An Account of My 2015 Email Debate with Two Jewish Apologists, Jared and May – Part 10 on Jewish Expertise, Torah, and Human Sacrifice

Randall Johnson May 9, to May, Jared
Yours was a “quick” reply, relatively speaking (relative to the constitution of the United States or War and Peace). I’ll try to respond as I did before, in red and interspersed with your comments.

May’s Quick Response to My Arguments
With my comments in red

GENTILES AND THEIR EXPERTISE IN TORAH as compared to the scholars’ expertise:
Luke himself was a gentile and, as such, would not have had an in-depth understanding of either the Hebrew language or sacred text. In addition, all of the apostles who you mentioned were also blue collar workers who also didn’t have knowledge of the text any farther than what their fathers would have taught them coming home from synagogue on Shabbat in their childhood years or what they would have heard during the regular reading of the Torah before the whole nation. It was the scribes and Pharisees (who we would today identify as Orthodox Rabbis) who have an expert understanding of the text and, at that time, also of the Oral Torah.

However, the apostles were taught by Jesus and the very thing we are arguing is that Jesus took great exception to the Pharisees’ interpretation of the text. The apostle Paul was, in fact, trained under Gamaliel, and he embraced Jesus’ understanding of Torah. Rather than argue the merits of our various teachers’ academic credentials, let’s argue the meaning of the texts.

ORAL TORAH
Speaking of Oral Torah, as you know, Moshe was up on Mt. Sinai for 2 40-day stints. If you’ve ever plugged in a Bible on DVD into your DVD player and just let it play while you worked around the house or something, you’ll know that it takes approximately 18 hours straight to get through the Torah- those 5 books of Moshe. Even if 18 hours was broken down into 8-hour days in which Moshe might have been learning on the mount for 8 hours per day and then chillin’ with God for the rest of the day roasting kosher marshmallows up there in His fire, that does not account for the rest of the time. What all else was Moshe doing up there for the rest of the 40 days? And what about the other 40 days? Did Moshe forget all that he’d been taught and have to go back up there for a review lesson, or was God not strong enough to quicken Moshe’s brain to retain a bunch of stuff? Did Moshe have a short attention span due to too much playing on the computer and other electronic devices? Did he have complex PTSD because of freaking out and running from Pharaoh before he got to Midian? No. There was a bunch of other details and other information revealed to him to be given to the children of Israel. Only major points were written in the written Torah, and the rest was preserved orally until after the Babylonian exile, at which point it was consolidated textually so it wouldn’t get altered in diaspora.

As you are aware, there is no written record of such oral torah (hence it is called oral) until much, much later, and it becomes difficult to claim what was authoritative Moshe and what was his followers’ oral additions. This, of course, is why even in Jesus’ day, good Jews were in disagreement as to what authority oral torah had for them. Jesus said the Pharisees sat in the seat of Moses, but he did not agree with their oral traditions in total, as seen when they contradicted written torah (Matthew 23, Mark 7 would give some examples).

I would highly recommend this informative article by Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks for a more comprehensive understanding of the importance and veracity of the Oral Law. Of course, understanding the culture, history, and sacred literature of the Jews is best done by learning about it from… the Jews.
http://www.rabbisacks.org/covenant-conversation-5770-mishpatim-the-meaning-of-texts/

If the Torah, and Tanakh as a whole, is an open document capable of being understood, then there is no ipso facto necessity that the Jews are its best interpreters. Gentiles can also learn and understand the culture, history and literature of the Hebrews, and in fact, have done so. But Christians are not solely Gentile. There have been many Jews who followed Jesus as Messiah and have brought their knowledge to bear on the interpretation of God’s Word.

I find it perplexing that on the one hand, Christians nullify and invalidate the Oral Torah, but then go straight to it when they feel there might be something in it that could be used to validate their belief in Yeshua and NT doctrine. Don’t you find that odd? And also that none of the rabbis who recorded this Oral Torah believed that the Christian method of salvation was what was written about “hidden” in the Hebrew scriptures? Who is blind to a sacred text? The ones who received it on Mt. Sinai and who are intimately familiar with it, or the people who are not but who come from far off in the nations? That’s like some guy coming to you who just met your wife last week at a dinner party and trying to tell you that he knows her better than you after you’ve been married to her for 50 years. Know what I mean?

I suppose you are referencing my two citations of the Talmud. I am not citing it as an authoritative source of doctrine but rather to corroborate my view as over against yours. If you are going to accuse Matthew of gross error in understanding Zechariah 9:9, then you must accuse Rabbi Joseph, as well. But that is patently ridiculous to accuse Rabbi Joseph of not understanding Hebrew poetic parallelism. It is patently ridiculous to accuse Matthew of it as well. I cited the “contradiction” discussed by the rabbis just as an example of how the Old Testament does indeed seem to contradict itself regarding Messiah unless you see it unfolding as it did in the life of Jesus and his claim to be coming again to finalize the fulfillment.

Additionally, if you are claiming that we should learn best by learning from Jews, why would you not want us to be familiar with the oral traditions? Why should we not cite them? This is especially the case when it becomes obvious that they are failing to explicate the meaning of the Old Testament and acknowledging that they are failing by their interactions with one another and their lack of consensus. Again, let’s argue the texts instead of the experts.

HE IS MY DEFENSE- I WILL NOT BE MOVED
I don’t know that we have to staunchly defend the text (Isaiah 7:10-25), as the text defends itself as it stands. It is what it is, and it says what it says. We can clearly see the original Hebrew and know what it means. Therefore, we can also clearly see that the English translation is deliberately ALTERING the true meaning of the text in order to superimpose this pagan notion of a demigod onto the text. Furthermore, in this passage, the “sign” or the prophecy is not about the child. The child is merely an indicator as to the timing of the real “sign” or event, which is a military victory over two specific foes who are named in the text if you keep reading. Also, read the verses prior to it, as the entire context informs the reader of the scenario and of the mindset of the Jewish king, whose faith in God delivering them was wavering.

Here is what Isaiah 7:14 says in Hebrew, and here is how the writers of the apostolic texts “translated” it. Now, when I say “translated”, what I really mean is CHANGED it. So if the original text does not support the claims of the apostolic writings, and if this key tenet and proclamation is a foundational principal upon which Christian doctrine rests, then the whole Christian house of cards just, in fact, came tumbling down. And if THIS is the case, how many (other) errors does it take before one realizes and concedes that the Christian Bible is founded on lies- the very lies to which Jeremiah 16;19-20 is referring when it speaks of the people of the nations coming to YEHOVAH saying, “OUR forefathers have inherited lies and things wherein there is no merit. Will man make for himself gods?…” and in fact, the claim that Jesus is God is that very thing- man claiming that God is made in man’s image rather than seeking the Jewish understanding of the scriptures in which the Torah says we are made in God’s image (because how is that when we have a human body, but God does not? So this really needs to be explored by way of asking the rabbis who are again experts in their own culture, history, and sacred text and of the God who revealed Himself to THEM directly).

Isaiah	וְ קָ רָ את	הָ רָ ה	הִ נֵּה  הָ עַ לְ מָ ה
Translation	And she shall call	Is with child	Behold, the young woman
Matthew	And they shall call	Shall be with a child	Behold, the virgin

The Hebrew word alma is used of Rebekah, Isaac’s wife, while she is still unmarried and a virgin (Genesis 24:43), of Miriam, Moses’ sister, while she is still unmarried and a virgin (Exodus 2:8) but can conceivably be used of a young woman of age to marry or newly married in certain contexts (Psalm 68:26, Song of Solomon 1:3; 6:8). But Jewish translators working on the Septuagint translated alma with the Greek word parthenos, which does have the meaning ‘virgin’ in Greek usage, with the implication that such a woman is of marriageable age. So, in the Jewish translators’ minds that word was a fair equivalent.

In Isaiah 7:14 I believe the immediate reference is to Isaiah’s wife, a young woman no doubt, but now no longer technically a virgin. The word alma is still applicable, however, since we may suppose she is a young woman. Her child’s development is the time frame for Ahaz to see the removal of Israel (Ephraim) and Aram as rivals to Judah, but the ascendency of Assyria as a new rival. The boy will be three or so years old when the prophecy is fulfilled. Isaiah 8:3 identifies this boy as Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz.

However, because the anointed prophet is a type of Messiah, who will fulfill the prophetic role in Israel as Moses predicted (Deuteronomy 18), what is true of him can be reproduced in the life of the ultimate Messiah to come. Not only that, but his experience can be taken to a new level as might be expected of the fulfillment of a type. Matthew recognizes this and applies the word parthenos to Mary from the Isaiah prophecy because she is an alma in the most exalted sense, truly a virgin though pregnant with the child who is a sign for all time to the whole world. And though Isaiah’s son may also be titled “God with us,” this is more literally true of Jesus who is both Yahweh and man, one person with two natures. Matthew is doing brilliant exegesis of the Isaiah prophecy in light of chapter 9 of Isaiah, which takes the sign child to a level that cannot be fulfilled by Isaiah’s son, but only by one who can properly be called “the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace” whose government shall never end.

No errors have occurred nor have any card houses fallen. This type of exegesis is evident, for example, in that same Talmud tractate, Sanhedrin, Folio 99a, when Rabbi Eliezer argues that Messiah’s days will be forty years because in Psalm 90:15 Moses asked God to make Israel glad for as many years as they had been afflicted and 40 years coincides with the length of time Israel was afflicted in the wilderness. Rabbi Eliezer sees the time of Messiah as having typical correspondence with Israel’s history and Moses’ request.

INFLAMMATORY
Just to address the whole inflammatory thing here, I want to preemptively state that in no way am I offended by you saying that either Tovia’s teachings or style or that my assertions in the last megillah were inflammatory, but I did want to kind of point out what appears to be something of a double standard here. I also want to reiterate again how valuable to me our correspondence is, as I know that you would not be taking your precious time with either of us, were it not for a genuine love for and concern for our souls and our eternal destinies. I hope you keep in the forefront of your mind that the same is true for me, and I believe I can also speak for Jared on this issue. After all, it is the mandate of the Jews to be a light to the nations- not to convert the world to Judaism, but to bring them home to Abrahamic/ Noachic faith and to help them repent of idolatry and know that God is one.

I don’t think there is a double standard. By inflammatory I mean attributing evil motives and deception to our witness. Rabbi Singer did this to Jhan and you guys have done some of that also. I do believe that you are loving and concerned, but I see this technique of Rabbi Singer’s popping up occasionally. Thank you for clarifying your love and concern for me. As I clarified to Jared, I am tempted in situations like ours to go for the throat in an argument, so I understand how easy it is to be inflammatory. But I hope that I have not suggested in any way that I doubt your motives or your sincerity and honesty as you seek to persuade me.

Now, let me just insert here that even though a person or the whole world may be participating in idolatry, even in ignorance, God STILL LOVES THOSE PEOPLE DEARLY and still has relationship with them! In fact, I realized this when I became a Christian that God had been working in and through my life prior to me becoming a Christian and also afterward when I became a non-Christian and started seeking conversion. He has always had relationship with me even when I was unknowingly participating in idolatry (thinking of Him as a man and praying to him with the image or idea that He was in any way, shape or form a man). And of course, when my eyes were opened to the fact that I’d been doing that, I was mortified, but He wasn’t there waiting to whoop my hide, but just waiting for me to repent so I could know Him better. XOXOXO I’m just crazy about Him. Check out Ezekiel 18:23. So anyway, then my horror and anxiety about it was stilled, and once again I could relax and rest in His love. It’s a fatherly love, but I cannot think of it like that as I don’t know anything about earthly fatherly love with which to compare it.

I digress.

So the statements you feel are inflammatory, I just wanted to convey that Christians (who actually READ the NT) know already that the message of the Gospel is inflammatory. I believe the word in there used is “offensive”. This is even used to justify why people kill Christians over the message.

For clarity, I am defining “inflammatory” as attacking motives and honesty. Yes, what I teach will be offensive to you and what you teach will be offensive to me. But I respect your view and believe you arrive at it honestly and are not using deception to persuade me nor running some secret evil program to fool me into accepting Judaism.

So they know the world will find it offensive, but yet they go forth with it offending the world BUT with the intention that they are bringing these people to the ultimate goal of eternal salvation. The end justifies the means.

The end does not justify the means, even or especially in Christian evangelism. We are not called to use any political, economic, or violent pressure to make converts. The conversion must come solely on the basis of persuasion and appeal. Our arguments are our weapons and though that sounds like a violent metaphor it is more violent toward the unseen spiritual forces that are bringing their lies to bear on an unbelieving world and not intended at all for those we lovingly seek to persuade to enter God’s kingdom.

So when the illustrious Rabbi Singer or I make an assertion that a Christian might find offensive or inflammatory, are we not also entitled to that same understanding that we are telling you the truth in order that your eternal security might be procured? After all, we are discussing doctrine alone here and not being personal. I am strictly drawing correlations between things and playing them out to their logical conclusions.

Yes, you are expected to be as persuasive as possible if my eternal destiny is at stake.

One such correlation that you might find offensive but that I feel the need to express nonetheless is a parallel that I realized last year.  It is the correlation between the ultimatum that Nebuchadnezzar posed to Daniel’s 3 friends and the gospel that is posed to humanity.

NEBUCHADNEZZAR said:
Worship this (golden) image of a man as God (in the form of a statue) or burn in the fire (of the furnace)!

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE says:
Worship this (Jewish) image of a man as God (in the form of a human) or burn in the fire (of hell)!

Once again, the Jew is being essentially given an ultimatum to bow to an image or be burned.

Can you see that? I mean, I know how precious the gospel is to you, but just try to compartmentalize that for a second and step into the shoes of the Jew. Not trying to be offensive here- just honest and transparent so you might have a genuine understanding. Do you see how inflammatory that is to say to the Jew? Do you see how history is kind of repeating?

I can see how that is offensive to you. I do not of course think it is the same kind of thing Nebuchadnezzar was asking of Daniel’s friends, but I can see how you do. I do not relish or angrily demand hell for anyone who rejects Jesus.

So, to reiterate, it’s just ironically funny (and kind of double-standardy) how Christians know from the writings of Paul that their message is offensive, but if someone comes with textual proof from Torah and a basic understanding of the Hebrew language that proves NT theology is a lie, then thatis called inflammatory. Is it also not inflammatory to come and presume that God gave the Jews a bunch of lies on Sinai and just happened to NOT include crucial information whereas He clearly illustrates elsewhere that He is perfectly capable of being direct and clear in graphic overt detail and therefore could have AT that or any time told His people that He would come later as a human sacrifice?

Again, I do not call inflammatory any arguments you bring against the Christian faith. All of our faith is open to validation and there should be evidence for what we believe. I do not call what God gave Israel on Sinai a bunch of lies but rather see it as a step in His relationship to the world and in His revelation of Himself to the world in anticipation of a greater fulfillment. And I know how easy it is to say “We’re the fulfillment,” and so I am happy to provide evidence as possible.

HUMAN SACRIFICE
And then what are you going to do about the scriptures in which God says repeatedly that human sacrifice is an abomination? Is it not, then abominable if God would become man? Is a man not still a man? Granted, it makes no sense to say that Jesus was 100% God and 100% man, because the two are mutually exclusive. NO man is God. A 100% man has both a human mother and a human father, so one could never say that a being with only a human mother is 100% man. What we’d have there would be a demigod (as defined by the dictionary, not by me).

I think I answered this in our original interaction. But let me say that there is nothing contradictory about saying someone is 100% God and 100% man if by that is meant one person possesses two natures, two complete natures, divine and human. And there is no logical reason to say that they are mutually exclusive. Why can’t one person, God the Son, manage with two natures? And who defines what is human anyway? Is it not God? And if, as we argue, God caused this hypostatic union of divine and human in the person of Jesus, how can we say he is not legitimately human but a demi-God. My dictionary defines a demigod as “partly divine and partly human, an inferior deity, or a deified mortal,” but that is not what we are saying Jesus is at all.
And then again, God says that He is not a man, so the demigod would also not be 100% God either.

Because Jesus is God with an additional human nature, he is not your typical man. When God says He is not a man He is not making a statement about ontological possibilities, but more about the difference in His character as over against “fallen and finite” human beings. Fallen and finite human beings can change their minds and can lie. Jesus can’t and doesn’t do any of those things.
But still, for God to say, “Alright, my little homies, my lovelies, listen up. Human sacrifice is an abomination, but I am going to become human so you can sacrifice me” is for him to say, “Look, murdering another human being is against the law… unless you are murdering me. Just be sure that when you murder me, you know it really IS me, because I hate murder, but this is essentially me committing suicide at your hands, and I am OK with suicide… but again, as long as it’s me, because you know, I COULD save myself, but I won’t, so yeah. It’s essentially suicide.”

I’ve already gone over this in my first response to you. Human sacrifice was forbidden because it was a futile attempt to manipulate God and the taking of a precious human life. Jesus’ sacrifice of himself was not futile and was not done, from the human perspective, by himself, but by his fellow countrymen who saw him as a threat rather than a savior. The New Testament makes clear that God sovereignly planned for this but that wicked hands committed the crime. Don’t want to go into the whole sovereignty/responsibility issue here but suffice it to say God holds the perpetrators of the crime guilty even though the OT predicted this and it unfolds His plan which was always anticipated by the failure of animal sacrifices to take away sin.

Suicide is self-murder. It is forbidden in Torah to allow murder- even to allow yourself or your loved ones to be murdered. “Do not stand idly by and let your brothers’ blood be shed” flies right in the face of any proclamation that Israel was to sacrifice one of its own in order to wipe out sin altogether from the human race, and as we can see, it is still here.

But Isaiah 53 depicts such a sacrifice, whoever you think that is talking about.

So to summarize, “I’m against murder, but I’m not against suicide (self-murder or allowing the self to be murdered when it is in one’s power to fight back or prevent said murder),” does not go over. To insinuate this is to say that God changes His nature and His divine instructions for mankind. I hope I’m illustrating that point clearly. So please just take a look at these verses and really please do, my friend, meditate on these scriptures regarding the violation of Torah that is human sacrifice. Would YOU ever sacrifice your own innocent child in order to exonerate a guilty man and let him go free? Does not that prevent the guilty party from either being able to repent of or learn from the consequences of his actions? How would your son feel about you if you did that? The guilty would think you’re a sucker and would go right back and sin again and worse, and you would be called unjust and hated by your innocent son. God is SO not like that. He doesn’t give us the laws by which the universe words and instructions on how to behave and then flip the script on us and say it is now the diametric opposite of that.

Please see my response to your first questions. And I have never felt that God was a sucker for sacrificing Jesus for me, nor have I felt unrepentant because of it or that my actions have no consequences.