Inconsequential

When one reads through the list of actual Messianic prophecies we see many significant things that will occur. All the Jews are returned to their homeland in Israel. They will have peace from their enemies. They will be united under one king. The Temple will be rebuilt. It is for these reasons that Jews who are faithful to Torah have anxiously awaited the coming of the Mashiach. Even in regard to the "Second Coming", l'havdil, Christians eagerly await the resurrection and eternal life which await them.

When reading a missionaries list of "fulfilled" prophecies you will also see some "significant" events. The Nazarene's atoning death. His resurrection. His alleged deity. However, unlike the true Messianic prophecies you will see something else. Numerous otherwise insignificant details are "predicted". The Nazarene's garment would be gambled for. He would live in Egypt. He was born in Bethlehem. These events, being "prophecies", help "identify" Messiah however they have no significance in and of them self.

What if God had ordained Messiah be born in Egypt and live in Bethlehem? Provided He assured Scripture was composed accordingly there would be no significant difference? What if He decided instead of gambling for the Nazarene’s garments that someone would purchase them? Would this affect Christian theology or the nature of Messiah at all? No. The change would only be cosmetic.

One must wonder why otherwise insignificant details “identify” the Messiah at his "First coming". One must also wonder why such insignificant details are conspicuously missing from the "Second Coming" prophecies. It is because these insignificant details are in fact not Messianic Prophecies. Rather they are verses which Christians need to construe as Messianic in order to provide some link for the Nazarene to the Hebrew Scriptures.

Out of Context

Clearly the best way of understanding a verse is to read the passages surrounding it.  Likewise other parts of the T'nakh can shed light on the meaning of a verse. But when we read "Messianic Prophecies" the interpretations given by Christians frequently they have no relation to the context of the verse.¹ While the passage clearly speaks about a specific topic, Christians attribute Messianic significance to it. Often this divergence from the plain meaning of the text is obvious and not up to debate among reasonable people.

Christians, when forced to concede that the passage was not intended as Messianic by its author, frequently argue that it has a secondary meaning.  Messianic's apologist especially will use traditionally Jewish terms such as "Midrash" to describe their interpretations. But regardless of whether or not one cloaks this approach in Jewish trimming or not, it is clear that such a method is prone to abuse. It leaves one with no way to determine an authentic Messianic prophecy from a false and contrived one. Since the interpretation is un-falsifiable it is likewise unable to be established as intended by the author, God.

And Christians themselves would not accept this methodology from missionaries representing groups they deem deviant. Any knowledgeable evangelical Christian would scoff at a Mormon who came knocking at his door offering verses whose interpretation bears no resemblance to the context.  During my time in the Church the most common generic charge against the Watchtower Society or the LDS was that they take verses out of context.² Nevertheless when it comes to identifying the Messiah, whom they say you must believe in or face eternal condemnation, they offer up proofs of the same caliber without any way to establish theirs as legitimate and their opponents as spurious:

It is always good to use Scripture verses to prove a teaching or principle, but it is important not to lift a verse out of its context; otherwise, as we have previously seen, instead of it being a proof text, it becomes a pretext. (LaHay, How to Study the Bible for Yourself. page 160

‘For example,’ he said, ‘failing to understand the context of the passage. This is the most common mistake critics make. Taking words out of context, you can even cause the Bible to prove there’s no God. After all, Psalm 14:1 comes right out and says it: “there is no God.’ But, of course, in context it says, The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ Therefore, context is critically important, and most often critics are guilty of wrenching verses out of context to create an alleged discrepancy when there isn’t one.’ (Case for Faith, page 138)

The Qumran sect, however, does not always give us such clarification. It had its own method of Biblical interpretation, which shows the dangers of a predetermined point of view on the meaning of the text. The sect interpreted the Old Testament against the background of its own belief that it was living in the last days, and thus discovered, so it believed, that the prophets had prophesied almost exclusively of those days. Therefore, by allegory and variant reading and words out of context, the sect found guidance in the prophets for the last, difficult times in which they lived.”(Laurin, Hermeneutics, page 74, italics mine.).

Indeed, Christians calling out others whose approach to scriptural interpretation is wanting goes back to some of the earliest Church Fathers:

Irenaeus precisely stressed the atomistic and incoherent use of Scripture by the Gnostics. "They abuse the scriptures by endeavouring to support their own system out of them." In a famous passage he asserts, "They disregard the order and the connection of scriptures...just as if one, when a beautiful image of a king has been constructed...out of precious jewels, should this take the likeness of the man all to pieces, should re-arrange the gems, and so fit them together as to make them into the form of a dog or of a fox...and should then maintain and declare that this was the beautiful image of the king." [Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1:9:1, 1:8:1]. Irenaeus calls, in effect, for a proper attention to context and genre, and attention to other parts of the Bible." (Hermeneutics: An Introduction, page 96).

Furthermore, amongst themselves Evangelical Christians are prone to adopting such an approach. When dealing with other areas of doctrine Christians tend to avoid any form of interpretation than understanding what the author meant given the immediate context of the passage, albeit illuminated by the history and cultural background. However, when it comes to Messianic prophecies they break with their normal approach. There are, in my opinion, two reasons for this. First is that the Christian Bible itself takes verses out of context. Since they cannot concede that their Bible made and error in its interpretation of T'nakh they must attribute a "creative" method of interpretation. The second is that, frankly, without taking verses out of context there would be little to no basis for Christianity in the T'nakh. But finding their doctrines in the T'nakh is what "proves" that their faith is a continuation and "perfection" of that of Jewish peoples. They are forced to use “creative” methods of interpretation to establish their legitimacy.

In contrast, it is precisely due to these difficulties that Judaism no longer originates new "d’rashoth", interpretations of scripture that go beyond the literal meaning. While we have many ancient and authoritative d’rashoth from the Sages, we no longer have the full methodology by which they developed their interpretations.³ Homiletical liberties may still be taken but their acceptance lies in their consistency with the corpus of Jewish teachings and not from the authority of the Biblical derivation. So although we do have quite a few of the rules which the Sages used we do not have a complete set and accordingly we do not have the authority to originate new ideas whose foundation is dubious.


¹The propensity for sectarians to interpret Scripture contrary to the context was already noted in Talmudic times, “R. Johanan said: In all the passages which the Minim have taken [as grounds] for their heresy, their refutation is found near at hand.” (Sanhedrin 38b, Soncino Translation).
²”The average non-Christian cult owes its very existence to the fact that it has utilized the terminology of Christianity, has borrowed liberally from the Bible (almost always out of context), and sprinkled its format with evangelical clichés and terms wherever possible or advantageous.” (Kingdom of the Cults, page 30).
³ For an overview and sources on our inability to apply traditional Talmudic methods of exegesis to written Torah see Gateway to the Talmud, page 120 (ArtScroll Mesorah).

The Method of our Counter-Missionary Approach

While we may on occasion stray from the primary focus of our counter-missionary posts, our aim is fairly straight forward, to evaluate the claim that the Nazarene was predicted in the Jewish Bible, the Hebrew Scriptures. We will attempt to avoid rabbit trails such as whether there are minor, or major, inconsistencies in the Christian Bible or other similar, secondary, issues. Most people would concede that if it could be shown that the Nazarene was uniquely predicted in the Hebrew Bible hundreds of years before he was born that it would be reasonable (to say the least) to become his follower. But conversely the truth of Christianity and the propriety of following the Nazarene is absolutely contingent on his being specifically predicted in the Hebrew Bible, principally because not only is he claimed to be the Messiah of the Hebrew Bible but he also claims to be predicted in the Hebrew Bible and criticizes others for not finding him there. Similar claims are also made by the writers of the Christian Bible.

The Nazarene is reported as having said:

 And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent. You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life…But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?” (John 5:37-40, 45-47 NIV).

Similarly the apostle Peter is quoted as, "Now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders. But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Christ would suffer.” (Acts 3:17-18). The suffering of the Nazarene was “foretold” or “announced” (see Jay P. Greens, Pocket Interlinear New Testament, page 328), by all the prophets, we are told.

"Literal" Interpretation

While I hope to return to the Christian Bible’s many claims of predictions of the Nazarene I think it is necessary to touch upon the proper way to approach the meaning of Scriptures. Orthodox Judaism and orthodox Christianity both affirm the truth of the plain meaning of scriptures, and the evangelical branch of orthodox Christianity generally eschews any other meaning of Scripture. Typical of the later position is the maxim, “When the plain sense makes good sense, seek no other sense.”¹ In the Jewish tradition, however, we are told, “אֵין מִקְרָא יוֹצֵא מִידֵי פְּשׁוּטוֹ” (Yevamos 24a and elsewhere), a verse does not depart from its simple meaning; leaving room for additional layers of meaning.

The “simple” or “plain” or “literal” interpretation does not mean that we ignore or deny the use of idioms, figures of speech, hyperbole or symbolism. Literal interpretation means we approach the text attempting to understand what the author (with respect to scripture either the human or the divine author) was trying to communicate with the assumption that, unless there are cues to the contrary, what is said is what is meant. Some refer to this as a “normal” reading of the Bible, "A normal reading of Scripture is synonymous with a consistent literal, grammatico-historical hermeneutic. When a literal hermeneutic is applied to the interpretation of Scripture, every word written in Scripture is given the normal meaning it would have in its normal usage. Proponents of a consistent, literal reading of Scripture prefer the phrase a normal reading of Scripture to establish the difference to establish the difference between literalism and letterism. (An Introduction to Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics, page 33).

Exceptions for Christian Bible

Evangelical Christians are strong defenders of plain or “literal” interpretation, and can illustrate how straying from the plain meaning of Scripture caused the Church Fathers and the Roman Catholic Church to produce untenable “interpretations” which read in their beliefs and doctrines into the Bible and how many false doctrines are based off of taking verses out of context. "Allegorical interpretation allows the exegete to manipulate the text to support his or her presuppositions." (Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics, page 38.) 

Nevertheless they are unable to hold the authors of the Christian Bible to the same standard:

It would probably be hazardous to assert that the way in which the New Testament interpreted particular passages of the Old Testament was meant to be the norm of all Biblical exegesis. Yet the example given of the New Testament is a very important clue to a true interpretation of Sacred Scriptures…They did not, therefore, narrowly confine their interpretation and use of the Old Testament in terms of the immediate historic context in which any particular passage was uttered or written. (Roger Nicole, Hermeneutics, page 47)

The New Testament usage of the Old Testament that probably raises the most questions with regard to hermeneutical legitimacy involves the fulfillment passages. To the English reader it may seem that the New Testament writer is giving an interpretation to these verses different from the original intention of the Old Testament author.(Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation, page 50).

The ISPA [Inspired Sensus Plenior Application] of Old Testament passages by New Testament writers raises several questions. First, can today’s interpreters imitate what New Testament writers did in assigning additional and different meanings in applying Old Testament passages? No, they cannot, because that would depart from grammatical-historical interpretation and violate the principle of single meaning. (Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New versus the Old, page 252)

To understand the use of an Old Testament passage in a particular New Testament context, it is necessary to take several steps. This is especially true when it is a messianic passage since there is always a question as to whether we are dealing with direct prophecy or indirect typology. (The Hermeneutical Spiral, page 331).

What, then, can be said to our question "Can we reproduce the exegesis of the New Testament?" I suggest that we must answer both "No" and "Yes." Where that exegesis takes on a revelatory character, where it is atomistic or allegorical, or where it is avowedly circumstantial, "No." Where, however, it treats the Old Testament in a more literal fashion, following the course of what we would speak of today as critical-historical-grammatical exegesis, "Yes." (Studies in Hermeneutics, Christology and Discipleship, page 69)

All the approaches have one thing in common: they all recognize that the way to discuss the use of the Old Testament in the New is not on a "pure prophetic" model, in which one takes the Old Testament passage in its context and simply joins it directly to its New Testament fulfillment without any consideration of the historical situation of the Old Testament passage. In fact Kaiser explicitly makes the point that the best term to summarize the prophetic connection between the Old Testament and the New is not "prediction" but "promise." (Zuck, Roy B. Rightly Divided: Readings in Biblical Hermeneutics, page 207)

"It should be obvious by now that the hermeneutical problem of the Old Testament--underlined by the use that the New Testament writers made of it--is the central and foundational interpretive issue that the church has had to wrestle with throughout the centuries." (Silva, Moises, Has the Church Misread the Bible, the History of Interpretation in the Light of Current Issues,page 106, footnote 9)

Christian thinkers see the “New Testament’s” citation of the T’nakh as exceptional, but should we be willing to make such and exception? In other words, if in many instances the Christian Bible’s appeal to the Hebrew Scriptures in a way other than the primary, simple meaning then what is the implication on the notion of “Messianic Prophecy”? Christian scholars are not entirely certain themselves. Some tend to take these citations as the actual meaning of the text and accordingly predict (or perhaps “promise”) what was to happen in the life of the Nazarene.

If the relationship of typology and exegesis were merely a matter of definitions, we would not need to spend much time on it, but the significant hermeneutical issue behind this discussion is whether a type is predictive as prophecy is. Some argue, Yes, types are predictive and therefore typology is exegesis, for typology only brings out of the text what is already in the text…. (Preaching Christ from the Old Testament, page 250.)

Indeed, we will find that apologists will go to great lengths to defend “prophecies” which Christian scholars understand differently in their primary context. Others see these secondary, additional meanings as essential teachings of the Christian Bible,

But someone will say, "Why can't we imitate the principles used in the New Testament writings? Don't we learn our Hermeneutics from them?" The difference in qualifications is the answer. New Testament writers possessed the gift of apostleship and/or the gift of prophecy that enabled them to receive and transmit direct revelation from God." (Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Verses the Old. Page 252)

When the fulfillment passages are typological the New Testament writers present the typology not as the meaning of the Old Testament but as a contemporary event analogous to God's past action."(Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation, page 51, bold mine).

The authority for the second meaning of the Old Testament passage is the New Testament, not the Old Testament. The Old Testament produces only the literal meaning. The sensus plenior emerges only after and ISPA [Inspired Sensus Plenior Application] of the Old Testament wording to a new situation. The New Testament writers could assign such new meanings authoritatively because of the inspiration of what they wrote...until the New Testament citation of that passage, the second or sensus plenior meaning did not exist as far as humans were concerned. Since hermeneutics is a human discipline, gleaning that second sense is an impossibility in an examination of the Old Testament source of the citation. (Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Versus the Old, page 253, bold mine.)

 Others argue,

No, types are not predictive but are discovered only from a later stage of redemptive history; therefore, typology is not exegesis proper, for typology discovers more meaning that is in the text itself. (Preaching Christ from the Old Testament, page 250, bold mine.)

If the later position is taken such “Messianic” verses, being non-Messianic in their original meaning and context are taken as such on the basis and authority of the New Testament. They are the result of belief in Christianity, not its cause. One is then left needing to establish that there are other contextually-prophetic Messianic passages which specifically point to the Nazarene, which we have noted is a foundational claim of the Christian Bible (and then explain why the New Testament authors didn’t cite such passages instead) or propose a hermeneutical approach which can distinguish between “legitimate” secondary interpretations and spurious ones.

Furthermore, even though we might concede a secondary, non-contextual meaning we have reason to be suspicious when the Christian Bible veers from the plain meaning:

In conclusion, the vast majority of the New Testament references to the Old Testament interpret it literally; that is, they interpret it according to the commonly accepted norms for interpreting all types of communications--history as history, poetry as poetry, symbols as symbols. There is no attempt to separate the message into literal and allegorical levels." (Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation, page 51)

Despite the general pattern of literal interpretation we find that the exceptions are disproportionally those where the Christian Bible is citing a “Messianic Prophecy”. The uneven distribution of such “secondary” style interpretations raises serious questions about whether the authors of the Christian Bible where using a novel method of exegesis, or just plain eisegesis, reading into the text what they felt had to be there.

"Jewish" Exegesis

When confronted with the atypical usage of the Hebrew Bible by the authors of the Christian Bible we find that it is not at all uncommon for Christian scholars, or Messianic apologists, to appeal to Jewish methods of Biblical interpretation from the period the Christian Bible was written.

At the time of Christ, Jewish exegesis could be classified into four main types: literal, midrashic, pesher, and allegorical. The literal method of interpretation, referred to as peshat, apparently served as the basis for other types of interpretation. Richard Longenecker [Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period, pages 29.], citing Adolf Lowy, suggest that the reason for the relative infrequency of literalist interpretations in Talmudic literature is "that this type of commentary was expected to be known by everyone; and since there was not disputations about it, it was not recorded.(Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation, page 45.)

It is argued that at least part of the explanation of why the authors of the Christian Bible engaged in non-literal interpretation of Scriptures was due to the contemporary methods being utilized.

It is generally agreed that Jesus was a rabbi in his interpretation of the Old Testament (Bultmann 1934:57-58; Chilton 1984), and the rest of the New Testament writers generally followed suit. The Judaism of the Second Temple period was diverse and exhibited more than one tendency in their approach to the Old Testament, and the New Testament was part of Second Temple Judaism, so it is critical to understand the techniques that guided their interpretation of the Old Testament. (The Hermeneutical Spiral, page 324).

To the contrary, to many educated Jews of his day, Matthew’s use of Scripture was both legitimate and sensible, regardless of whether the evidence was accepted or not, and statements such as Klinghoffer’s actually betray ignorance of either ancient Jewish usage of Scripture or the thoroughly Jewish nature of Matthew’s use of Scripture—or both. (Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus vol. 4, page 8).

While it is evident that the New Testament authors, the majority of whom were first-century Jews, overwhelming utilized peshat in their interactions with the Old Testament, the question remains whether they also employed the other contemporary methods such as midrash and allegorical interpretation. (Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation, page 49)

While it is easy to understand the appeal of such an approach for Christians who are confronted with non-contextual citations of Biblical passages, critical readers will have already begun to wonder what relevance such methodologies have if they cannot be hermeneutically justified. Christian scholars reject the authority of rabbinic or other non-rabbinic interpreters not do they accept that such interpretations are based off of regular application of sound exegesical methods (much less supply them).

Such appeals to Jewish/Rabbinic interpretation methods of the first century period fall under three somewhat overlapping fallacies.

Appeal to Common Practice: By defending such non-literal interpretations based not on the legitimacy of the methods themselves but rather upon the popularity of such methods one is appealing to common practice. “An argument appeals to common practice if and only if it tries to justify an action by appealing to the common practice of the community” (Bonevac, Daniel. The Art and Science of Logic, page 71.) What is the normal practice in a given time and place can have relevance, “there is nothing wrong with appealing to common practice to support a conclusion about what a certain community’s standards allow” (ibid). For example it would not be surprising to find that the authors of the Christian Bible cited Scriptures in abbreviated or paraphrased forms, yet “Appeals to common practice are fallacious, however, when the conclusion involves a stronger sense of acceptability or obligation.” Biblical interpretation is not just about what “community standards allow” (even if that community was a Jewish one two thousand years ago) but determining the meaning of the text. As such you cannot support the Christian Bible’s use of the Hebrew Scriptures based on the fact that “everyone did it”, particularly while rejecting the results of such methodology when anyone else did it.

Appeal to Authority: As an Orthodox Jew, I believe that the Bible established an authoritative body of elders which the Talmudic Rabbis where heir to. I accept the authority of the Rabbis, and as a result the authority of Rabbinic interpretations. Christianity and its apologists do not. Even the most pro-rabbinic Messianics will not affirm unqualified authority to the Rabbi’s of the Talmud. No one affirms the authority of the community at Qumran or believes the Philo approach to the interpretation of the Bible is what most closely represents the true meaning. “An appeal to authority is fallacious, however, when the person appealed to is not truly an authority on the subject under consideration.” (Baum, Robert. Logic, fourth edition, page 556). If we could agree that the Rabbis qualified as authorities on Biblical interpretation then our whole discussion would be moot since they rejected the interpretation of the Hebrew Bible as identifying the Nazarene as the Messiah.

Tu Quoque: Unable to establish a methodology which can consistently and credibly identify secondary layers of meaning in the Biblical text, it becomes very easy for apologists to point to Jewish exegesis practices as not any better. “In tu quoque or “you too,” arguments, people do not address themselves to the issue raised against them, but instead attempt to absolve themselves by proving the guilt of their opponents.” (Baum, Robert. Logic, forth edition, page 561). While I believe that the Talmudic Sages possessed authority to interpret scripture, as well as a fuller set of principles to guide them in such interpretation than are currently extant, but it is neither necessary nor relevant to argue in favor of such a position in our context because even if they were lacking it does not absolve the authors of the Christian Bible (or other Christian apologists) for doing likewise. Two wrongs do not make a right.

We really have only so many options. If the Christian Bible’s use of Hebrew Scriptures constitutes real exegesis then we need canons which guide in differentiating between good interpretations (such as those on the Christian Bible are said to be) from bad ones such as the hyper-allegorization of the Church fathers or the out of context proofs of “cults”. Alternatively we can suggest that these usages constitute teachings of the Christian Bible on its own authority using the Hebrew Bible by way of allusion or perhaps revealing an otherwise undisclosed thought behind the verse under discussion but not actually contained in the meaning of the words as originally recorded. Under such an assumption they cannot constitute a prediction which was fulfilled by the Nazarene and we are left to decide whether the other, contextual, “Messianic Prophecies” provide sufficient details to specifically and uniquely anticipate the Nazarene. As it stands the Christian Bible relies heavily on verses which have a variant contextual meaning and verses which are vague or whose fulfillment is incomplete. And while the Christian Bible seems to strongly suggest that its citations of the Hebrew Scriptures constitute predictions which have been fulfilled, Christian scholars have not, and cannot, provide how secondary meanings can be distinguished from eisegesis, but instead note that others at the time used similar questionable methods.

As such our approach, our method, will be to analyze passages cited by the Christian Bible in particular and Christian apologists in general, and determine whether we have reason to believe they applied to the Nazarene in their original context. We will not ignore typological arguments, but only by focusing primarily on the original contextual meaning and distinguishing them from any potential secondary meanings are we able to evaluate the relative strength of individual arguments as well as their collective strength. We agree that “The interpreter should take the literal meaning of a prophetic passage as his limiting or controlling guide.” (Protestant Biblical Interpretation, page 253). Likewise, Missionaries make very bold claims about the strength of the Messianic Prophecies in establishing the Nazarene as Mashiach, “MESSIAH WILL ABSOLUTELY BE KNOWN, BASED UPON HIS CREDENTIALS ‘I declared the former things long ago And they went forth from My mouth, and I proclaimed them.” (Evidence That Demands A Verdict, page 141, citing Isaiah 48:3, Capitalization in original), which as we have seen merely echo the Nazarene who criticized those who “search the Scriptures” yet did not recognize him, who by not believing in him did not believe in the Scriptures (John 5). With such bold claims we should expect unambiguous evidence, compare “The problem with Nostradamus and so many other so-called psychics is that their predictions are often very enigmatic, ambiguous, and inaccurate.”(The Case for Faith, page 133).

It is impossible to approach anything without some pre-existing bias, but we need to attempt to read God’s word with intellectual honesty. "Submit all "preunderstandings" to Scripture. Theological preunderstandings--doctrinal opinions we have previously formed--should not bias our interpretation of Scripture. Any preunderstandings that the interpreter brings to Scripture should be in harmony with scriptural teaching and be subject to correction by it.(Commonly Misunderstood Bible Verses: Clear Explanations for the Difficult Passages, page 8) If this advice is followed an intellectually honest Christian can find that many, most “Messianic Prophecies” can only be applied to the Nazarene if you already accept Christianity. Such interpretations are the result of Christian faith, not its support.

¹See for example, Ron Rhodes, Commonly Misunderstood Bible Verses: Clear Explanations for the Difficult Passages , page 7.

Who did Rachel Weep for?

Jeremiah 31:14(15) Matthew 2:18

"Thus said Hashem: ‘A voice is heard on high, wailing, bitter weeping, Rachel weeps for her children; she refuses to be consoled for her children for they are gone.’"

The Gospel of Matthew (2:16-18) tells us that after the Magi (popularly referred to as Wise Men) failed to return to inform Herod of the location of the infant Nazarene, Herod ordered the execution of all baby boys under the age of two in order to annihilate him. Matthew found a prophecy of this in the verse quoted above, Jeremiah 31:14(15).

The verse refers to Rachel, one of the four matriarchs of Israel. The children she weeps for are those who had been sent into exile, "they are gone." This can be clearly seen by reading the next two verses, "Thus said Hashem: Restrain your voice from weeping and your eyes from tears; for there is reward for your accomplishment the word of Hashem--and they will return from the enemies land. There is hope for your future the word of Hashem and your children will return to their borders." Vs. 15,16 (16,17).

By reading the entire passage in context the meaning is clear. Rather than referring to a gloomy massacre in the future this prophecy is one of hope and comfort. Rather that "dying" in exile the prophet promises they will be "resurrected" by being brought back to their homeland.

Of course, Matthew’s account of Herod killing the young children in an attempt to assassinate his infant rival is not document despite a whole laundry list of historically recorded atrocities by Herod. While this is not definitive proof that it did not happen we have plenty of reason to be skeptical of Matthew’s claim. In particular it shows the frequently circular nature of Christian claims of fulfilled prophecy, our only record of it being fulfilled is a single passage in Matthew claiming it to be fulfilled despite having good reason to expect it to be otherwise documented.

Nor does this passage easily lend itself to a typological interpretation. While it is often suggested that as a member of, and indeed the king of, Israel, the events of Israel’s history can serve as an analogy typologically to the life of the Nazarene. Here, however, the Nazarene escaped the event the analogy was predicated upon, while it was the children of Bethlehem and its environs which suffered. Furthermore, while the Jeremiah passage speaks of Exile, and subsequent return, Matthew speaks of death. The analogy between the two is superficial.

Do More than Complain about Child Abuse

http://seattlepolicefoundation.org/support-detective-bob-shilling/

SPD’s Detective Bob Shilling has tracked down some of our state’s and nation’s worst sex offenders, written or co-authored numerous laws to help protect our children, and in the process has made a name for himself as one of the world’s most sought after experts in catching child predators. When the world’s most prestigious crime fighting organization, Interpol, had a position available to lead their Crimes Against Children Group, they offered the position to Detective Shilling. Detective Shilling was honored and after speaking to his family, accepted. This is the first time in Interpol history that a municipal level police detective has been offered this highly distinguished  position. Detective Shilling will also become the first American to hold this position.

The position coordinates efforts for the agency’s 190 member countries and helps implement best practices globally. SPD, the Mayor’s office and the City Council have all supported Detective Shilling’s appointment to this prestigious position and now it’s our turn as a community.

Detective Shilling is required by Interpol, located in Lyon, France, to secure funding for his living expenses for the three year assignment. SPD will continue to pay his salary. Typically the federal government covers funding for Americans assigned to Interpol, but will not be doing so for Detective Shilling. The SPD is proud and honored that one of their own would be tasked to lead the worldwide coordination of stopping and preventing crimes against children, and have pledged to support the best individual for the job. Therefore, the Seattle Police Foundation is collecting donations to support the required living expense fund for the position. Donations will be given to the SPD as a grant to assist with this requirement. No funds will go directly to Detective Shilling. Any donations received over the amount needed will go towards supporting SPD’s efforts to prevent and stop crimes against children.

Update:

Funding was secured for Bob Shilling to take the position:

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020087540_shilling09m.html

Who will emerge from Bethlehem?

Michah 5:1(2)

Matthew 2:6

"Bethlehem—Ephratah—you are too small to be among the thousands of Judah, but from you someone will emerge for Me to be a ruler over Israel; and his origins will be from early times, from days of old."

The book of Matthew relates that when the Magi from the east came looking for the Messiah, Herod inquired to the sages of his day to determine where he would be born, so that he could direct them in the right direction, and he in turn could determine the exact location of the potential threat to his throne. Those sages, we are told, cited this passage from Michah as predicting that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem. This verse is a favorite of Christian apologists and is referenced in nearly any list of verses they cite as predicting the Nazarene.¹

To examine the validity of this inference, we must ask what does "from you" really indicate? While the Christian Bible and its apologists take it for granted that this refers to a place of birth, it is not that simple. Obviously the passage is lacking any specific verbiage indicating birth. Rather we are presented with the term מׅמְּך "from you", where the prefix מׅ is identical to the one found in Hosea 11:1 וּמִמִּצְרַים "and out of [or since] Egypt". One might recall that although the term is the same in the Hosea 11:1 passage, there it is taken to simply imply that the Nazarene lived in Egypt, not that he was born there. Similarly we cannot conclude that, based on the verse in Michah, the Messiah is to be born in Bethlehem. With such an ablaitive implication the most we could conclude that he lived there, or perhaps even just made a significant visit.²

The truth is that when we are speaking of Bethlehem-Ephratah we are not talking about the location per se, but a family. In the early Biblical period the land was to be divided up according to family. Michah says that Bethlehem-Ephratah is too small to be counted among the "thousands" of Israel, which the NIV correctly translates as "clan". The term "thousand," אלף, is an extended family unit. The smaller is a "father’s house" אב בית (see Bamidbar 2:2), related households constitute a "thousand" or "clan" אלף, and the clans combine to form the tribe. So as it turns out, the term "from you" is related to birth, not the location of the birth, but rather the lineage. "From" in the sense of spatial source can have a variety of meanings, but understanding that the significance of Bethlehem-Ephratah is as family rather than a place narrows down its implication. The verse is not expressing surprise at the location the Moshiach will be born, but at the humble origins of the Davidic dynasty. Similarly, when presented with his divine mission, Gideon initially objected "I beg of You, my Lord, with what shall I save Israel? Behold, my thousand is the most impoverished of Manasseh, and I am the youngest of my father’s house." (Judges 6:15).

In response it has been argued, "It is interesting to note that the Soncino Press commentary goes on to suggest, ‘Not that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, but that his origin of old, through David, would be Bethlehem.’ However, it begs the question: if the prophet meant ancestry and not geography, why would such a statement be necessary?" (jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/16_09/predictions). The answer is by referencing Bethlehem-Ephratah, David’s family line, the verse is essentially identifying the individual being discussed as the Mashiach. Would one ask why Isaiah found it necessary to say that "A staff will emerge from the stump of Jesse" (Isaiah 11:1)? It is the subsequent verses in which we see the Mashiach’s activities, and once again we see that they were not fulfilled by the Nazarene. As we noted elsewhere, "It is noteworthy that many of the verses cited by Christians do have these indicators. The indicator, for example tribal affiliation or ancestors, are often cited as the prophecy which is fulfilled. Meanwhile the rest of the prophecy, containing the more significant issue of Mashiach’s activities". The passage from Michah goes on to describe in detail how the Messiah will assure peace from all of Israel’s adversaries and the return of the Children of Israel. Neither of these were accomplished by the Nazarene and have not been fulfilled to this day, yet they stand as the central mission of the true Messiah.

In addition to the birthplace of the Messiah, Christian interpreters generally ³ see another lesson from this passage, that the Messiah is eternal. Although this interpretation was used as early as Justin Martyr, it is not made in the New Testament. In fact the second half of the verse from which this is derived isn’t even included in Matthew’s quote. Insofar as the idea that the Nazarene is eternal is central to traditional Christian belief, it is more than a little surprising that Matthew would neglect to use the Hebrew Bible to establish this in favor of his birthplace.

The phrase in question is "and his origins (וּמוֹצאֹתׇיו) will be from early times, from days of old (מׅימֵי עוֹלם)." The last word in this verse is often, and correctly, translated as eternal or forever. Furthermore the classic Jewish commentator Rashi, based on a Midrash, comments that the Messiah’s name was established prior to creation. What then, does it mean that his "origins" are from days of old/eternity? We must first determine what "origin" refers too. The word "origin" shares the same root (יצא) as the early expression that the Messiah would "go out" from Bethlehem. In other words the Messiah would go forth from Bethlehem and his going forth would be from days of old/eternity. The second clause is referring to the same as the first, which gives further evidence that it doesn’t refer to birth per se.

To further clarify it is useful to know the phrase ימֵי עוֹלם "days of old", is used elsewhere in the T’nakh and does not indicate eternity.⁴ In fact only a few pages later it is used in Michah 7:14 in a request that God care for His people like he did in the "days of old". Likewise in Malachi 3:4 it is requested that God accept the offerings of Judah and Jerusalem like "the days of old". Clearly the term is being used in reference to a distant time, days of old, but not eternity past. I have seen an argument to the effect that since these other verses have the prefix כ they bear a different meaning than the phrase in our verse.⁵ This claim is simply incorrect, the prefix כ and מ do have different meanings, "from" and "like" respectively, but just like their corresponding English prepositions they do not magically alter of the subsequent words or phrases.

We should also note that, whether in Hebrew or English, the word "eternal" can refer to a finite time period just as it can refer to an infinite one. For example, when we speak of someone having eternal life, like in Daniel 12:2 (חַיֵי עוֹלׇם), we in no way intend that they lived from eternity past, uncreated and without a beginning. Unlike God, whose eternity is an infinite one, other uses of eternal are confined to the temporal world. The initial description of his "origins" as being "from early times" further suggests a temporal period. With this in mind we can understand Rashi’s embrace of the Midrashic interpretation of this verse. It is granted the term "days of old" clearly does not literally mean forever ago, but the term עוֹלם generally does have a much more expansive meaning than its use in this phrase. Even still, unless applied to God Himself we have no reason to understand it to apply beyond the realm of time. As such we can see in the choice of this word that from the beginning of time the Mashiach’s role, his "Name", has been part of God’s plan. The plain meaning, however, is that from the dynasty of David the son of Yishai of Beith Lechem, which started in the "days of old", the Mashaich will emerge and redeem Israel.

Briefly I would like to touch on a couple of variations on this argument. J. Vernon McGee alleges, without any Scriptural or historical evidence that "No members of the family of David were living in Bethlehem any longer."⁶ Yirmeyahu Ben David argues,⁷ "The Israeli government has given Beit Lekhem to the Arabs! Therefore, only Ribi Yehoshua can ever fulfill this messianic prophecy!" It seems more than a little ironic that only a few decades ago the Israeli didn’t exist, and many people thought it never would, and yet people still argue that the day can never come when a Jew could be born in Bethlehem?! God isn’t limited to "anointing" people in the past as the Messiah simply because the current political situation isn’t conducive to His prophecies!

A popular approach is defending the use of this passage by appealing to Jewish sources. In this vein Alfred Edersheim writes, "The well-known passage, Micah 5:2, is admittedly Messianic. So in the Targum, and the Pirqe de R. Eliez. C. 3, and by later Rabbis." (Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Appendix 9, page 1005). Of course this statement does not address whether these sources consider it to refer to the Messiah’s birthplace, and as a rule while such sources interpret the verse as Messianic they do not interpret it as referring to his birthplace. Others are more assertive in their claim: "Even the Talmud explains Micah 5:2, as declaring that Bethlehem should be Christ's birthplace" (Barton Warren Johnson, ccel.org/ccel/johnson_bw/john.john07.iii.html?highlight=micah%205%202#highlight).  And while this could be an example of someone over-zealously inferring a Messianic understanding of Michah 5 to mean it refers to the birthplace of the Mashiach, even more specific claims are made: "Here is an excerpt from the Jerusalem Talmud, which is a collection of Judaism-related writings completed about 1600 years ago: ‘The King Messiah... from where does he come forth? From the royal city of Bethlehem in Judah.’ - Jerusalem Talmud, Berakoth 5a." (aboutbibleprophecy.com/micah_5_2.htm) and "The King Messiah... from where does he come forth? From the royal city of Bethlehem in Judah." -Jerusalem Talmud, Berakoth 5a" (heartofisrael.net/chazak/articles/saywhat.htm, originally compiled by Ben Burton of MessianicArt).

The Talmud Yerushalmi is not the most accessible work, and the method of citation is not as consistent as that of the Talmud Bavli. Notice that the last two citations of the Talmud are identical, both in their translation and transliteration, suggesting that we are not dealing with independent research and translation. Although neither gives credit, I am personally acquainted with writer of the later source which I also know has been up for close to, but not quite, ten years (as of 2009). While very ambitious, at the time he was not equipped to personally verify the sources to assure the accurately reflected the meaning of the original, or if even existed. To his credit, when I prompted him he did put up a disclaimer that some citations may be out of context.

The citation given by these sources is insufficient to locate the quote, and a less careful person would conclude it was fabricated, but with a little online research I discovered the following: "The Jerusalem Talmud (y. Ber.2.4*) comments, ‘... King Messiah is born...he is from the royal palace of Bethlehem.’"… "*As cited in Alfred Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (Hendrickson edition, 1993) p. 143, who says that ‘in an imaginary conversation between an Arab and a Jew, Bethlehem is authoritatively named as Messiah's birthplace.’" (jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/16_09/predictions, though the phraseology quoted from the Talmud is not supplied by Edersheim and it seems as though an intermediary source may have been utilized.) The "5a" in the earlier citations, appears in Edersheim as a qualification of the 2:4 in the latter. The earlier citations omitted a detail which placed the quote significantly later than what they implied. In fact, this narrative from chapter 2:4 falls out on page 25b when the pages are enumerated from the beginning.

But while I cannot blame a Christian apologist for being a bit excited over this passage, it is not a game changer. First and foremost, it doesn’t cite Michah 5:1 as the source for the Moshiach being born in Bethlehem. In fact it gives no indication that the Mashiach will be born in Bethlehem at all, is says he was born in "Biras Malka" of Bethlehem, on the day the Temple was destroyed, and that his name was Menachem ben Chezkiahu. The story clearly wasn’t meant to teach a historical event but a lesson about the Messiah. Just pause and reflect on the quote as cited above, "he is from the royal palace of Bethlehem." Michah doesn’t mention anything about a royal palace and there is and was no royal palace in Bethlehem to be born in! While David was from Bethlehem he ruled from Jerusalem. The Talmud’s narrative isn’t telling us about the Messiah’s physical birthplace but rather like each detail it is intended to convey a message about the Mashiach and his mission. The notion of being born in the royal palace of Bethlehem clearly alludes to the Davidic lineage of the Mashiach rather than a location. The birthplace in the story is symbolic of his Davidic heritage. This is, after all, consistent with our reading of Michah 5:1 although the verse is not being cited.

We have noted that although Christians, following the lead of their Scriptures, understand the verse in Michah 5:1 as speaking of the birthplace of the Mashiach, the language of the verse itself doesn’t indicate birthplace. In the same language is used in Hosea 11:1 which is (mis)understood by Christian’s as indicating that the Nazarene merely left a location which he lived in but was not his birthplace. Bethlehem’s significance is as the birthplace of King David, whose extended family was it’s residents. Despite its relative insignificance the royal line, the Messianic line, was to descend from it. It is in this respect that the Mashiach and all David’s descendants were "from" Bethelehem. The Mashiach, as its legitimate heir, will establish a kingdom which hearkens back to the golden "days of old" when David reigned, God shepherded His people, and their offerings found His favor, as God intended he would from the beginning of Creation.

^[1] "And hear what part of earth He was to be born in, as another prophet, Micah, foretold. He spoke thus: "And thou, Bethlehem, the land of Judah, art not the least among the princes of Judah; for out of thee shall come forth a Governor, who shall feed My people." Justin Martyr, The First Apology, chapter 34 (ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.ii.xxxiv.html). "And again the prophet Micah speaks of the place where Christ should be born, that it should be in Bethlehem of Judæa, saying thus: And thou, Bethlehem of Judæa, art thou the least among the princes of Judah? for out of, thee shall come a prince who shall feed my people Israel. " Irenaeus, The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, page 63, (www.ccel.org/ccel/irenaeus/demonstr.preaching_the_demonstration_of_the_apostolic_preaching.html).

"In the fifth chapter of his book, Micha records one of the most specific predictions about the coming Messiah. His birth place was to be in an obscure village in the province of Judea in Palestine; the city that King David had been born in, Bethlehem" Hal Lindsey, The Promise, page 58. "Some of the most important prophecies about Christ accurately predicted [his] birthplace (Mal. 5:2)" Dan Story, Defending Your Faith, page 78. "The Hebrew scriptures accurately foretold hundreds of years in advance that this Promised One would be born in Bethlehem….Michah 5:2) Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth, page 56. "We must not be confused by all these places and deem them contradictory, for all were touched by [him] in the course of [his] divinely planned life. As Michah prophesied, Jesus was born in Bethlehem…" Herbert Lockyer, All the Messianic Prophecies of the Bible, page 64. "Micah named the place where Christ was to be born seven hundred years before [he] was born there." J. Vernon McGee, Thru The Bible with J. Vernon McGee vol. 3 page 790. "Micah 5:2…Since Micah lived in the time of King Hezekiah, he made this prophecy some eight centuries before Jesus." Islam Revealed, Dr. Anis A. Shorrosh, page 122.


[2 ] I would like to again highlight our earlier citation “We must not be confused by all these places and deem them contradictory, for all were touched by [him] in the course of [his] divinely planned life. As Michah prophesied, Jesus was born in Bethlehem…” Herbert Lockyer, All the Messianic Prophecies of the Bible, page 64. Implicit in his attempt at “clarifying” the prophecies ascribed to the Nazarene is the recognition that this passage does not specify that his birth would take place in Bethlehem in contrast to others which merely indicate areas he lived and ministered.

[3] While I have not extensively reviewed the question, it is noteworthy that the Watchtower publication cited above does not mention this interpretation of Michah 5:1, nor does Yirmeyahu Ben David. Both reject the traditional conception of the Trinity and the divinity of the Messiah.

[4] I must acknowledge that these verses were [most likely] brought to my attention from Rabbi Singer’s “Let’s Get Biblical” Study Guide, page 121.

[5] J.P. Holding, Tovia Singer on 5:2, www.tektonics.org/qt/singert01.html [Dead Link]. An apparent quote from the article has been preserved on another site’s message board, “What Singer calls the "same expression" is NOT the same expression at all! Micah speaks of "from 'olam". The rest speak of "from days of 'olam." (www.kosherjudaism.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=86) It has been a long time since I read this argument but based on this quote I believe my presentation may be even more plausible than the actual one since he seems to be denying that the word day even occurs. I would like to think that the article has been removed since it was recognized that it was fundamentally unsound.

[6] Ibid

[7] www.netzarim.co.il/Shared/MessPro.htm#Scripture-Mikhah-5.1-1, I recently saw a similar argument by an early Church authority, but I’ve had difficulty relocating it since I did not properly make note of it.

A Resurrected Mashiach?

A Resurrected Mashiach?

In Christian theology mankind's sole hope for salvation is based on the death and resurrection of the Messiah. The Nazarene's death is interpreted not as extinguishing any possibility of him being the Messiah but rather the central fulfillment of the messianic role. In contrast Judaism rejects the notion that one who has died without fulfilling all the prophecies could be considered Mashiach, and by no means must the Messiah die and be resurrected. But to support their beliefs missionaries appeal to the Talmud for support for a "resurrected Messiah" where we read, "Rav Nachman said, 'If from the living [the Mashiach] would be like me....' Rav said, 'If from the living he would be like Rabbenu HaKadosh, if from the dead he would be like Daniel." (Sanhedrin 98b)

Here we are presented with a passage from an authoritative Jewish text which seems to clearly suggest the possibility that Mashiach could come back from the dead. Furthermore it is in the middle of the primary section where the Talmud discusses the Mashaich. While it may superficially appear to support the missionaries perspective closer analysis will show that it does not.

The first noteworthy point is that unlike many other passages where Chazal (Our Sages) discuss Mashiach, or other topics, no scripture is linked to support the idea that Mashiach would be from the dead. The Gemara doesn't even link a text midrashically. There is zero evidence to suggest these Sages interpreted any Scriptural passage similar to the Christian understanding that Messiah would die and be resurrected. Quite to the contrary, since Chazal typically offered support from Scripture when ever possible their omission of Scriptural references suggested that they where not basing this point off of any specific Bible verses.

This is of little surprise since the topic of the passage clearly was not to establish that Mashiach was going to rise from the dead. The passage was to offer different example of what the Mashiach would be like. They where not offering an opinion or tradition that Mashiach would in fact be from among the dead, but speculating on who he would be like among those who had already passed away. As we see they give the equal possibility that the Mashaich be from among the living. The discussion of Mashiach being from the dead was hypothetical, and quite possibly simply for the sake of argument. The point was simply to describe the character of the Mashiach and to that degree it would be perfectly reasonable to compare him to those who have already died, even though in fact they did not actually accept the possibility that he would be from the dead. While one might assume that under such a circumstance if they felt there was reason to object to the notion of Mashaich coming from the dead they would have taken the occasion to do so, but insofar as it is a peripheral issue to the Mashiach's character I am not certain we can expect it.

Whenever missionaries appeal to sources outside the T'nakh one must be suspicious about their ability to do so using the T'nakh alone. The idea of a resurrected Mashaich is not found in T'nakh and our passage from the Talmud implicitly attests to that fact. Chazal did not discuss a mesorah, a tradition, they received that the Mashiach would be form the dead, but offered examples both living and dead to indicate the character of Mashaich. Furthermore it demonstrates that while Chazal felt certain historical figures where worthy of being the Mashiach they did not consider it appropriate to identify them with being the Mashiach since the Messianic prophecies have yet to be fulfilled (at very least).

Who would Die for a Lie?

Why would the disciples die for a lie?

When challenged to verify the historicity of the Gospel's account of the Nazarene's life, in particular the resurrection, Christians often appeal to the "eyewitness accounts" of the Apostles. Furthermore, they argue, not only did the Apostles witness the events about which they preached but they died for doing so. They contend it is unreasonable to assume that someone would risk, even forfeit, their own life for propagating an account that they know to be fictitious. They reason that they clearly offered up their own lives as martyrs because they where certain of the truth of the Gospel. Their deaths provide us the proof that their testimony is reliable.

I would certainly concede that people generally would not risk their lives for a lie. But I'm not so sure how well this holds true when one has built their entire life around a lie. I submit that my doubt about such evidence is not unique. In truth, when they themselves are put in the role of anti missionaries in response to Mormons, Christians have rejected such arguments. Bill McKeever writes "It is highly possible for a person to die for something he knew in the beginning was not the truth. A lie, repeated often enough, becomes as truth to the teller." (Answering Mormons' Questions page 119). The Apostles were, if you will, uneducated "commoners" according to the Christian Bible (Acts 4:13). Regardless of its veracity or lack there of, the "Gospel" propelled these men from obscurity to a position of influencing hundreds, even thousands of people. It is certainly possible that they may have considered such influence worth risking their life and that loosing their life might be preferable to them than loosing the notoriety they had achieved. This is particularly true when one considers that they may have fabricated events that they believed were true or that they reflected spiritual truths. In doing so they may have remained absolutely devoted to the cause, without ulterior motives. Their dedication may not have been limited to dying for the Gospel but to fabricating eyewitness evidence for what they sincerely believed was true. So rather than being a simple choice between them believing their words or willingly spreading lies it may very well be that they believed what they taught, even if they knew some of the details where not honest.

Furthermore, we must recognize the “New Testament” records that when the disciples encountered the Nazarene they did not recognize him, “As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; but they were kept from recognizing him.” (Luke 24:15-16), “At this she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize it was Jesus.” (John 20:14), “Afterward Jesus appeared to them in different form to two of them while they were walking in the country.” (Mark 16:12). Recall that earlier we are told that there were those who claimed that the Nazarene himself was actually John the Baptist resurrected from the dead, “King Herod heard about this, for Jesus' name had become well known. Some were saying ‘John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him.” (Mark 6:14). At most we could conclude that the disciples had encounters with someone they did not recognize, but eventually came to believe, or “recognize”, as being the Nazarene.

Then consider how certain we really are that the Apostles died for their beliefs? The fact is that for the most part the fate that befell the apostles is not mentioned in the Christian Bible (even if we where to take it at face value). Only James the son of Zebedee is listed as having been martyred (Acts.12:2). As a matter of fact all but a handful of the 12 disappear from the Biblical narrative shortly after the resurrection. What we are left with then is the testimony provided by Church tradition. And these traditions are at times conflicting with each other. Furthermore at times they are fanciful and conflict with Christian teaching. For example one early account regarding the death of Peter, of which I regretfully do not know the source, relates that after escaping death in Rome he encountered the Nazarene on the road. He inquired on where the Nazarene was going to which the Nazarene replied that he was going to be re-crucified in Rome for Peter. At this Peter himself returns to Rome and submits to crucifixion.

Finally we must consider what might have resulted from the Apostles recanting their story. Could the Apostles have really trusted that if they where to recant that they would not be executed? The Roman government was interested in suppressing a sect which they saw as a threat. Would the leader of such a group really have the option of walking away quietly simply by saying he had made everything up? And if they did recant would their followers accept a report that they had? Would they believe a renunciation of Christianity made under duress? And on what basis would we expect them to perpetuate the story of their confession made under duress?

What we have been presented is a faulty dilemma, either the Apostles where telling the truth or they died for something they knew was a lie. In truth it is possible that they would die for a lie because they came to accept their own lie as truth. Or they may have seen their fabrications as secondary to the Gospel which they did believe was truth. Nor is it clear that their fate is known to us or that recanting would have been of any use. Nor is it certain that if they did admit they fabricated their testimony that we would be aware of it. So while this does not in and of itself refute the testimony of the Apostles, we have shown that there is no reason we must accept it at face value.

On Theodicy and Emunah Peshutta

One topic which, to my recollection, has had very little attention on this blog  is the question why bad things happen to good people, and the converse. The closest we have come is asking Why would a Good Person make a Bad Argument (Supporting a True Conclusion)?, which isn't really that similar. The reason for this omission is fairly straightforward, its because the question isn't one which bothers me that much on an intellectual level.

On an emotional level it can bother me a great deal at times, as I alluded to here.

To me the response to the question is a quintessential example of emunah peshutta, simple faith, and particularly my understanding of emunah peshutta. If we have reason to believe that there is a Creator (which I believe we do) and we have reason to believe that He gave us the Torah (which I believe we do) then we should take Him at His word that He is beneficent and accept that while it may not be obvious how, the world is ultimately just.

Of course that isn't the end of the story, there are many hashkafic issues that can, and probably should, be considered. Certainly there are other aspects of this question that some may find more comfort in while they actually experience suffering, but I believe they all are predicated on this fundamental idea.

How was the Glory of the Second Temple Greater than that of the First?

Haggai 2:9

"The glory of this later Temple will be greater than [that of] the first, said Hashem, Master of Legions; and I will grant peace to this place – the word of Hashem, Mater of Legions."

Time and again we have seen that the verses cited by apologists to support the claim that the Nazarene is the Messiah are either referring to an entirely different subject in their primary contextual meaning, or have significant predictions yet to be fullfilled (which Christians postpone until a future date). Logicially it is very difficult ( I would say impossible) to formulate a coherent argument where such verses constitute evidence for accepting Christianity rather than their being dependent upon belief in Christian teachings. One attempt at circumventing this problem is to suggest that there is no other option, the Messiah had to have come before the Second Temple was destroyed. After all the Second Temple was supposed to be greater than the First Temple, since the First Temple had the Divine Presence the Second could only be greater if it had the Messiah:

Khajai ha-Nâvi prophesied (2.7-9): "גדול יהיה כבוד הבית הזה האחרון מן-הראשון (Greater shall be the Kâvod of this latter House than the First).

Torâh documented the withdrawal of the Shәkhinâh from the Beit ha-Miqdâsh hâ-Rishon in Yәkhëzqeil 9.3; 10.4, 19; 11.22-23. It never returned to the Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini.

While the Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini had "a" Mizbeiakh, it lacked the Eish mi-liphnei ha-Sheim that would have made it the legitimate שלחן (see Artscroll Yechezkel not, p. 650, to Yәkhëzqeil 41.22 with Malâkhi 1.12). Five essential elements of kâvod, contained in the First Beit ha-Miqdâsh were never in the Second Beit ha-Miqdâsh: the Aron Bәrit ha-Sheim, the Kaporët, the Kәruvim, the Eish mi-liphnei ha-Sheim and the Shәkhinâh (Masëkët Yomâ 21b; Artscroll Yechezkel p. 691).

Yet, "this latter House" was destroyed in 70 C.E. without any of these five missing elements of kâvod ever having been in it!!!
Therefore, since "this latter House" no longer exists and these five essential elements of kâvod were never in it, the only possibility that this prophecy can ever be true is if the Mâshiakh was the Greater kâvod in the Second Beit ha-Miqdâsh.

Ribi Yәhoshua, who taught in the Second Beit ha-Miqdâsh, is the only possible candidate to fulfill that prophecy.( Yirmeyahu Ben David, http://www.netzarim.co.il/Shared/MessPro.htm)¹

Similarly Messianic Apologist Michael Brown cites Yoma 21b with respect to the aspects that the Second Beith Hamikdash (Temple) lacked which the First Beith HaMikdash did not. He asks, "How then was this Temple to be specially marked by 'peace,' and , more important, how was its glory to surpass the glory of the First Temple?" (Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus vol.1, page 77).

Regarding the aspect of the prophecy where God said He would grant the Temple peace I see no remotely plausible way to suggest that the Nazarene presence in the Beith HaMikdash constituted a fulfillment of this promise. One must recall that the plans to rebuild the Temple were met with significant opposition. The book of Ezra records "Then, as soon as the text of King Artaxerxes' letter was read before Rehu, Shimshai the scribe and their cohorts, they went in haste to Jerusalem to the Jews and halted them with force and power. The work of the Temple of God in Jerusalem was thus halted and remained halted until the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia." (Ezra 4:23-24). The book of Haggai begins in the second year of the reign of Darius. Ezra continues,

Haggai the prophet and Zechariah son of Iddo the prophet prophesied to the Jews who were in Judah and in Jerusalem, in the name of the God of Israel, about them. then Zeruabbabel son of Shealtiel and Jesua son of Jozadok arose and began to build the Temple of God that was in Jerusalem, and with them were the prophets of God, assisting them. At that time Tattenai, governor of the Trans-Euphrates region, approached them, along with Shethar-bozenai and their accomplices. They said this to them, 'Who issued you a decree to construct this building and to lay the foundation for these ramparts. Then they said the following to them, 'What are the names of the persons constructing this building?' But the eye of their God watched over the elders of the Jewish, and [Tattenai and his accomplices] did not halt them until the matter could be brought before Darius, when [Darius and his officials] would write a reply about it. (Ezra 5:1-5)

The people had stalled the rebuilding of the Beith HaMikash on account of the opposition they had encountered. Haggai prophesied that they were to proceed with the rebuilding and that God would grant the place peace. The people acted in obedience with faith in God's promise and when the opposition brought the matter before the king he instructed for the Temple to be rebuilt and for their opponents not to prevent them from doing so.(Ezra 6:3-12).Clearly we see that the Second Temple was not immune from trouble, the peace our passage spoke of was to calm the immediate concerns about rebuilding the Beith HaMikdash.

The glory being considered is clearly the physical grandeur of the building.

"The purpose of the passage is to console the people regarding their second temple, which was nothing in comparison with the first (vv.2-3)...God encourages the builders of the second temple not to despair over its humble beginnings. The "latter glory" will exceed "the former" declares the Lord. The "former" refers clearly to Solomon's Temple (1 Kings 6). The "latter glory" may refer either to the second temple or the millennial temple. The Temple rebuild by the restoration community was later refurbished by Herod. The temple mount was expanded to about thirty-five acres to accommodate teh fabulous remodeling that was eventaully completed shortly before its destruction by the Romans (A.D. 70)." (J. Cadrl Laney, Answers to Tough Questions from Every Book of the Bible A Survey of Problem Passages and Issues from Every Book of the Bible, page 174).

Although Brown contends "the Scriptures are very clear about the nature of the glory of the First Temple: The supernatural presence of God was there."(Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, page 146.), in verse 3 God addresses the elders who "saw this house in its former glory". Unlike the physical grandeur of the Temple, the Divine Glory appeared in the Holy of Holies and was not something publicly visible. Nor does Scripture limit its interest in the First Temple to the spiritual but also spends a great deal of time describing its physical grandeur (see 1 Kings 6). Furthermore immediately prior to our verse God declares "The silver is Mine, and the gold is Mine" (vs. 8, Judaica Press). Indeed in a few centuries King Herod would undertake a massive remodel of the Second Temple about which Chazal (Our Sage) said, "Whoever did not see Herod's building never saw a beautiful edifice." (Bava Bathra 4a, translation from Judaica Press' commentary to Haggai 2:9).

Although Michael Brown claimed that there are "several compelling reasons that the reference to the Temple being filled with glory could not be explained with primary reference to the physical rebuilding of the Temple with massive amounts of silver and gold." (Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus vol. 3, page 146) in truth this flatly contradicts what he already conceded (albeit tucked away in the footnotes) "While it is true that the immediate context in Haggai 2 speaks of physical splendor and earthly wealth, using the Hebrew word kabod (glory) in this sense several factors militate against a purely physical explanation:"(Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol.1, page 223, bolds mine).

Interestingly, while setting up his false dilemma (either the Messiah came during the Second Temple Period or the Bible makes false prophecies) Brown had to exile the fact that the "immediate context in Haggai 2 speaks of physical splendor and earthly wealth" to the footnotes, he also had ignore some of his own dubious hermeneutical methods. First of all according to Michael Brown it is perfectly legitimate for a statement to be uttered about one subject while its fulfillment is found in another subject, for example regarding David's Psalm 16 he writes,

"Actually, it is possible that he looked ahead into the future and saw himself supernaturally preserved from death and decay (as suggested by some of the rabbis, as we have read), but what he was actually seeing was not his own deliverance from death (in reality, resurrection) but rather that of his progeny, the Messiah." (Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol.3, page 116).

 Why is it any less legitimate to say that while Haggai saw the Second Beith HaMikdash having a greater glory than the first, "what he was actually seeing was not" the Second Beith HaMikdash but the Third (when the Divine Presence will return and in a degree unparalleled in human history)? Similarly Brown argues,

"The prophets saw the future through a telescope. Things far away in time appeared close. They did not realize that centuries would come and go between their initial prediction and its actual fulfillment." (Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol. 3, page 191).

To be clear everyone would agree, at least anyone who accepts prophecy and the inspiration of scriptures, that the prophets saw things in the distant future. Michael Brown wishes to extend this possibility to passages which seem to indicate contemporaneous fulfillment, "Did Isaiah see the coming of the Messiah (i.e., a great deliverer) in the context of his very own day?" and "Let's look at Isaiah 9:1-7...where it is predicted that the yoke of the enemy...would be broken by the son of David who was already born." (ibid). 

Perhaps Haggai saw the Third Temple "through a telescope" not realizing that this was the House whose glory would be greater than the First Temple? Or perhaps since "Many biblical prophecies are fulfilled gradually (ibid 190) the physical grandeur of the Second Temple began the fulfillment which will continue with the return of the Ark and the Divine Presence in the Third?

Rather than apply his exegesis methods consistently, Michael Brown dismisses those interpreters who see it as a straight forward prediction of the Third Temple, "Of course such arguments become completely unnecessary when it is realized that the Messiah...came to the Second Temple, right on schedule."(Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, vol.1, page 223) even though we have seen his own methodology could easily support the same conclusion (with more baggage).

The glory of the Second Temple was the grand renovation which took place under Herod. The context clearly indicates the physical building was the subject under discussion. Christian Apologist's attempt to equate the glory with the occasional presence of the Nazarene is an ad hoc explanation used to construct a false dilemma.

¹It is interesting to note that although Yirmeyahu Ben David rejects the Trinity and the divinity of the Messiah, he nevertheless views the casual presence of the Nazarene in the Second Temple as being greater that the Divine Presence being present in the First Temple! This illustrates how even believer's in the Nazarene who do not hold traditional Christian view about the Nazarene's deity still have difficulty not engaging in hero worship and elevating him above the status of other mortals.

²Brown here seems to be engaging in what Osborne calls the "lexical fallacy" by automatically transferring the meaning of "glory" in one context (the glory of Hashem" to that of another (the Temple's glory), "The overemphasis on words to the detriment of context leads to one of the most serious of Barr's criticisms, 'illegitimate totality transfer' (1961:218). After going to so much trouble to find multitudinous meanings and uses for a word, it is hard for the scholar to select just one for the passage. The tendency is to read all or most of them (that is, to transfer the 'totality' of the meanings) into a single passage. such is 'illegitimate,' for no one ever has in mind all or even several of the possible meanings for a term when using it in a particular context." (The Hermeneutical Spiral, page 84).