At approximately minute 5:20 of a debate between Dr. Brown and Zakir Hussein, Brown says that the prophet who is like Moses means another who prophet who spoke with God face to face. However, because the text gives no indication what "like me" means, Dr. Brown inserts his own assumption as to what it means so that he can redirect it to Jesus. What is more likely is that "like me" is simply a reiteration of "from your brothers".
A prophet from among you, from your brothers, like me, the Lord, your God will set up for you; you shall hearken to him.
In addition, it's possible that like a responsible leader about to forfeit his position (in this case through his upcoming death), Moses said "like me" to assure the Jews that his position wouldn't be left vacant. This is in line with much of the book of Deuteronomy in which Moses prepares the Jews for their entrance into the Land of Israel without him. In Exodus their anxiety about his absence led them to an act of idolatry.
What Brown omits is the pronoun shift in verse 18, which is central to its meaning:
I will set up a prophet for them from among their brothers like you, and I will put My words into his mouth, and he will speak to them all that I command him.
While in verse 15 Moses speaks about what God will do, in verse 18 God Himself speaks about what He will do. If this prophet is the perfect and infallible Jesus, being God, the words "like you" are certainly inappropriate given that no man is like him. To my knowledge Christians don't count this verse among the plethora of Tanakh passages they consider as foreshadowing of Jesus' coming or of God's Trinitarian nature. Free of all Trinitarian presuppositions, this verse seems very clearly to be pointing to the natural human state of the person who will be sent, completely omitting any Divine or miraculous properties that he is to have. It is therefore reasonable to assume this verse to be a naturalistic one insofar as prophecy is natural, pointing to Moses' successor, who we know is Joshua.
Theologically speaking, for the First Person of the Trinity to put words into the mouth of the Second Person is difficult as well, but beyond the scope of this argument. One would assume "the Son's" words to emanate from within him.
Likewise, Peter's citation of this verse in Acts 3:22 is not only inappropriate, it is confusing. Against the backdrop of the assumption of Jesus' Divinity, a verse stating the establishment of a prophet is insufficient an appellation for such a figure. The Jews this message is directed to would be right in rejecting it based on the incongruity of expectations set forth between Deuteronomy 18:15 and Acts 3:22.
Further, "like you" read naturally in the verse intuitively implies a prophet who, like Moses, said and did everything that God told him. This would make sense as Moses was the Jews' first prophetic leader, and they were still becoming accustomed to what it meant to be led by such an individual. It seems sensible that God didn't want them to think that Moses was a one-off and that they would never have a leader like him again, so He assured them that the next leader in line, Yehoshua, would be "like Moses," i.e., a genuine prophet.
How are we supposed to understand testimonies, like Brian Welch's, formerly a member of the alternative metal band Korn very popular in the 90's? Welch is open about his previous addiction to methamphetamines, apparently using it for 700 days straight before accepting Jesus.
As frum Jews, what are we to make of such a testimony? One thing is for sure, you won't ever find me knocking somebody's decision to improve his life, especially when it comes to quitting drugs and straightening out. I am a serious proponent of peoples' dignity and self-respect and find it very encouraging when people break bad habits and become better people.
What is strange to me is that while Jesus may be the reason Welch found himself free of the desire to take drugs, it may also be that when a person commits to a position of self improvement, deliberately detaching himself from harmful influences, what often follows is a lack of a desire for the things that previously ensnared him. And all of this happens without Jesus.
For example, when I started becoming observant 21 years ago, I too found myself in a renewed positive frame of mind where I desired good things and was repulsed by bad ones. While it's true that I was not addicted to hard drugs, my decision to turn my life in the more positive direction of observance changed me from the inside-out. I can assure you that accepting Jesus had nothing to do with that very pivotal set of transformations.
Committing to a track of self improvement while eschewing harmful influences turns out to be very relevant. According to the Rambam, teshuva is encapsulated by the following four steps:
Regret
Cessation
Confession
Future resolution
When the Beis HaMikdash stood, the fifth step required bringing a sacrifice.
Notice that the "rock bottom" effect that many former addicts experience lines up with regret and cessation (stages 1 and 2), and that committing to a track of self improvement lines up with future resolution (stage 4). This means that a person can experience a sense of renewal and liberation from his sin without Jesus stepping in to help him. The above process was designed to break a person away from his sin, and if he engages in it, he shouldn't be surprised that it works.
Having said that, and I've seen this happen with people who've come Christians for this reason, accepting Jesus is an important step in helping them to knock a very bad habit. It helps get them out of the proverbial mud or destruction into which they've fallen. However, while it does wonders in the short run, in the long run it requires them to accept that their nature as human beings is wretched and underserving of redemption. They sign on the dotted line to become free from whatever mental or spiritual ailment they're suffering from, while committing to a theological position that describes them as being fundamentally corrupt and disgusting in the eyes of God. The medicine seems just as bad as the disease.
And so it doesn't actually pave the path to genuine rectification - it simply enforces the destructive self image that subconsciously drove them to sin in the first place. It doesn't actually teach them that they are good people who are capable of actual change, but that they are helpless against their evil human nature, and hence need Jesus. It is for this reason that I reject the testimonial repentance narrative.
In Genesis 4:7 God says to Cain very clearly, "Sin rests at the door, it's desire is toward you, yet you can conquer it." You actually possess the ability to change, not in the way that Christianity proposes, i.e., in your acceptance that you cannot change and therefore need Jesus, but rather that you inherently possess the ability for positive change. And if you possess this ability, as God seems to be imploring Cain, you are expected to express that ability.
Many Christians claim that the Torah foretold God's new covenant in the form of the New Testament. To support this, Christians cite Jeremiah 31:32, which says, "For this is the covenant that I will form with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will place My law in their midst and I will inscribe it upon their hearts, and I will be their God and they shall be My people."
The part of this verse they emphasize is "I will inscribe it upon their hearts". According to their understanding the old Law was written on stone and parchment, while the "new Law" would later be written on the hearts of the believers with the advent of Jesus.
However, a verse in Deuteronomy (30:14) neutralizes this concern, stating, "Rather, [this] thing is very close to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can fulfill it." The Torah tells us that it was already "in your heart" approximately 1,300 years before Jesus. If the Torah is already in our hearts we do not need a new covenant to put it there.
Note that while Deuteronomy 30:14 doesn't refer to this as a covenant, Deuteronomy 29:8 does, "And you shall observe the words of this covenant and fulfill them, in order that you will succeed in all that you do."
Because in both instances the covenant was written on their hearts, the only difference is that the Jews abandoned it the first time, but will not the second time, "And no longer shall one teach his neighbor..." (Jeremiah 31:33) Aside from this, the verses do not indicate that the nature of these covenants will be different.
I was looking until thrones were set up, and the Ancient of Days sat; His raiment was as white as snow, and the hair of His head was like clean wool; His throne was sparks of fire, its wheels were a burning fire.
Christians sometimes use this verse as a reference to Jesus being God. How?
The verse specifically says that "thrones," in the plural, were set. If God is Singular the word "thrones" should be in the singular as well. Therefore Christians argue that plural thrones had to be set up because God is a plurality, i.e., that Jesus as well occupied one of the thrones as God!
While that is certainly an interesting approach, we have an alternative explanation. Rashi explains that two thrones were set up, one for God to sit in judgement on Israel (the Jews), and the other to sit in judgement on the nations of the world.
The problem with the Christian interpretation of this verse as referring to Jesus is that it speaks of God in the singular. Note that the verse says that His throne was sparks of fire, not their thrones were sparks of fire. The only reason that multiple thrones are mentioned at the beginning of the verse is that God occupied both of them at different times; sitting in one and then sitting in the other. This is why the word "throne" appears first in the plural and then in the singular; while two existed, He only sat in one throne at a time.
Further, verse 10 demonstrates the judicial nature of these thrones, "Justice was established, and the books were opened." Christians do not teach that Jesus came to bring justice for wrongdoing, but rather to free people from it as a sacrifice for sin. Therefore it is not true that Jesus sat on the throne of justice, for Christians do not say that he sat as does as a king and judge who intends to exercise retribution.
The Son of Man is Not God
If Jesus was seated on one of the thrones in 7:9, why does it only say in 7:13 that he (the Son of Man) approached the Ancient of Days (God)?
"I saw in the visions of the night, and behold with the clouds of the heaven, one like a man was coming, and he came up to the Ancient of Days and was brought before Him."
Further, as is customary with kings, an inferior is expected to show honor to a superior by standing before him while he sits. This is exactly what happens in 7:13, with the Son of Man approaching God seated in judgement. We as well see that God, the King, "gave him dominion and glory and a kingdom," endowing him with authority and power that he did not previously possess. This can only be true if this person lacks something that can only be given to him by a superior. Given that Christians believe Jesus to be on par with the Father, this person can by no means be Jesus.
Who is the Fourth Beast?
Daniel 7:25 says, "And he will speak words against the Most High, and he will oppress the high holy ones, and he will think to change the times and the law, and they will be delivered into his hand until a time, two times, and half a time."
The "he" in this verse is the fourth beast that Daniel sees in his prophetic vision. The Jewish tradition explains that this is Edom, the final and most powerful kingdom to rule before the Messiah comes. Interestingly enough, one of the characteristics of this beast, Edom, is that "he will think to change... the law." It is noteworthy to say that Christianity (associated with Edom) attempted to do that very thing, to change the Law (of the Torah) to proclaim that it is no longer valid, not to mention the holidays (the times). This was accomplished by the hand of Paul, who claimed that the Law was a curse that required being freed from.
Does God Judge the Nations?
We already know that God judges the Jews, but where does the Tanakh say that God judges the nations of the world?
God's judgment of the nations of the world in the Tanakh is corroborated by the following verses (Amos 1:3-2:3):
So said the Lord: For three transgressions of Damascus, yea for four, I will not return them; Because they threshed the Gileadites with sledges of iron. And I will send fire into the house of Hazael, and it shall consume the palaces of Ben-Hadad. And I will break the bolt of Damascus, and I will cut off an inhabitant from Bikath- Aven, and one who holds the scepter from Beth-eden, and the people of Aram shall be exiled to Kir, says the Lord.
So said the Lord: For three transgressions of Gaza, yea for four, I will not return them; Because they carried away captive a whole captivity, to deliver to Edom. And I will send fire into the wall of Gaza, and it shall consume its palaces. And I will cut off an inhabitant from Ashdod and one who holds the scepter from Ashkelon, and I will return My hand upon Ekron, and the remnant of the Philistines shall be lost, says the Lord God.
So said the Lord: For three sins of Tyre, yea for four, I will not return them; Because they delivered a whole captivity to Edom and did not remember the brotherly covenant. And I will send fire into the wall of Tyre, and it shall consume its palaces.
So said the Lord: For three sins of Edom, yea for four, I will not return them: For pursuing their brother with a sword, and they destroyed their mercy and grasped forever their anger and kept their fury forever. And I will send fire into Teman, and it shall consume the palaces of Bozrah.
So said the Lord: For three transgressions of the children of Ammon, yea for four, I will not return them: Because they ripped up the pregnant women of Gilead, in order to enlarge their border. And I will kindle a fire in the wall of Rabbah, and it shall consume its palaces, with a shout on the day of battle, with a tempest on the day of the whirlwind. And their king shall go into exile, he and his princes together, said the Lord.
So said the Lord: For three transgressions of Moab, yea for four, I will not return them; for he burnt the bones of the king of Edom to lime. And I will send fire into Moab, and it shall consume the palaces of Kerioth, and Moab shall die amidst the tumult, with shouting, with the sound of the shophar. And I will cut off a judge from within it, and all its princes I will slay with him, says the Lord.
And the Lord said, "Shall I conceal from Abraham what I am doing?
Not long ago I had a written debate with a Christian involved in the Messianic Jewish movement about demonstrating that the Trinity is found in the Tanakh. We spoke at length about select verses in the Torah, such as Genesis 18 and 19, which he held can be used as prooftexts for the Trinity.
Once such example he provided was Genesis 19:24, which reads, "And the Lord caused to rain down upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire, from the Lord, from heaven." Many Christians interpret these two instances of the word "Lord" to refer to two Persons in the Trinity, the first instance being "the Father" and the second "the Son."
Stay tuned for the end for an explanation for the reason this verse was written in this manner.
Christians try incredibly hard to demonstrate the Trinity in the Tanakh, using arguments that rely on stretches of the imagination, and mining independent verses from disparate locations. However, it is the case that what is simpler is often what is more plainly true. If the Trinity is found in the Tanakh, why do we never see any explicit exchanges between the Persons of that Trinity? Why do we never see a discussion in the Tanakh in which the Father says something to the Son or Spirit, and the Son or Spirit explicitly respond to the Father? There is no shortage of dialogues in the Tanakh, and if the Persons of the Trinity are legitimate characters in the Biblical narrative we should expect the Tanakh to include at least some dialogues between them.
This brings me to the verse with which I began this post, Genesis 18:17-21. In those verses we see God speaking and declaring the intent to destroy Sodom, but who is He speaking with? We know that He isn't speaking to Abraham, because He says, "Shall I conceal from Abraham what I am doing?" The text simply says, "And the Lord said..." without indicating who He spoke to. God's undefined audience in Genesis 18:17 sharply contrasts Genesis 1:26 in which the Torah indicates some sort of consortium, "And God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...'" Christians understand the Torah's use of the words "us" and "our" to indicate a discussion occurring among the Persons of the Trinity.
If that is so, why doesn't Genesis 18 say, "Shall We conceal from Abraham what We are doing? Why is the Trinity active in some places and passive and complacent in others? What both verses have in common is a declaration of intent to perform an action. Where they differ is their tense (first person singular vs. first person plural). To conclude, it seems that God is speaking to somebody else in Genesis 1:26, but simply speaking to Himself in the first person singular in Genesis 18:17. If we can't provide a good theological answer for the Trinity's fluctuation between active involvement and inactivity, we should consider the notion that God never intended for the readers of the Bible to believe in it in the first place.
The One God Speaks in the Third Person
Further, these verses repeat the phrase "And the Lord said" several times. If these verses sought to describe a discussion between the Persons of the Trinity they should have said, "The Lord said" and "the Lord responded," as occurs when two or more parties are discussing a subject. While the repeated use of "And the Lord said" may sound awkward to the modern ear, in nevertheless indicates that He is simply speaking to Himself as a unified entity and not as multiple forms of consciousness.
There are other examples of God speaking to Himself in the Tanakh in the first person singular, such as Genesis 6:3 regarding the Flood, "And the Lord said, 'Let My spirit not quarrel forever concerning man..." If God wanted to indicate speech directed at somebody else He would have simply worded it as He does in countless places in the Tanakh, such as Genesis 18:13, "And the Lord said to Abraham...'"
Related to the idea that the Torah's use of the word "God" or "Lord" repeatedly in succession indicates the Trinity doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Compare Exodus 2:23-25 above with Genesis 19:24 below:
"And the Lord caused to rain down upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire, from the Lord, from heaven."
Related to this, there are several passages that refer to an individual several times by name in the same verse, such as the four below:
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.'"
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."
Exodus 32:16 - "Now the tablets were God's work, and the inscription was God's inscription, engraved on the tablets."
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."
Jonah 3:10 - "And God saw their deeds, that they had repented of their evil way, and the Lord relented concerning the evil that He had spoken to do to them, and He did not do it."
The following verse illustrates this point more clearly than the rest (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.
The word "God" is used five times in the verses above! Does this indicate that there are five Persons in the Godhead?
After providing some examples we can compare them with Genesis 19:24, the original verse used to prove the Trinity:
"And the Lord caused to rain down upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire, from the Lord, from heaven."
The above verses each indicate that referring to somebody multiple times in one verse, whether a human or God, is a common form of communication in the Tanakh. Because Genesis 19:24 above is based on the multiple appearance of "the Lord," we should note that Exodus 32:16 as well refers to "God" multiple times. However, we do not understand this to mean that one Person created the tablets and another wrote the inscription on the tablets, as well an argument that Christians do not make. Therefore we must conclude that Genesis 19:24 is demonstrably not speaking of the Trinity.
Rashi's Response
Rashi addresses this issue in his commentary on Genesis 19:24. According to him, the Torah often refers to people in the third person, even in statements when a person speaks about himself.
For example, in Genesis 4:23-24 Lemech refers to himself as "Lemech" and not as "me."
Now Lemech said to his wives, "Adah and Zillah, hearken to my voice; wives of Lemech, incline your ears to my words, for I have slain a man by wounding (him) and a child by bruising (him). If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, then for Lemech it shall be seventy seven fold."
Rashi as well refers to Melachim I (Kings) 1:33:
And the king said to them, "Take with you the servants of your lord, and you shall cause Solomon my son to ride on my own mule, and bring him down to Gihon."
The words "your lord" are a reference to King David, indicating that King David was speaking about himself.
This occurs as well in Esther 8:7-8:
Then King Ahasuerus said to Queen Esther and to Mordecai the Jew... And you-write about the Jews as you see fit, in the name of the king, and seal [it] with the king's ring, for a writ that is written in the name of the king and sealed with the king's ring cannot be rescinded."
Achashverosh refers to himself as "the king" four times.
Conclusion
Perhaps the quintessential example of this is Genesis 1:1 and 3 in which God says, "In the beginning of God's creation of the heavens and the earth... And God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light."
Note that it does not say, "In the beginning of My creation of the heavens and the earth... and I said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light." In the entire first chapter of Genesis God refers to Himself in the third person for a total of 32 times, not even once referring to Himself as "I" or "Me." This continues into Chapter 2 with 14 references in the third person.
It seems safe to conclude that Genesis 19:24 and verses like it are simply third person references to God.
Does the Torah say that the only way to be forgiven for aveiros (sins) is to bring animal sacrifices? This is an important question for Jews because many Christians make this argument as a case for Jesus.
What may surprise some is that the Torah lays out several ways to achieve genuine atonement, and the majority of them do not require animal sacrifices. The following are a few sources in the Tanakh describing how people achieve atonement without bringing animal sacrifices.
Genesis 18:26 - 'And the Lord said, 'If I find in Sodom fifty righteous men within the city, I will forgive the entire place for their sake.'"
Leviticus 5:11 - 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 for a sin offering. He shall not put oil over it, nor shall he place frankincense upon it, for it is a sin offering.
Jonah 3:8-10 - And they shall cover themselves with sackcloth, both man and beast, and they shall call mightily to God, and everyone shall repent of his evil way and of the dishonest gain which is in their hands. Whoever knows shall repent, and God will relent, and He will return from His burning wrath, and we will not perish. And God saw their deeds, that they had repented of their evil way, and the Lord relented concerning the evil that He had spoken to do to them, and He did not do it.
Samuel 2 12:13 - "And David said to Nathan: 'I have sinned against the Lord.' And Nathan said to David, 'Also the Lord has removed your sin; you shall not die.'"
Hosea 14:2-3 - Return, O Israel, to the Lord your God, for you have stumbled in your iniquity. Take words with yourselves and return to the Lord. Say, "You shall forgive all iniquity and teach us [the] good [way], and let us render [for] bulls [the offering of] our lips.
Note that Mishlei (Proverbs) 15:8 supports the above with the following, "The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination of the Lord, but the prayer of the upright is His will." The contrast between "the sacrifice (of the wicked)" and "prayer" indicates that tefilla can substitute for korbanos.
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.
Synopsis
One of these things is not like the other. In the ninth chapter in the book of Hebrews in the Christian Bible, Paul clearly states through two metaphors that God will only forgive you through the shedding of the blood of Jesus.
The verse in Genesis shows that God was ready to forgive without a sin offering.
The verse in Leviticus indicates that atonement could occur through means other than blood.
Like Genesis, Jonah and Samuel demonstrate that sin offerings are not required for forgiveness. Interestingly enough, Jonah can be taken as a proof that only Jews must bring sacrifices for atonement because Nineveh was a city of Gentiles.
Hosea indicates means that God accepts prayer as a means for forgiveness in the absence of a Temple. The phrase "let us render [for] bulls [the offering of] our lips" refers to the bulls that were sacrificed in the Temple to atone for sins. This verse associates "bulls" with "lips" (prayer), indicating that prayer was to replace sacrifices in the absence of the Temple. This is how we atone for our sins today.
It is noteworthy that God spoke to the prophet Hosea while the First Temple was still standing, which means that the Jews were technically still able to bring sacrifices at that time. It is in this context that Hosea 14:5 utters the beautiful words, "I will remedy their backsliding; I will love them freely, for My wrath has turned away from them." What did the Jews do for this wrath to be neutralized on a grand scale for the entire nation?
Then we have the odd man out, Hebrews 9:22, which insists that "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness." How did Paul, the Pharisee, (Acts 23:6) understand the verses that I quoted above?
If God were one Person, could He still achieve everything that the three Persons do individually? If you intuitively want to answer "yes" then you're sensing that the concept of the Trinity is redundant. If He can, then the Trinity divides between His abilities and assigns them to separate centers of consciousness.
For example, God can run the world, can forgive people, and can inspire them without delegating them respectively to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
This divine delegation "weakens" God because it means that He must assume three Persons to cover the full range of activity required of Him. If it is not due to weakness this means that God arbitrarily chose three instead of any other number. This leads to the question; why is three God's natural state, especially when Deuteronomy 6:4 (the Shema) says that "Hashem is our God, Hashem is One."
Speaking of "one," the Shema's formulation is actually quite strange. The first part makes sense - "Hashem is our God," but what does the second part mean - "Hashem is One"? If Hashem is our God, that means that only Hashem is our God and no other deity. But if the part means that only Hashem is our God, what meaning does the second part add?
If I may, we may break this verse down into two different fundamental concepts.
The first part means that no other gods exist, while the second part means that God's nature is completely unified. In other words, "Hashem is our God" refers to quantity, while "Hashem is One" refers to quality. Jews and Christians agree on God's quantity, i.e., that there are no other deities, but we do not agree on God's quality. Jews posit that God's quality is utterly unified and seamless, while Christians hold that His quality is essentially three-fold.
Perhaps the time-honored Shema is in fact a good, clear, and simple source for the long-held Jewish position that God is exclusive both in His existence and in His nature.
Is the Oral Law real? This a question that many Jews and Gentiles alike struggle with.
This post attempts to clarify this issue with a few sources from the Torah:
The first is Exodus 18:13-22, against the background of Yisro's (Jethro's) advice to Moshe to set up minor courts.
Here we see that Moses is being overwhelmed by the sheer volume of cases that he has to hear. If all of the information required for applying the laws of the Torah were written in the Torah, it should not have been so difficult for Moses to hear every case. And if we want to say that Moses was overwhelmed with the sheer volume of cases pertaining to the Written Torah, note that Moses says, "I make known the statutes of God and His teachings." Why does he have to make them known if they were already publicly revealed and written in the Torah? This is a reference to details in the Oral Law.
Leviticus 26:46
The second comes from Leviticus 26:46, stating, "These are the statutes, the ordinances, and the laws that the Lord gave between Himself and the children of Israel on Mount Sinai, by the hand of Moses." The different terms used to describe laws indicates both the oral and written aspects of the Torah.
Rashi explains that, "the (plural world) laws: וְהַתּוֹרוֹת... denotes two Torahs -] one Written Torah and one Oral Torah. It teaches us that all were given to Moses on [Mount] Sinai. — [Torath Kohanim 26:54]."
Deuteronomy 17:8-11
The third comes from Deuteronomy 17:8-11 where God tells the Jews to accept the authority of the Rabbi's. Rabbinic legislation is be followed as if it were given by God. This is not per se the Oral Law, as in the oral component of the Torah, but rather a reference to Rabbinic legislation that can be appended onto, and included in, Torah observance when the Rabbi's feel it is necessary and applicable.
Nechemiah 13:15-22
The fourth comes from Nechemiah 13:15-22, where the prophet Nechemiah sets up safeguards to prevent a group of Jews from violating the Sabbath by buying and selling on the Sabbath. Note that none of the things this group of was doing are mentioned by the Torah as Sabbath prohibitions. If so, why does Nechemiah say that they are "profaning the Sabbath day?" The answer is that he was referring to the Oral Law.
Isaiah 56:2
The fifth comes from Isaiah 58:13-14, which says, "If you restrain your foot because of the Sabbath, from performing your affairs on My holy day, and you call the Sabbath a delight..."
While Isaiah's reference to avoid profaning the Sabbath describes the actual negative prohibition of doing melocho (prohibited activities), it as well refers to the positive aspect, and the proper spirit, of Shabbos, "If you restrain your foot because of the Sabbath, from performing your affairs on My holy day, and you call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord honored, and you honor it by not doing your wonted ways, by not pursuing your affairs and speaking words."
This beautiful passage is the main part of the Kiddush used to welcome the Shabbos into our homes during the night.
This question was posed to Frank Turek during one of his live question and answer sessions: how can there be a Trinity if God is infinite? See below for his answer.
Response
God and the Trinity are both incomprehensible, but for different reasons. The human mind can't comprehend God because He is great beyond measure (like the ocean), but it can't comprehend the Trinity because it's logically invalid and undefined.
This is like the difference between thinking about infinity (God) and thinking about dividing a number by zero (the Trinity). We can define infinity (as an endless set of numbers) even while being completely unable to apprehend it any real way.
However, while we cannot define an undefined logical contradiction, in addition we are incapable of apprehending it.
You can actually ponder infinity, but you cannot ponder dividing a number by zero. This is because your mind can grasp the idea of adding another number forever, but it cannot grasp the idea of dividing a number by zero. For example, ten divided by five equals two, so the answer (two) multiplied by five must equal ten. However, this operation doesn't work with zero; if ten divided by zero is some number, that number times zero must be ten, which is impossible. Because this operation cannot be replicated when dividing by zero, mathematicians say that dividing something by zero is undefined. You cannot place your faith in something that is undefined.
Being a mystery is not what makes God great; being great while being apprehensible is what makes God great.
If God is Triune, and we are made in the image of God, why are we not triune? Why are we not one being made up of three distinct elements?
Many Christians will immediately respond by pointing out that human beings are made up of three distinct elements: body, spirit, and soul, or body, emotions, and intellect. Judaism agrees that a human being is composed of three distinct elements; nefesh, ruach, and neshama.
However, if we use Dr. William Lane Craig's description of the Persons of the Trinity as "three centers of self-consciousness," are we able to say that every human being is also made up of three distinct centers of self-consciousness?
When you think about the experience of your own existence, do you relate to yourself as one center of consciousness, or three? What would life be like if you were composed of three simultaneously and perpetually activated centers of consciousness? Would you be able to function normally?
What may be alarming to realize for Trinitarians is that your sense of being is intricately synchronized with one center of consciousness, that is, simply speaking, "you." In fact, Christianity is careful to define the Trinity as "one Being with three Persons," (with Person meaning "center of consciousness"), but if we are made in the image of God, and we are one being with one center of consciousness, it seems sensible that God is also one Being with one center of consciousness.
Now it is true that you may identify three distinct and natural elements of your being, but you do not experience them as three separate centers of consciousness. It's true that your body, emotions, and intellect filter information to you in three different ways, but they filter that information to one center of consciousness, to "you."
In other words, it is as if you are surrounded by a screen with three different openings, and stimulus from the environment reaches you from each of those openings. You are not in fact identical to those openings, but interact with them.
In fact, if you were to experience within yourself three centers of consciousness you may be described as suffering from split personality disorder, which is "a mental disorder where a person has two or more distinct personalities." It's disturbing to think that you cannot assume a likeness to a Triune God without becoming mentally ill.
To Be Like God, Think Like God
During Pesach we say the Hallel prayer every morning (Psalms 115:3-9):
But our God is in heaven; whatever He wishes, He does.
Their idols are silver and gold, the handiwork of man.
They have a mouth but they do not speak; they have eyes but they do not see.
They have ears but they do not hear; they have a nose but they do not smell.
Their hands-but they do not feel; their feet-but they do not walk; they do not murmur with their throat.
Like them shall be those who make them, all who trust in them.
Genesis 32 tells us that Jacob encountered and wrestled with "a man" on the return home from Lavan. What was the identity of this man?
Genesis 32:25: And Jacob was left alone, and a man (אִישׁ֙ - ish) wrestled with him until the break of dawn.
Rashi explains that "this was the prince (guardian angel) of Esau." (Genesis Rabbah 77:3, 78:3).
However, Christians maintain that this being was actually God Himself having taken the physical form of a man, known as a "theophany."
Genesis 32:29-31 says:
And he said, "Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, because you have commanding power with [an angel of] God (עִם־אֱלֹהִ֛ים) and with men, and you have prevailed." And Jacob asked and said, "Now tell me your name," and he said, "Why is it that you ask for my name?" And he blessed him there. And Jacob named the place Peniel, for [he said,] "I saw an angel (אֱלֹהִים֙) face to face, and my soul was saved."
Notice that the words marked in orange above are the Hebrew words used in the Torah, which in English are translated as "angel," but which in fact say "elohim." Christians who are aware of this translation, typically Messianic Jews, often use it to claim that the Jews are nervously trying to conceal the fact that God can and did materialize in human form in the Tanakh. They claim that the rabbis have tried to hide this fact, because if the Torah says that God takes physical form then more Jews will believe that Jesus was God.
A Hint in Hosea
However, the book of Hosea gives us a clear proof that the being with whom Jacob wrestled was indeed an angel beyond any reasonable doubt.
Hosea 12:3-5 says:
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 verse 4 above, the word elohim is once against used to describe the identity of this being that wrestled with Jacob. However, verse 5 explicitly refers to this same being as a malach, an angel. Now come, let us reason; 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).
To conclude, the ambiguity present in Genesis 32:29 is not present in Hosea 12:5, and we can be sure that Jacob indeed wrestled with an actual angel and not with anything else.
Jacob, Commander over Angels
There is, however, another proof that Jacob wrestled with an angel and did not encounter a theophany. Genesis 32:4 tells us: Jacob sent angels (מַלְאָכִים֙ - malachim) ahead of him to his brother Esau, to the land of Seir, the field of Edom.
Did he send angels ahead of him, or did he send theophanies ahead of him? Rashi says that Jacob sent literal angels, i.e., that he had commanding power over angels. This is confirmed by what "the man" tells Jacob: "...because you have commanding power with [an angel of] God (עִם־אֱלֹהִ֛ים) and with men, and you have prevailed."
What seems relatively clear is that Jacob's angels went to Esav, and Esav's angel went to Jacob, i.e., they encountered each other's angels. This culminates in Jacob's defeat of Esav's angel, indicating that he finally gained the upper-hand over him in the spiritual realm.
To contrast, what purpose would have there been in Jacob wrestling with God? And if Jacob did wrestle with God, how is it possible for him to have beat Him? Did God let him win like a father lets his son beat him at arm-wrestling?
Does The Word Echad Mean A Simple or Complex Unity?
As of late some Christians have made the argument that the Hebrew word echad, meaning "one," actually connotes a "complex unity." "Complex unity" refers to something that is one in essence, but is comprised of separate parts. This is in contrast to the word yachid, which they claim refers to a "simple unity," meaning something that is one unified whole not composed of any parts. The purpose of this claim is to show that the Trinity is found in the Tanakh, which they maintain is the true meaning of the Shema in Deuteronomy 6:4:
Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God; the Lord is one.
This is largely taken to be based on the first two instances of the word echad in the Torah, Genesis 1:5 and Genesis 2:24, as well as other verses. These verses refer to particular things or people that are composed of several parts, but are nevertheless one thing, such as the first day being composed of "evening" and "morning."
The following are examples of the word echad used in the Torah:
Genesis 1:15 - And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night, and it was evening and it was morning, one day.
Notice that the day is composed of two elements; evening and morning. In this way Christians argue that the word echad refers only to things that are made up of more than one element. This argument is used as the central proof for the Trinity - if the Torah refers to God as echad, then He must be a compound unity.
Genesis 2:24 - Therefore, a man shall leave his father and his mother, and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Numbers 13:23 - They came to the Valley of Eshkol and they cut a branch with a (one) cluster of grapes. They carried it on a pole between two [people] and [they also took] some pomegranates and figs.
Ezekiel 37:17 - And bring them close, one to the other into one stick, and they shall be one in your hand.
While the above is a good observation, all four examples are used as descriptions of created things that exist in the environment, and not to the uncreated God, Who does not exist in the environment. Because God is fundamentally different than anything else that exists, the descriptions in the above verses cannot be used to describe God.
Further, the examples above refer to things that were initially separate entities that were joined together; the evening and night were joined to create the first day, and Adam and Eve joined together to create "one flesh." This joining of separate entities is not the Christian view of the Persons of God, who are said to have existed together eternally in hypostasis. Therefore this application of the word echad in the Torah may accurately describe several finite things, but does not apply to God.
In fact, the word echad is also used in Genesis in one place to indicate simple unity, the opposite of joining, as in Genesis 2:10:
And a river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it separated and became four heads. The name of one (echad) is Pishon; that is the one that encompasses all the land of Havilah, where there is gold. And the gold of that land is good; there is the crystal and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon; that is the one that encompasses all the land of Cush. And the name of the third river is Tigris; that is the one that flows to the east of Assyria, and the fourth river that is the Euphrates.
The verses above indicate that a river flowed out of Eden and broke into four separate and smaller rivers. Notice that the cardinal word "one" is used for the first river, and the ordinal words "second," "third," and "fourth" are used for the rest. This is reminiscent of the usage of the cardinal number for "Day One" and the ordinal numbers for the rest of the days (day one, second day, third day, etc...). If echad means complex unity, that word should have been used to describe the group of four rivers, but not to describe one of the rivers in that group.
In other words, the word echad in this verse is used very differently from its use to describe the first day. In Genesis 1:15, the word echad indicates two elements coming together to form one thing. In Genesis 2:10, the word echad is used to indicate something that is not composed of many parts, and stands alone. While we know that rivers are certainly composed of many elements, for the sake of the argument we are not focusing on what we know of rivers, but of what the Torah tells us in this particular verse. This use of the word echad demonstrates an example of echad used to show simplicity instead of complexity.
Interestingly, some Christians make the argument that the word echad is to be distinguished from yachid, only the latter of which means a simple, inseparable unity, while the former indicates complexity:
The following are examples from the Tanakh of the word yachid:
Genesis 22:2 - And He said, "Please take your son, your only one (yechidchah), whom you love, yea, Isaac, and go away to the land of Moriah and bring him up there for a burnt offering on one of the mountains, of which I will tell you."
Genesis 22:12 - And he said, "Do not stretch forth your hand to the lad, nor do the slightest thing to him, for now I know that you are a God fearing man, and you did not withhold your son, your only one (yechidchah), from Me."
Genesis 22:16 - And he said, "By Myself have I sworn, says the Lord, that because you have done this thing and you did not withhold your son, your only one (yechidchah)...
Judges 11:34 - And Jephthah came to Mizpah, to his house, and behold, his daughter was coming out towards him with timbrels and with dances, and she was an only (yechidah) child, he had from her neither a son nor a daughter.
Jeremiah 6:26 - O daughter of My people, gird yourself with sackcloth and roll in ashes; make yourself a mourning [as] for an only (yachid) child, a bitter lamentation, for suddenly the plunderer will come upon us.
The above examples are used to demonstrate that when God sought to describe simple unity, He used word the word yachid. Notice that every instance of the word yachid above indicates simple unity; in none of these examples does the word describe something that is composed of many parts. It can therefore be reasoned that God uses the word echad to describe a complex unity.
However, this distinction is not as simple as we may think. Note that Genesis 22:2 actually includes both the words yachid (your only son) and echad (one of the mountains), indicating that both words can mean "one" in the simple sense. The word echad here refers to one mountain; it does not refer to one mountain formed of many elements as in "day one" formed of evening and morning. This teaches us that the word echad does not have a fixed, formulaic meaning as some Christians advance, but that the word is in fact used in different contexts to describe either simplicity or complexity.
The above argument also overlooks the high volume of verses in which the word echad is used strictly to describe simplicity, discussed in the next section.
There are many places in the Torah where the word echad is used in the traditional sense of meaning one, undivided or indivisible thing. The following list shows the 29 instances of the word "one," echad, in Genesis alone. Out of those 29 (orange), only 13 (green) can be understood as indicating a complex unity, or one referring to a grouping of other items:
Genesis 1:9 - And God said, "Let the water that is beneath the heavens gather into one place, and let the dry land appear," and it was so."
Genesis 3:22 - Now the Lord God said, "Behold man has become like one of us, having the ability of knowing good and evil, and now, lest he stretch forth his hand and take also from the Tree of Life and eat and live forever."
Genesis 4:19 - And Lemech took himself two wives; one was named Adah, and the other was named Zillah.
Genesis 10:25 - And to Eber were born two sons: one was named Peleg, because in his days the earth was divided, and the name of his brother was Joktan.
Genesis 11:1 - Now the entire earth was of onelanguage and uniform words.
Genesis 11:3 - And they said to one another, "Come, let us make bricks and fire them thoroughly"; so the bricks were to them for stones, and the clay was to them for mortar.
Genesis 11:6 - And the Lord said, "Lo! [they are] onepeople, and they all have onelanguage, and this is what they have commenced to do. Now, will it not be withheld from them, all that they have planned to do?
Genesis 19:9 - But they said, "Back away." And they said, "This one came to sojourn, and he is judging! Now, we will deal even worse with you than with them." And they pressed hard upon the man Lot, and they drew near to break the door.
Genesis 21:5 - And the water was depleted from the leather pouch, and she cast the child under one of the bushes.
Genesis 22:2 - And He said, "Please take your son, your only one, whom you love, yea, Isaac, and go away to the land of Moriah and bring him up there for a burnt offering on oneof the mountains, of which I will tell you."
Genesis 27:38 - And Esau said to his father, "Have you [but] one blessing, my father? Bless me too, my father." And Esau raised his voice and wept.
Genesis 32:9 - And he said, "If Esau comes to onecamp and strikes it down, the remaining camp will escape."
Genesis 33:13 - And he said to him, "My master knows that the children are tender, and the flocks and the cattle, which are raising their young, depend upon me, and if they overdrive them one day, all the flocks will die.
Genesis 34:16 - Then we will give you our daughters, and we will take your daughters for ourselves, and we will dwell with you and become onepeople.
Genesis 37:20 - So now, let us kill him, and we will cast him into one of the pits, and we will say, 'A wild beast devoured him,' and we will see what will become of his dreams."
Genesis 40:5 - Now both of them dreamed a dream, each one his dream on the same night, each man according to the interpretation of his dream, the cupbearer and the baker of the king of Egypt, who were confined in the prison.
Genesis 41:5 - And he fell asleep and dreamed again, and behold, seven ears of grain were growing on onestalk, healthy and good.
Genesis 42:11 - We are all sons of one man. We are honest. Your servants were never spies."
Genesis 42:13 - And they said, "We, your servants, are twelve brothers, the sons of one man in the land of Canaan, and behold, the youngest is with our father today, and oneis gone."
Genesis 42:16 - Send oneof you and let him fetch your brother, and you will be imprisoned so that your words will be tested whether truth is with you, and if not, as Pharaoh lives, you are spies!"
Genesis 42:19 - If you are honest, your onebrother will be confined in your prison, and you, go bring the grain for the hunger of your households.
Genesis 42:27 - The oneopened his sack to give fodder to his donkey at the lodging place, and he saw his money there it was, in the mouth of his sack.
Genesis 42:32 - We are twelve brothers, the sons of our father; one is gone, and today the youngest is with our father in the land of Canaan.
Genesis 42:33 - And the man, the lord of the land, said to us, 'With this I will know that you are honest; leave one of your brothers with me, and [what is needed for] the hunger of your households, take and go.
Genesis 44:28 - The onewent away from me, and I said, "He has surely been torn to pieces, and I have not seen him since."
Genesis 48:22 - And I have given you one portion over your brothers, which I took from the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow."
Genesis 49:16 - Dan will avenge his people, like one, the tribes of Israel.
If the word echad is used in the simple sense in the majority of its uses in Genesis, we can expect a similar pattern in the rest of the books of Tanakh, such as the following;
Joshua 17:14 - And the children of Joseph spoke to Joshua, saying, "Why have you given me one lot and one portion for an inheritance, seeing I am a numerous people, forasmuch as the Lord has blessed me thus?"
2 Samuel 13:30 - And I, where shall I lead my shame? And [as for] you, you shall be like one of the profligate men in Israel. And now I beg of you to speak to the king, for he will not withhold me from you.
2 Samuel 17:12 - And we shall come upon him in some place where he is found, and we shall light upon him, as the dew falls on the ground; and there shall not be left of him, and of all the men that are with him, even one.
Zechariah 14:7 - And it shall be one day that shall be known to the Lord, neither day nor night; and it shall come to pass that at eventide it shall be light.
Ecclesiastes 4:8 - There is one, and there is no second; yea, he has neither son nor brother, and there is no end to all his toil; neither is his eye sated from wealth. Now for whom do I toil and deprive my soul of pleasure? This too is vanity and an unhappy affair.
What is also telling is that Genesis 1:26, held by Christians as a reference to the Trinity, does not use the word echad, instead opting to use "Us" and "Our."
Genesis 1:26 - And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heaven and over the animals and over all the earth and over all the creeping things that creep upon the earth."
If God wanted to tell us that the word echad is a complex unity, that word would have been very hard to deny used in Genesis 1:26, the context of which is supposedly the Trinity. Imagine Genesis 1:26 as follows:
"And God said, 'I am One. Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness...'"
That would have added fuel to Christianity's argument, although still not explicit. Because Genesis 1:26 is not written in this way we can safely assume that its intent was not to refer to the Trinity.
In a world of separation and classification, it is more awe-inspiring that God can be completely and seamlessly unified than being a complex unity, which wouldn't make Him very different from the created world. Interestingly, William Lane Craig, “an American analytic philosopher and Christian theologian, apologist, and author" and "Professor of Philosophy at Houston Baptist University and Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology,” describes God as a simple Being, which contradicts the view that He is a complex unity.
Admittedly, Craig is referring to God's lacking any physical components, but his argument can be applied to God's nature as well. Further, God's taking a physical form as a man therefore introduces complexity into an otherwise simple Being by Craig's own reasoning.
Craig says, "When you reflect on the idea that God is an immaterial entity - a spirit, He is a mind without a body - then God is a remarkably simple entity, because He has no parts. There's no composition in God's Being. An unembodied mind is an entity that is startlingly simple in its nature."
If God's being immaterial is the condition that makes Him simple, His assuming a material form must make Him complex. "Becoming Jesus" turned God from a simple into a complex being, His human form fragmenting His otherwise perfectly simple nature.
Zechariah 14:9 - And the Lord shall become King over all the earth; on that day shall the Lord be one, and His name one.
The word, "Antichrist," is only found in the Bible in 1 and 2 John and occurs both in singular and plural forms. It represents all that is hostile to God. In 2 Thessalonians 2, Paul refers to this person as the Man of Lawlessness. He puts himself in place of God’s law. That’s why he’s the Man of Lawlessness. And he’s a figure who the Bible repeatedly points to arising in the end times. There have been many, clearly, who are anti-Christ in one way or another, but here is the person who will be the distillation of opposition to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
This is basically identical to the Muslim view of the Antichrist (Dajjal), who is the "false messiah (al-maseeh al-dajjaal). According to Islamqa, he is:
...a man created by Allaah, who will appear at the end of time because of something that makes Allaah angry. He will spread corruption on earth and will claim divinity, calling on people to worship him. They will be tested by the extraordinary powers that Allaah will grant him, such as causing rain to fall, reviving the earth with vegetation and extracting the treasures of the earth. He will be a young man with a ruddy complexion, short of stature, with curly hair. He will be one-eyed; his right eye will be flat and his other eye will have a thick piece of flesh over it. Written between his eyes will be the word “Kaafir” (disbeliever). Most of those who follow him will be Jews. He will meet his end at the hands of ‘Eesa ibn Maryam (Jesus the son of Mary) who will kill him with a spear in Lod, which is in Palestine.
Why Is Belief In The Antichrist Not Monotheistic?
The problem is that belief in the Antichrist is rooted in a theologically dualistic understanding of God. Theological dualism is the "concept that the world is ruled by the antagonistic forces of good and evil." In our terms these antagonistic forces are God and Satan. In this worldview Satan is disobedient to God and seeks to overthrow Him. The Antichrist facilitates Satan's will and leads this battle against God at the end of times.
Judaism and Christianity differ in their view of Satan's relationship with sin. The Jewish view is that even sin falls under the domain of God's sovereignty, with Satan being the angel programmed to tempt humanity, and with angels having no free will. The Christian view is that Satan was the most supreme and beautiful angel who became proud and rebelled against God. Sin, therefore, is not a function falling under the domain of God's sovereignty, but is the attempt of a prideful free-willed angel to overthrow God's dominion.
If Satan rebelled against God and was cast out of Heaven, why does he have to follow particular rules? Either he rebelled and no rules apply to him, or he didn't and he has to follow all of the rules, but both cannot be true.
Islam differs slightly from Christianity and offers a description more similar to Judaism in which Satan's job is to tempt humanity. According to Islamqa's article Shaytaan’s Enmity Towards Man:
(Allaah) said: "Go, and whosoever of them follows you, surely, Hell will be the recompense of you (all) an ample recompense.
And befool them gradually those whom you can among them with your voice (i.e. songs, music, and any other call for Allaah’s disobedience), make assaults on them with your cavalry and your infantry, share with them wealth and children (by tempting them to earn money by illegal ways usury, or by committing illegal sexual intercourse), and make promises to them." But Satan promises them nothing but deceit. (al-Israa’ 17:62-64 – interpretation of the meaning)
Conclusion - If God Is Sovereign, Satan Cannot Be Disobedient
Even though Islam satisfactorily rejects certain theological errors in Christianity, such as the Trinity and the incarnation of God, its belief in the Antichrist commits the same theologically dualistic error as Christianity, although perhaps less dramatically. In Islam the Dajjal's job is to advance the goal of evil, but it isn't entirely clear that he is doing this on behalf of God's Will, but rather as a form of rebellion against Him. Anything that puts Satan's activity on earth outside of God's sovereignty falls outside the domain of monotheistic thought.
If Satan's job is to deceive Man, he is under God's control. But if he is disobedient to God, then he is not under God's control, which are mutually exclusive postulates. He cannot do his job properly while being disobedient to God any more than a rogue program can function correctly while inaccessible to the developer. Only God knows how to precisely oversee the process through which Man is tempted.
Therefore Satan's task of tempting Man needs to be performed without question to ensure that Man is tempted properly and to bring about the best good. Angels were therefore created without free will, including Satan. If they don't do their job properly, the system crashes, which can't happen as long as God is the Developer.
See below for Ray Comfort's question to people on the street:
Proof From the Christian Scriptures
There is somebody in the Christian Scriptures who kept all ten commandments, and it was not Jesus:
17: "As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. 'Good teacher,' he asked, 'what must I do to inherit eternal life?'"
18: "'Why do you call me good?' Jesus answered. 'No one is good--except God alone."
19: "You know the commandments: 'You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.'''
20: "Teacher,' he declared, 'all these I have kept since I was a boy.'" (Mark 10:17-20)
I guess this man was good and will be saved by his works.
Is The Punishment For Transgression Hell?
The fallacy with this question is that God does not send you to Hell for transgressing the ten commandments, which is neither said directly nor even implied in the Jewish Scriptures. He doesn't send you to Hell for transgressing all 613 either. It seems to be an idea that developed in Christian thought.
According to Blue Letter Bible, "The things that God revealed to humanity were not all given at once. His revelation was given in stages." This essay addresses four issues with the concept of progressive revelation. The first is that there are no indications of progressive revelation occurring within the Torah. The second is that progressive relation prevents people from knowing the truth in the present. The third is that the Trinity, a product of progressive revelation, is too similar to polytheism for comfort. The fourth is that once such a claim is made, it is repeatedly claimed by subsequent religions.
Issue 1 - One Does Not Observe Progressive Revelation In The Tanakh
It's easy to believe that progressive relation occurs as one crosses over from the Jewish Scriptures to the Christian Scriptures; this is exactly the argument you would expect somebody to make to authenticate their own scriptures. But progressive revelation indicates that it occurred either gradually or at certain intervals, with the Christian Scriptures being the final stage. That would mean that one would be able to identify progressive revelation occurring within the Tanakh, of which there are no genuinely satisfying examples.
The Blue Letter Bible says that the Tanakh is incomplete because it contains prophecies that remain unfulfilled: "In addition, the Old Testament records predictions that were still to be fulfilled. For example, the Old Testament ends with the promise of the coming of Elijah who will prepare the way for the promised deliverer - the Messiah." The unfulfilled status of the Tanakh's prophecies does not mean that it is flawed, it just means that those events have not occurred yet, and that their occurrence will not be canonized in the Tanakh. This is like saying that a teenager isn't perfect because they haven't reached maturity yet.
Out of a genuine respect for the Jewish Scriptures, the Blue Letter Bible assures us that being incomplete is not synonymous with being less true: "Progressive revelation does not mean to say that the Old Testament is somehow less true than the New Testament. The progress was not from untruth to truth - it was from less information to more full information." While this is a gracious nod to the Tanakh, equating "more" with "more correct" is nevertheless not always true. Sometimes less is more: "Do not add to the word which I command you..." (Deuteronomy 4:2)
Issue 2 - It Prevents People From Knowing God In The Present
If God seeks people to know Him, why would He keep His true nature from His people and from the entire human race until a relatively late point in history? One explanation provided by Catholic.com relates the advice given to the author by a college professor: "A college professor of mine once said to be leery of someone who tells you everything about himself in the first five minutes you know him. Jesus did not do this, and neither has the Father."
While this may be true of strangers that you meet on the street or in the doctor's office, it isn't true of people with which you have a serious and intimate relationship. Nominally speaking, it's critical to discover the most important aspects of a person before, say, getting married to them. Insofar as the relationship between God and the Jews is like a marriage, it would be critical to have an accurate conception of God's Nature before going to the chuppah, which was Mount Sinai. It would be highly unfortunate to discover ten years into the marriage that your spouse was schizophrenic. Isaiah 55:8 says, "'For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways,' says the Lord."The way human beings do things is not necessarily the way that God does them.
Issue 3 - The Trinity Is Too Similar to Polytheism
Perhaps God withheld the Trinity from the Jews due to the concern that they would confuse it with polytheism. This is another explanation advanced by Catholic.com: "In the Old Testament God needed to establish monotheism for the Jews to make them stand apart from all the polytheistic religions that abounded. Monotheism was almost unheard of, and if Yahweh had tried announcing that he is three Persons the people of the day might have misunderstood it as Tritheism, which is a heresy."
It does not evince much confidence in the Trinity to suggest that the Jews (or anybody else) would have mistaken it for polytheism. Surely the Jews had enough experience with said transgression, both from observing it all around them in a variety of forms, and from experiencing it first hand, to know the difference between polytheism and genuine monotheism. It is patronizing and insults peoples' intelligence to suggest that "God needed to establish monotheism for the Jews to make them stand apart from all the polytheistic religions" only to invite them into a relationship that was almost just as scandalous. If polytheism is prostitution, the Trinity is an escort service.
This site also argues that today "we have enough trouble trying to get people to believe in the one true God, let alone many. Thus the New Testament was a better time for God to have revealed his true nature, now that the danger of a polytheistic misunderstanding had been eliminated." What this ignores is that while polytheism is arguably not in fashion today, it was abundant in the era in which the New Testament was written and in the places that the Roman Empire occupied. The Trinity found itself in good company during that era and region and didn't overtly conflict with polytheism as Judaism did.
How do we know that progressive revelation has stopped on the Christian Scriptures? While Jews contend with Christians over the impossibility and error of progressive revelation into Christianity, Christians contend with more than one group, namely Muslims and Mormons. While the Muslim claim precedes Mormonism, Mormonism claims to be the correct understanding of Christianity. Each of these groups advances the notion that progressive revelation continued after the Christian Scriptures into their own scriptures; the Book of Mormon or the Q'uran. There is an old joke that Jews like to tell; Why did God create Mormons? So Christians would know how Jews feel.
According to the Mormon site The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, "'The Book of Mormon is another witness of Jesus Christ and confirms the truths found in the Holy Bible. Far from undermining the Bible, the Book of Mormon supports its testimony of Jesus Christ. One passage says that the Book of Mormon “shall establish the truth” of the Bible “and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world; and that all men must come unto him, or they cannot be saved' (1 Nephi 13:40)."
According to Islamweb.net, "Allah, The Almighty, revealed the Quran to be His last, all-embracing Scripture containing the final manifestation of the Divine Law. This necessitates that it has to be safeguarded from the mischievous hands of men and from all corruption. This protection has been a reality from the time the Quran was revealed until today and will remain so forever." It also says that the "'Islamic Law is lasting, remaining suitable for every place and time, and embracing the goodness of the previous manifestations of the Law. Allah Says (what means): “And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it.' [Quran 5:48]"
The above explanations sound structurally similar to Christianity's description of the relationship between the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. According to Christianity.com: "The religion of the Old Testament is the embryo of Christianity. The Old Testament is the gospel in the bud. The New Testament is the gospel in full flower. The saints in the Old Testament saw many things through a glass darkly. But they all looked by faith to the same Savior and were led by the same Spirit as ourselves." It also says, "The relation between our Lord's teaching and that of the Old Testament is cleared up by our Lord in one striking sentence. He says, 'Don't think that I came to destroy the law, or the prophets. I didn't come to destroy, but to fulfill' (Matthew 5:17)."
What does the Torah say about this matter? Deuteronomy 4:2 says, "Do not add to the word which I command you, nor diminish from it, to observe the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you." While Christians, Muslims, and Mormons all understand this verse as a prohibition of adding to their own own scriptures, Jews see it in its original context of not adding anything to the Torah.
A religion claiming to have received an updated vision will by definition reject all of its predecessor's objections. It rejects their objections on the grounds they were not the recipients of the new revelation. If they had received the new revelation then they would have no objections to it. This is a circular argument designed to prevent people from analyzing the contents of a prophecy critically.
There is therefore no good way to prevent new religions from forever claiming that they have received a new revelation, but there is a good way to prevent people from believing them. God explicitly inoculated the Jews against this form of deceit in two verses: Deuteronomy 13:1 through 6 and Deuteronomy 18:20: "Now if you say to yourself, 'How will we know the word that the Lord did not speak?' If the prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, and the thing does not occur and does not come about, that is the thing the Lord did not speak. The prophet has spoken it wantonly; you shall not be afraid of him."
In the latter verse, God legitimizes the Jews' suspicion that a prophet may be lying. This is demonstrated by the fact that He provides them with the criteria for distinguishing between true and false prophets. Claiming to have received prophecy to substantiate prophecy is considered to be an illegitimate means of verification. The only legitimate means of verification is empirical. In contrast to the Jews' complaining and rebelling against God in the desert, He does not see this question as a sign of stubbornness or rebellion, but as a sign of their willingness to follow Him.
