking past each other. It must be that "the Canaanite" in Numbers 21:3 is a reference only to this particular group of Canaanites (the king of Arad), while in Deuteronomy 7:1 it refers to the Canaanites as a whole. Otherwise, who is God commanding the Jews to wipe out in Deuteronomy 7:1? There must have been a remnant of Canaan, namely all of Canaan that wasn't under the rule of the king of Arad. This is sort of like the alliance of four kings against five in Genesis 14:1-2.
Response to June 15, 2022 at 3:21 AM:
"I believe that the Mishnah existed as an oral tradition before it was written. I just don't believe it was given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai, but that it was created by the Pharisees."
How would you be able to prove such a thing?
"Matthew 19:3-5 about the divorce is so clear. Read it by yourself and see it. Yeshua is saying that someone can only divorce and get married with another person if there is adultery. Period."
I did read it, and it seems there are two main ways to understand it. By my opinion on this matter as an Orthodox Jew matters less than that of Protestant Christians, apparently many of which themselves say isn't as clear as you are making it out to be.
"Now, of course it is possible to follow just the Scriptures. When I say that, I am just telling you that we don't follow traditions of interpretations as the Orthodox Jews, but we are free to interpret the Scriptures by ourselves, using exegesis and hermeneutics.
Functionally speaking, your interpretations, exegesis, and hermeneutics simply replace the existing set of interpretations, exegesis, and hermeneutics of Orthodox Judaism. Christianity has created its own traditions, which is exactly my point (and not a criticism); no religion can function or exist without traditions, however you define them.
"Really? That's not what the Talmud shows, since it has thousands of different and contradictory opinions about the same subject."
You may be exaggerating when you say "thousands," three or four is more accurate, or less. Nevertheless, this may be the natural outcome of interpretations, exegesis, and hermeneutics, and not the outcome of a lack of a tradition. There is a lot of information in the tradition, but there are living people who can help Orthodox Jews determine what to do and how to approach a number of issues. With the absence of a living point of contact with your tradition, Christians must rely on other methods of determining the correct approach to modern issues. What you're telling me is that (aside from believing that Pharisees invented our tradition) the Christian method of interpretation is identical in both form and function to the Jewish one.
"Do you know how many commands of offering sacrifices there is in the Torah? You would be shocked to know."
Please tell me what you think.
Regarding your responses from June 9 and June 15 about Zechariah 12:10, I think we've begun flogging a dead horse on this issue as well. Believe as you will.
"God didn't prohibit eating grapes, cutting his beard, or burying the dead, which become forbidden to him when he makes a Nazirite vow."
And...? This doesn't prove that someone cannot vow a thing to God that He has already commanded. I have shown you examples of this in the Scriptures.
Regarding the Midrash Tehillim 146:3, my point is just that even the sages agreed that the prohibitions about food in the Torah are not supposed to last forever. The world to come is ushered in by the Messiah, so of course these changes that the sages spoke about are supposed to happen with the coming of the Messiah. By the way, where in the midrash is the opposing opinion that you quoted?
Regarding Yalkut to Isaiah 26, look at Yalkut Shimoni on Nach 429: והקב"ה יושב ודורש תורה חדשה שעתיד ליתן ע"י משיח
“And God sits and demands a new Torah to be given by Messiah”.
"What's the practical difference between forgiving a city of its iniquity and refraining from punishing it/enduring its iniquity?"
The difference is that that city will not be destroyed but each individual can be judged individually by God. And of course, they will not inherit the world to come.
נֹשֵׂ֥א can be translated as "forgive", but it is not just the best translation in my opinion. Regarding the complete Jewish Bible, I have never seen this Bible before and I really don't care about what it says or not. We don't follow it. Regarding Genesis 18 and Adonay and adoni, what does Genesis 18:1 say? "Adonay appeared to Abraham". If He "appeared" to Abraham, do you agree with me that Abraham saw Him? Now, one of the three men are identified as Adonay in the text. See it:
"And the Lord יְהֹוָ֖ה said to Abraham, "Why did Sarah laugh, saying, 'Is it really true that I will give birth, although I am old?' Is anything hidden from the Lord יְהֹוָ֖ה? At the appointed time, I will return to you, at this time next year and Sarah will have a son." Genesis 18:13-14.
And then it says that the two angels went to Sodom, but one of them, Adonay, remained with Abraham:
"And the men turned from there and went to Sodom, and Abraham was still standing before the Lord יְהֹוָ֖ה ." Genesis 18:22.
And how do we know that only two men went to Sodom and the other one was Adonay who remained with Abraham? We know that because the next chapter says:
"And the two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom," Genesis 19:1.
"Two" angels, and not 3. Where is the third one? Remained with Abraham and was Adonay, as chapter 18:22 says.
Regarding Leviticus 5:11, read it again. Just read verse 12, "And he shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it as the memorial-part thereof, and make it smoke on the altar, upon THE OFFERINGS of the LORD made by fire." (Jewish Publication Society 1917).
"his flour offering is what atones for him, as Verse 11 says, "for it [the flour] is a sin offering." First of all, you are mistranslating it. Why are you doing that? The verse says "of fine flour FOR A sin offering". Leviticus 5:11. For a sin offering that is on the altar, or for a sin offering which will be atoned by the animal sacrifice that is on the altar. What is the difficult here?
"the act of atonement comes from the animal being killed (and its blood spilled), not from anything the blood touches after the animal has been killed."
And? So what? That atoning sacrifice, because it is made with the fine flour, atones for the sins of the person who offered the fine flour. What is the issue? You are complicating things in vain, my friend.
I said: ""I believe that the Mishnah existed as an oral tradition before it was written. I just don't believe it was given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai, but that it was created by the Pharisees."
You asked: "How would you be able to prove such a thing?"
Well, There is no mention of the Oral Law in the apocrypha, in the Septuagint, in the Dead Sea Scrolls, or in Josephus’ writings.
The Ethiopian Jews (called also, “Beta-Israel”) are a living proof that the advent of the Oral Law took place after the end of the Second Temple Period. These Jews, who kept a strict religious lifestyle for over two millennia, knew nothing about the Oral Law, because they had gone into exile long before the Sages ever came up with their traditions.
Neither the Sadducees (צדוקים) nor the Karaites (קראים) accepted the authoritative divine nature of the Oral Law, and therefore did not follow its traditions. Some Karaites even argued that the Oral Law stands in direct opposition to God, and that it has kept the Jewish people away from the authentic Torah of Moses.
Recent archeological findings, dating back towards the end of the Second Temple Period, of Jews who were exiled to Babylon, reveal that these Jews show no apparent familiarity with any Oral Law traditions. Rather, their Jewish identity was carried inwardly, with no external features resembling rabbinical practices.
Talmud professor Eliezer Diamond:
“In the history of the Jewish people, the period of Rabbinic Judaism was one of incredible transformation. If an Israelite of the First Temple period (c. 1000-586 BCE) were to be transported to the late second century CE, he would find a form of Judaism almost unrecognizable to him. In place of the Temple, he would find the court and study house of Rabbi Judah the Patriarch, editor of the Mishnah; he would find scholars rather than priests assuming leadership roles in the community; instead of sacrifices, he would find a religious life centered around prayer and study…and he would learn, to his surprise, that the revelation of Moses at Sinai comprised an Oral Torah as well as a written one.”
"Functionally speaking, your interpretations, exegesis, and hermeneutics simply replace the existing set of interpretations, exegesis, and hermeneutics of Orthodox Judaism. Christianity has created its own traditions, which is exactly my point (and not a criticism); no religion can function or exist without traditions, however you define them."
No. Exegesis and hermeneutics are the ways to interpret any text, and not just the Bible. It has nothing to do with tradition.
"Please tell me what you think."
This is the answer. There is the list of the commandments about sacrifices in the link I sent you according to Rambam. Check in the footnote. "According to Maimonides, about one hundred of the permanent 613 commandments based on the Torah, by rabbinical enumeration, directly concern sacrifices, excluding those commandments that concern the actual Temple and the priests themselves of which there are about another fifty." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korban#cite_note-36
Response to June 16, 2022 at 11:16 PM:
[Regarding the Nazirite vow] "And...? This doesn't prove that someone cannot vow a thing to God that He has already commanded."
Let's break this down to its simplest form. If God says, "Do not murder," which is a commandment, for me to say "I vow never to murder" has no effect in terms of my obligations. This is because God's commandments take priority over my vows. Now, if God didn't command "Do not murder," and I say "I vow never to murder," I now have an obligation to not murder. Plugging this into Hosea 14:4 it useless for me to say "I vow not to worship idols," because I'm already obligated not to worship them. If "nor will we say any longer, 'our gods,'" is not a vow, then "we will not ride on horses" is also not a vow. If that's true, Hosea 14:3 is not referring to vows, demonstrated by context without even referring to the enclitic mem.
"Regarding the Midrash Tehillim 146:3, my point is just that even the sages agreed that the prohibitions about food in the Torah are not supposed to last forever."
And I told you that there are differing opinions about this. I expect you to cleave to the opinion that supports your position, but you're ignoring the other side, which, by the way, is supported by Isaiah (66:17).
"The world to come is ushered in by the Messiah, so of course these changes that the sages spoke about are supposed to happen with the coming of the Messiah. By the way, where in the midrash is the opposing opinion that you quoted?"
Isaiah 66:17 says, "'Those who prepare themselves and purify themselves to the gardens, [one] after another in the middle, those who eat the flesh of the swine and the detestable thing and the rodent, shall perish together,' says the Lord." This indicates that the rules of kashrut will remain with the advent of the Messiah.
"Regarding Yalkut to Isaiah 26, look at Yalkut Shimoni on Nach 429: והקב"ה יושב ודורש תורה חדשה שעתיד ליתן ע"י משיח "And God sits and demands a new Torah to be given by Messiah".
I'll have to look at this in context when I have some more time, but the point has become clear to me: whenever I've look up these passages it becomes clear to me almost right away that they either don't support the Messianic view the way you would like them to, and/or they are opposed by other Talmudic statements, as with Isaiah 66:17 above. Does it not seem to you like you Messianic interpretations cherry pick the Talmud, because it certainly does to me?
Response to June 16, 2022 at 11:53 PM:
"The difference [between forgiving a city of its iniquity and refraining from punishing it/enduring its iniquity] is that that city will not be destroyed but each individual can be judged individually by God. And of course, they will not inherit the world to come."
Where does Genesis 18 say anything about the World to Come?
"נֹשֵׂ֥א can be translated as "forgive", but it is not just the best translation in my opinion. Regarding the complete Jewish Bible, I have never seen this Bible before and I really don't care about what it says or not. We don't follow it."
So what translation do you follow? I thought there was a consensus regarding these matters among Messianic Jews.
Regarding Leviticus 5:11, read it again. Just read verse 12, "And he shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it as the memorial-part thereof, and make it smoke on the altar, upon THE OFFERINGS of the LORD made by fire." (Jewish Publication Society 1917).
What is "it" in verse 12? Verses 6 - 10 is one block of text, telling you what he does when he brings 1) either a sheep or goat, or 2) two turtle doves or two young doves. Verse 12 is a different block of text telling you what he does when he brings a flour offering, to "cause it to [go up in] smoke on the altar, upon the fires of the Lord." Verse 9 is very clear that the blood is put on the wall and base of the altar, in contrast to the flour offering that is put on the fire in verse 12.
I wasn't mistranslating it, I was indicating that "it" in verse 12 refers to the flour and not to the animals. I think this is the text's super clear implication regarding what I wrote above.
"And? So what? That atoning sacrifice, because it is made with the fine flour, atones for the sins of the person who offered the fine flour. What is the issue? You are complicating things in vain, my friend."
That's not my intent. I'm just trying to parse the text correctly, which is the right way to study the text of the Torah. If you can't do that you won't understand it correctly (which is the same for the Christian Scriptures as well, and other texts).
Since when do Christians believe that any offering other than blood can provide atonement? What am missing here? Doesn't Paul say in Hebrews 9:22, "In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." Apparently that's not true. If flour atones for sin then there is no reason to be adamant that only blood can atone for sin. This seems like it would be a big issue according to Christianity.
Response to June 17, 2022 at 5:04 PM:
"...There is no mention of the Oral Law in the apocrypha..."
This can be understood simply to mean that they rejected the Oral Law, even if it was really given on Mt. Sinai. Not identical, but similar, consider that Korach rebelled against Moses with 250 of the greatest rabbis of their generation, accusing him of interjecting his own teachings and nepotism. Nevertheless, I am more interested in the Tanakh as a source and not these other sources you mentioned. I believe that the Oral Law is alluded to in several places in the Tanakh and am not bothered by the apparent absence of any explicit reference to it in the Tanakh. The Christian Scriptures don't make any explicit mentions of the Trinity either, only referring to other Persons where relevant.
The Beta-Israel are a somewhat contentious issue in Orthodoxy because in some peoples' minds it brings up race as an issue. Several (but not all) of our legal decisors have stated that due to their prolonged separation from the main body of Judaism for so long that the Beta-Israel are no longer in fact Jews. This has been especially contentious in Israel today, with many people thinking that the decisions are race-based, or even racist. We do not consider the Sadduccess and Karaites to be in the correct position to cast aspersions on "the Pharisees." I should let you know that although the Karaites reject Orthodox Jewish "interpretations," that they have their own. For instance, they criticize how we wear tefillin, but have come up with their own interpretation based on the text of how they should be worn. The Karaites are to Orthodox Judaism perhaps what heretical sects are to Christianity.
Interestingly, I read in a book (a long time ago) by Rabbi Nathan Lopes Cordozo that in the cave of Qumran they discovered two sets of tefillin, one in accordance with "Rashi tefillin" and the other with Rabbeinu Tam. I believe it is called "The Written and Oral Torah: A Comprehensive Introduction."
"Recent archeological findings... reveal that these Jews show no apparent familiarity with any Oral Law traditions. Rather, their Jewish identity was carried inwardly, with no external features resembling rabbinical practices."
You'd have to use an example.
[Regarding] "Talmud professor Eliezer Diamond... he would find a form of Judaism almost unrecognizable to him.'"
Yes and no. Some things were completely different (as one would expect), but others were not. Everything Diamond said about the Temple-based changes are obvious and to be expected, but are related to a change in the circumstances. The last point is utter conjecture and not easy to demonstrate empirically. How does he, or anybody, know for a fact that First Temple Jews didn't abide by the Oral Law, either partially or fully?
"No... It has nothing to do with tradition."
By "tradition" I mean practices that have become accepted as valid expressions of one's religion. They can be rooted in anything you want, including exegesis and hermeneutics, but once accepted they become known as "traditions." I'm not talking about customs.
"Remember that among these commandments, a huge part of it is concerned with atoning sacrifices for the sins the people would commit, therefore God knew already that they would not always fully obey His Torah."
Understood, so why did God say this, "It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will go up to heaven for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?'" What did He mean by that if we need Jesus? This is a stumbling block for me. Remember that verse 14 says, "Rather, [this] thing is very close to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can fulfill it." If God is telling me that we can fulfill it, can anybody tell me anything else? What does it even mean that it can be fulfilled?
Shalom Yaniv,
"Let's break this down to its simplest form. If God says, "Do not murder," which is a commandment, for me to say "I vow never to murder" has no effect in terms of my obligations."
Not really. If you vow not to do something that is already a command of God you have a double obligation not to do it. It becomes even more serious if you do it. Now, I don't know why we are spending so much time discussing this, since Hosea 14:3 says "fruit of our lips" and not "vows of our lips".
"And I told you that there are differing opinions about this."
And you, as a Talmud student, know that all these opinions of the Talmud are true according to Jewish tradition.
"Isaiah 66:17 says, "'Those who prepare themselves and purify themselves to the gardens, [one] after another in the middle, those who eat the flesh of the swine and the detestable thing and the rodent, shall perish together,' says the Lord." This indicates that the rules of kashrut will remain with the advent of the Messiah."
I asked where is the Midrash saying that the rules of the kashrut will remain the same.
"whenever I've look up these passages it becomes clear to me almost right away that they either don't support the Messianic view the way you would like them to, and/or they are opposed by other Talmudic statements, as with Isaiah 66:17 above. Does it not seem to you like you Messianic interpretations cherry pick the Talmud, because it certainly does to me?"
What seems to me is that you are not willing to accept the opinions of the Talmud that support the messiahship of Yeshua, but only the ones which don't support it. This is what it seems to me.
Response to June 20, 2022 at 6:46 PM:
"Now, I don't know why we are spending so much time discussing this, since Hosea 14:3 says "fruit of our lips" and not "vows of our lips".
That's an interpretation and not what the text literally says. But that's fine, we can drop this topic.
"And you, as a Talmud student, know that all these opinions of the Talmud are true according to Jewish tradition."
If they are all true then I won't favor one over the other. We'll see what happens when the Messiah comes.
"I asked where is the Midrash saying that the rules of the kashrut will remain the same."
It's mentioned in Midrash Tehillim 146:3 as a citation from Isaiah 66:17.
"What seems to me is that you are not willing to accept the opinions of the Talmud that support the messiahship of Yeshua, but only the ones which don't support it. This is what it seems to me."
I understand. I can and do accept those opinions, but feel that when you view all Talmudic expectations together as a whole (neither for or against exclusively) that Jesus does not fit the bill. Any similarities between Christianity and the Talmud are just that, incidental, but when you dig a little deeper that things just just don't add up. In general my view is that the Talmud does a pretty bad job of making the case that Jesus was the the Messiah. All-in-all it is a bad source of evidence for this conclusion, and lukewarm similarities are insufficient to demonstrate your position.
"Where does Genesis 18 say anything about the World to Come?"
It doesn't say anything about the world to come. That's why I'm telling you that this "forgiveness" of the city is related just about not destroying it, and not about really forgiving it.
"So what translation do you follow? I thought there was a consensus regarding these matters among Messianic Jews."
We don't have any official translation. Each one is free to read the Bible in the original language and do their best to translate it.
"I wasn't mistranslating it, I was indicating that "it" in verse 12 refers to the flour and not to the animals. I think this is the text's super clear implication regarding what I wrote above."
That was not my point. You didn't understand what I wrote.
"Verse 9 is very clear that the blood is put on the wall and base of the altar, in contrast to the flour offering that is put on the fire in verse 12."
So what? What atones is still the blood of the sacrifice where the flour offering is put on. Why do you think the flour offering needs to actually touch the blood? Where did you get this from? Don't you also think that on the flesh of the sacrifice on the altar there is still some blood anyway? Sorry, but this argument doesn't make any sense either way. You can do better than this.
Regarding all the evidences I brought to you about the non-existence of an oral law given to Moshe on Mount Sinai, if you get all these evidences together, they point to the fact that Moshe didn't receive any oral law there.
"Interestingly, I read in a book (a long time ago) by Rabbi Nathan Lopes Cordozo that in the cave of Qumran they discovered two sets of tefillin, one in accordance with "Rashi tefillin" and the other with Rabbeinu Tam."
I have never read this book, but it does not prove much because even the Reform Jews today use tefillin in the rabbinic way but they don't follow the oral law.
I said: "Recent archeological findings... reveal that these Jews show no apparent familiarity with any Oral Law traditions. Rather, their Jewish identity was carried inwardly, with no external features resembling rabbinical practices."
You said:"You'd have to use an example."
See words of Yehuda Kaplan (יהודה קפלן, מנהל מחלקת חינוך והדרכה במוזיאון ארצות המקרא בירושלים); and Erving Finkel (ארווינג פינקל, אוצר במוזיאון הלאומי הבריטי), As revealed in the news media in Israel, at: http:// www.nrg.co.il/ online/ 55/ ART2/ 673/ 972. html and: http:// www.ynet.co.il/ articles/ 0,7340, L-4622368,00. html
"How does he, or anybody, know for a fact that First Temple Jews didn't abide by the Oral Law, either partially or fully?"
There is no archeological evidence for that. No manuscripts speaking about that, nor anything in the Tanakh about that. Isn't that enough?
"By "tradition" I mean practices that have become accepted as valid expressions of one's religion. They can be rooted in anything you want, including exegesis and hermeneutics, but once accepted they become known as "traditions." I'm not talking about customs."
The issue is not traditions itself, but the belief that a tradition was given on Mount Sinai to Moses and is as sacred as Scriptures.
"Understood, so why did God say this, "It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will go up to heaven for us and fetch it for us, to tell [it] to us, so that we can fulfill it?'" What did He mean by that if we need Jesus? This is a stumbling block for me."
The Torah is saying that it is possible to obey all the commandments of the Torah without sinning. But the fact is that God already knew that no one would make it, and for this reason He gave us the sacrificial system in the Torah, and for this reason too He gave us Yeshua, the Messiah, to live the sinless life that no one lived and to provide atonement for our sins through His atoning death.
Now it is interesting that you said that to need Yeshua is an stumbling block for you, because the Tanakh and the Talmud says that the Messiah will be exactly a stumbling block to our Jewish people. See it:
"And he will become a sanctuary and a stone of offense and a rock of stumbling to both houses of Israel, a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And many shall stumble on it. They shall fall and be broken; they shall be snared and taken.” Isaiah 8:14-15.
Talmud, Sanhedrin 38a:2:
"as it is stated in reference to the Messiah: “And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offense to both the houses of Israel” (Isaiah 8:14).
"If they [the opinions of the Talmud about the kashrut] are all true then I won't favor one over the other. We'll see what happens when the Messiah comes."
What if the Messiah has already come, is Yeshua, and we have already seen what happened?
I said: "I asked where is the Midrash saying that the rules of the kashrut will remain the same."
You said: "It's mentioned in Midrash Tehillim 146:3 as a citation from Isaiah 66:17."
I read it all and I didn't see Midrash Tehillim saying that the rules of the kashrut will remain the same. Can you quote the part of the Midrash Tehillim saying this? There is none.
"Any similarities between Christianity and the Talmud are just that, incidental, but when you dig a little deeper that things just just don't add up."
Well, you couldn't show that until now. Now, how do you want the Brit Chadasha's interpretations to agree with all interpretations of the Talmud if many of them are actually contradictory with one another (inside the Talmud itself)? The best we can expect of the Brit Chadashah is that many or some of its interpretations will agree with the Talmud.
המשך שבוע טוב
Response to June 22, 2022 at 12:33 AM:
"It doesn't say anything about the world to come. That's why I'm telling you that this "forgiveness" of the city is related just about not destroying it, and not about really forgiving it."
God doesn't forgive people in this world and not in the next, or vice-versa? There are righteous people who suffer, and evil people who succeed.
"We don't have any official translation. Each one is free to read the Bible in the original language and do their best to translate it."
I understand. Does this mean that Messianic Jews may disagree with each other on fundamental readings of the text?
"So what? What atones is still the blood of the sacrifice where the flour offering is put on."
I thought you said that the blood and flour must touch each other, maybe I misread. The Torah is clear that in each case, regardless of the type of offering brought, that it alone provided atonement without relying on the other. Verses 9, 11, and 12 each say "it is a sin offering" in reference to each type of offering (sheep, birds, or flour). If that's correct, to say that the blood atoned even in the case of the flour is a rather large inference.
Response to June 22, 2022 at 1:07 AM:
"Regarding all the evidences I brought to you about the non-existence of an oral law... they point to the fact that Moshe didn't receive any oral law there."
In practice it's impossible to observe (much of) the written Torah without an oral Law. Try it. This became a real issue even before the entirety of the 613 commandments was given. In Exodus 18:13-22 Jethro gives Moses the advice of setting up a hierarchical legal system. The purpose of this system was to deal with and escalate confusing legal questions from one court to another, "leaders over thousands, leaders over hundreds, leaders over fifties, and leaders over tens," with Moses at the top. The text is clear that Moses was issuing legal decisions "from morning until the evening." Why did they need him to do that if the application of the written Law was so clear? The answer is that it wasn't.
I wrote about that more here: https://hashemisbeautiful.blogspot.com/2015/01/does-chumash-refer-to-oral-torah.html
"I have never read this book, but it does not prove much because even the Reform Jews today use tefillin in the rabbinic way but they don't follow the oral law."
The internal inconsistency of Reform Judaism is a separate topic. Have you heard this joke? At an Orthodox wedding, the mother of the bride is pregnant. At a Conservative wedding, the bride is pregnant. At a Reform wedding, the rabbi is pregnant.
The articles you referred me to are rather long. Can you pinpoint the part of the articles saying that the their Jewish identity was carried inwardly, with no external features resembling rabbinical practices?
"There is no archeological evidence for that. No manuscripts speaking about that, nor anything in the Tanakh about that. Isn't that enough?"
Let me ask you a specific question. What archaeological evidence can there be for a person who doesn't perform the 39 prohibited labors on the Sabbath? Without an oral Law you also run into some big calendrical issues. Exodus 12:2 says, "This month shall be to you the head of the months; to you it shall be the first of the months of the year." Because the Torah doesn't name the months (they had no names until later), and the Jews historically lived in many places all over the world that had their own calendars, how were they able to know what months the Torah referred to? This implies that the Jews knew what months the written Torah was referring to even though it provides no information about them.
"The issue is not traditions itself, but the belief that a tradition was given on Mount Sinai to Moses and is as sacred as Scriptures."
Understood. If a tradition was given on Mount Sinai, it would be as sacred as Scriptures. You don't agree that it was, but would you agree with this premise?
Have you ever read Nechemiah 13:15-22? This an interesting piece of text that refers to Sabbath restrictions not written anywhere in the written Torah. Note that the prophet Nechemiah gets quite irate about these Sabbath violations. What is he getting so mad about if they weren't real? I counted four Sabbath prohibitions, none of which are written anywhere in the Five Books of Moses.
"The Torah is saying that it is possible to obey all the commandments of the Torah without sinning. But the fact is that God already knew that no one would make it, and for this reason He gave us the sacrificial system in the Torah, and for this reason too He gave us Yeshua, the Messiah, to live the sinless life that no one lived and to provide atonement for our sins through His atoning death."
Where does the Torah tell us that God expects us to be sinless?
"Now it is interesting that you said that to need Yeshua is an stumbling block for you, because the Tanakh and the Talmud says that the Messiah will be exactly a stumbling block to our Jewish people."
Don't get too excited, I used the word "stumbling block" on purpose.
Response to June 22, 2022 at 3:10 AM:
"What if the Messiah has already come, is Yeshua, and we have already seen what happened?"
Then Messianic redemption is a false and empty teaching. This is the danger of believing in people who make Messianic claims that don't come true, they destroy faith, and it has happened several times in Judaism. Jesus may have been more credible in that he was, and in my view more righteous than a few of the past false Messiahs, such as Shabbtai Tzvi, who was insane.
I said: "I asked where is the Midrash saying that the rules of the kashrut will remain the same." You said: "It's mentioned in Midrash Tehillim 146:3 as a citation from Isaiah 66:17." I read it all and I didn't see Midrash Tehillim saying that the rules of the kashrut will remain the same. Can you quote the part of the Midrash Tehillim saying this? There is none.
It's this part:
...ויש אומרים אינו מתירן לעתיד לבוא שכן הוא אומר (ישעיה סו יז) אוכלי בשר החזיר וגו'
"And there are those who say that He does not permit in the future to come, as it says, '(Isaiah 66:17) those who eat the flesh of the swine... and the rodent, etc.'"
"Now, how do you want the Brit Chadasha's interpretations to agree with all interpretations of the Talmud if many of them are actually contradictory with one another (inside the Talmud itself)?"
The question of disagreement in the Talmud is a good one, but is beyond the scope of this discussion (and not related to Christianity).
"God doesn't forgive people in this world and not in the next, or vice-versa? There are righteous people who suffer, and evil people who succeed."
So, you are saying that the people from Sodom and Gomorra would inherit the world to come if there were 10 righteous living in their city, despite all their iniquity there?
"I understand. Does this mean that Messianic Jews may disagree with each other on fundamental readings of the text?"
What do you call "fundamental" readings of the text? I have seen some different translations of the book of Galatians made by some Messianic Jews regarding Gentiles keeping Torah.
"Verses 9, 11, and 12 each say "it is a sin offering" in reference to each type of offering (sheep, birds, or flour). If that's correct, to say that the blood atoned even in the case of the flour is a rather large inference."
It is a sin offering only because it is put with the blood sacrifice on the altar. If it were a sin offering by itself, it would not need to be put on the altar with the sacrifice and the blood. It would be put alone on the altar.
"In practice it's impossible to observe (much of) the written Torah without an oral Law. Try it."
The Sadducees, the Karaites, the Ethiopian Jews all tried and made it.
"The text is clear that Moses was issuing legal decisions "from morning until the evening." Why did they need him to do that if the application of the written Law was so clear? The answer is that it wasn't."
And? Does it mean then that Moses received an oral law on the Mount Sinai? I'm a lawyer and I also work with courts, and they didn't receive an oral law to decide the cases. Moreover, Moses, according to the Torah, went up to ask God how to decide certain cases because he didn't know how to decide them. If he had received an oral law on Mount Sinai he would not need to come back to God later and ask Him what to do, do you agree? I will wait for this answer.
"Why should our father's name be eliminated from his family because he had no son? Give us a portion along with our father's brothers. So Moses brought their case before the Lord." Numbers 27:4-5.
Regarding the oral law, don't you think that, if it really existed, at least once in the entire Tanakh would appear some story of someone who was punished for disobeying it? How come can you believe in thousands of rules that are not mention even once in the Tanakh? How come no one in the entire Tanakh was punished for disobeying them?
"Without an oral Law you also run into some big calendrical issues."
Not really. If you say that the first month of a new calendar will start today, you know that this first month starts on the 23th of June. Do you think that in Egypt they didn't have names for the months? If you count the days, you know in which month you are. The names of the months of the Jewish calendar were actually created in Babylon, during the exile, before that they were counted by number. No big deal, much less an oral law.
"Understood. If a tradition was given on Mount Sinai, it would be as sacred as Scriptures. You don't agree that it was, but would you agree with this premise?"
Yes.
"Have you ever read Nechemiah 13:15-22? This an interesting piece of text that refers to Sabbath restrictions not written anywhere in the written Torah. Note that the prophet Nechemiah gets quite irate about these Sabbath violations. What is he getting so mad about if they weren't real? I counted four Sabbath prohibitions, none of which are written anywhere in the Five Books of Moses."
The Torah says that people are not supposed to work on the Sabbath, and these people in the book of Nehemiah were working on the Sabbath. It does not matter if the specific work they were doing on the Sabbath is mentioned or not in the Torah, for the Torah says very clearly that on the Sabbath is forbidden to work.
"Where does the Torah tell us that God expects us to be sinless?"
Where did I say that? Exactly because God knew that we would not be sinless He gave us the sacrificial system and also the Messiah.
Now, I want to let you know that I will be off for 2 weeks starting on Monday because of my Master's degree in Divinity. So, that's why I will not reply your next answers these days.
Shabbat Shalom, Yaniv!
"Then Messianic redemption is a false and empty teaching. This is the danger of believing in people who make Messianic claims that don't come true, they destroy faith, and it has happened several times in Judaism."
I have already shown to you in the Tanakh that the Messias has 2 comings. And if you read Daniel 7:13-14 it is very clear that before coming on the clouds of heaven to reign the Messiah is supposed to go up to Heaven first. Even the rebe of Lubavitch is a proof that Orthodox Jews can believe in 2 comings of the Messiah, for many still believe that he is the Messiah, even though he is dead for many years.
Shabbat Shalom!
Response to June 24, 2022 at 12:56 AM:
"So, you are saying that the people from Sodom and Gomorra would inherit the world to come if there were 10 righteous living in their city, despite all their iniquity there?"
No clue, and the text doesn't really allude to what would happen to them in the World to Come. What I do know is that if the word "forgive" indeed means "forgive" in the traditional sense of the World to Come as well, then God's forgiving them will apply to the next world as well. God is not limited in His forgiveness and can do it any way He pleases, even in ways that are not intuitive to us and do not conform to our expectations.
"What do you call "fundamental" readings of the text?"
Is there a consensus among Messianic Jews whether God forgave the people of Sodom and Gomorrah only in this world, only in the next, or in both?
"It is a sin offering only because it is put with the blood sacrifice on the altar."
The text doesn't actually say that, which is I'm saying that this is an inference. The text treats them as three independent and mutually exclusive sacrifices. They are put in the same place because the altar is the location designated for atonement (whether or not there is any blood on it).
"If it were a sin offering by itself, it would not need to be put on the altar with the sacrifice and the blood. It would be put alone on the altar."
So let us assume the hypothetical situation of no blood being on the altar. Let's say that everybody was poor and nobody had money to put a blood sacrifice on the altar. Would the flour offerings still atone for whoever brought them in that case, or would they be out of luck because they were poor?
Post a Comment