|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apologetics Ministries | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
The Anti-Anti-Mission A Response to some Jewish Objections to Christian Theology "Wildcat" [Introduction] [Atonement Anomalies?] [Trouble with the Trinity?] [Genesis 3:15] [Isaiah 7:14] [Isaiah 9:6] [Micah 5:2] [Jeremiah 31:31-34] [Zechariah 12:10] [Psalm 2] [Psalm 110] [Proverbs 30:2-4] [Psalm 22] [Isaiah 53] [Daniel 9:24-27] [A Resurrected Messiah?] [Verses Christians Ignore?] [Response to a Parody] Dedication The former treatise have we made, O Tekton reader, of all that the anti-missionary Joe Wallack began to spew forth, until the day in which JPH eviscerated him, after that a new opponent had emerged to make an open challenge to Christians, to whom he presented many fallible claims, being seen of them many days, and speaking against the things pertaining to Christian theology, to which we now scrutinize in light of the knowledge imparted by those on a higher scholarly plane. Introduction The purpose of this page is to examine an article written by an anti-missionary attempting to disprove the Christian understanding of a variety of Old Testament passages. This includes a couple of typical Old Testament passages that many Christians understand to corroborate the concept of plurality within the Godhead, the Christian understanding of Biblical atonement for sin, and various passages understood by Christians to be Messianic prophecies (the latter forms the bulk of the author's objections). I would like to extend special thanks up front to Jeremiah, Gray Pilgrim, and, of course, the ubiquitous JPH for their valuable assistance. Their contributions will be noted in the appropriate sections. The following format was used when making citations to our major sources, listed in the "Acknowledgements" section at the end of the article: [Author (source #): page #(s)] Citations for other sources (that are not listed at the end) are made within the article itself. The author says at the top of his article: This site has enjoyed [N] visits, none of which has disproved its main point -- that the Tannach does not mention Jesus or a Christ. Missionaries who happen to read this -- you are welcome to try to be the first. " While it may be true that this page had not been specifically refuted, most, and probably all, of the arguments in this page have been refuted elsewhere. In fact, this response is largely a collation of the work performed by others in this area of apologetics, most particularly Michael Brown. Indeed, while we are indebted to Brown for his superb scholarship that has been useful in formulating this article, we would like to encourage the reader to check out the three books of his "Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus" series. Brown discusses many of the objections found here, of course, in much more depth than what space will allow for us to delve in this article, along with many other typical historical and theological objections that modern Jews have to Christianity. On-line reviews to all 3 of Brown's books (keep in mind that there is a planned 4th volume as well to round off the set) can be found at the following links: Volume 1; Volume 2; Volume 3. See also the Messianic Bible project that Brown is heading. Although it will probably be a few years yet before this is finally completed and published, it looks as if it will be well worth the wait. Some pertinent information can be found by clicking the link. See especially the short video on the site. While the treatment in this article cannot be as comprehensive as the aforementioned presentations, we feel that this is a worthwhile project since this response may serve as a template for responses to many objections against Christian theology, particularly the Messianic prophecies. It is also worthwhile not only in the arena of Jewish-Christian apologetics, but also in that dealing with atheists and Muslims since these same arguments found here are finding popularity in those circles as well. Some Preliminary Remarks Our author starts off in the introduction: Every third Jew in cyberspace has a counter missionary page, so why add another one? Because the more you explain something, the more people will understand it. This page shows Jews who are wrestling with their spirituality how to look at the Tanach (Hebrew scriptures) on its own terms, instead of trying to force it into a prediction of Jesus or a Christ type of messiah. In response, we will just note that it is our belief that the Tanach clearly predicts the coming of a Messiah and that these prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus Christ. We believe that, rather than Christians trying to force predictions into the O.T., it is the anti-missionaries and other skeptics who are trying to force these predictions OUT of the O.T. However, we agree with the author's admonishment in that everybody, not only Jews, should indeed look at the O.T. on its own terms, not try to force anything into it, BUT ALSO not try to force anything OUT of it. Missionaries claim that "Jesus fulfilled 300 prophecies from the Old Testament." The claims depend on verses that are either poorly translated, taken out of context, or both. (Actually, most of the claims in the list of 300 are just fanciful.) Looking at the verse in context -- which, more often than not, just means looking at an entire chapter instead of an individual verse -- and examining the translation more carefully is usually enough to show what the verse is actually about. Some of the verses do indeed refer to Messiah, but not to Jesus. We have good reason to believe, as will be demonstrated in some cases, that it is the anti-missionaries who are often guilty of dishonest translations and faulty interpretations of the text. As far as the list of 300 is concerned, we are not dogmatic about the actual number. It is true, in some cases, that O.T. passages were applied to Jesus that, in their original context, had apparently nothing to do with the coming Messiah. Matthew used, for instance, in Matthew 2:15, the verse from Hosea 11:1 out of context. The context of the verse from Hosea speaks of Israel as God's son coming out of Egypt whereas Matthew applies it to Jesus, as God's Son, coming out of Egypt. In other words, Matthew was applying the verse typologically, which was a widely accepted practice in his day. In response, we often see parodies of this same practice being used to demonstrate that others, such as Napoleon, could be interpreted to be the Messiah based on this standard of reasoning. The author of this piece under scrutiny also links to such a parody. In my opinion, the parodies do not seem to draw parallels which would tend to be as impressive as those found by the New Testament authors, at least in some cases. For instance, how many other historical figures can it be said came out of Egypt and is referred to in some sense (divine or not divine) as God's son? There may be others of which I'm unaware, but yet this application seems to eliminate the vast majority of others from contention. All of that said, we would probably not resort to using such prophecies, in and of themselves, for apologetic purposes since there are numerous other more clear and "pure," if you will, prophecies to which we may make appeal. This site discusses details of sixteen of these verses (some of which are still under construction). If your favorite verse is not included, send me e-mail and I'll put it in. The discussions can't be complete because these arguments can go on forever. If you think I have omitted an important point, tell me, and, if I agree, I'll put it in. Also, e-mail me if you find any mistakes in the quotations, translations, or logic. NOTE: you may think you have found a mistake, but if I don't agree, your conviction doesn't obligate me. This sounds obvious, but at least one pushy missionary got mad that I didn't accept his words as -- ahem -- "gospel". After this the author goes into a story of how he became more involved with the Jewish-Christian debate and then states: With what I learned, I was able to teach my son who he was and also give the missionary Jewish answers. The more I read, the more I realized the extent to which Christian missionaries will go to convert us to Christianity. Since then, I've been actively combating Christian distortions of the Hebrew Scriptures. This website seems to be effective in that goal. Missionaries complain bitterly about these pages, but can't answer the basic challenge - to show where the Hebrew Scriptures mention Jesus or a Christ-type messiah. Of course, we have no idea how scholarly the arguments against these pages' positions actually are to which the author has been exposed. We would state in response that we feel that the evidence weighs substantially on the side of the Christian interpretation when properly assessed on most of the controversial passages. This may not be enough to convince the author, but whether or not this rejection is justified is another story. (JPH note: Our own experience with this author on TheologyWeb suggests that he is incapable to dealing with relevant Biblical scholarship.) I welcome suggestions for new topics corrections of errors, or anything else. Your input is aways welcome. This page is NOT intended to convert Christians away from their religion. Though some Jews disagree, I think Christianity is fine for Christians. It is not fine for Jews -- the Bible clearly says that G-d wants different things from different peoples. My hope for missionizing Christians who read this page is for them to understand some of these differences, and to learn that there are more interpretations of the Tanach than they have been taught, so they need not try to convert Jews. E-mail me if I'm wrong about what Christians believe -- but remember that Christians often disagree among themselves. Don't tell me that someone else's belief is not "really Christian" -- instead, tell that someone. Christian Bible is only occasionally referred to. Other countermissionary links such as the Jews for Judaism library and Drazin's "Their Hollow Inheritance" discuss the so called "New Testament" and Christianity in more detail. One particularly detailed site is "1001 Errors in the Christian Bible by Joe Wallacks (which, sadly, does not have an index -- nag Joe to put one in.) Most of these sources are less tolerant of Christianity than I am. We should probably make a brief note at this point. Joe Wallack is perhaps a perfect example of the type that JPH had in mind when he wrote "Why Critics of the Bible Do not Deserve the Benefit of the Doubt." Wallack's material finds refutation in this piece. Since the author advertises a variety of anti-Christian sources in the above excerpt, we will take this opportunity to point the reader to the Book Reviews page here at Tekton where he/she can find information on dozens of scholarly books regarding Christianity. This would include Michael Brown's books (which we discussed very briefly in the introduction), which provide a plethora of detailed answers to many Jewish objections to Christianity. As veteran readers are already aware, there are also many pertinent web articles found on this site as well as others, especially Glenn Miller's Christian Thinktank. Miller's site contains several great articles relevant to Jewish-Christian apologetics. See also the section near the bottom of this article entitled "A Resurrected Messiah?" for more source recommendations. A note on translation: The Romans said that the translator is a traitor. In truth, all translations are compromises -- some better, and some worse. No translation can perfectly reproduce the original. For one, words shift their meanings from one place to another. Also, words have many meanings, but these vary from one language to another. For a graphic example, the word "calba" in Hebrew literally means bitch (female dog), but the Hebrew "calba" rarely has the other bitchy meanings of the English word. If you disagree with my translations (mostly derived from the A.J. Rosenberg translation), tell me why. If you are unsure about anything on this page, look it up yourself or ask a recognized expert (though if your expert is committed in his or her religious belief, you'll know beforehand what he or she will say.). Christian translations, I usually quote the King James Version (KJV) of the Hebrew Scriptures because it is quite popular, and because most missionaries accept it as valid. Bible Gateway has other English translations and versions in other languages. Bible Gateway doesn't have the original Hebrew but this Bilingual Tanach does -- with nikud, and with the 1917 Jewish Publication Society (JPS) translation. I'm going to start a page of really foolish points missionaries make. Here is the first entry: "Yes, I know the word salvation has a "heth" on the end but whether you say yud-shin-vuv-eyin I personally have never heard any Christian make such a claim, but this, of course, is not relevant to proving or disproving that Jesus is the Messiah. Collecting a list of "bad arguments made by Christians" will not do the trick either. The presence of bad arguments does not negate any good arguments that may exist. With these comments in mind, we will now delve into the actual arguments themselves. Atonement Anomalies? One cannot read the Old Testament and escape the conclusion that animal sacrifices played a key role in the theology of its characters. Animal sacrifices were made going all the way back to the days of Abel (Gen 4.4.), and then to Job (Job 1:5), and then, of course, to the Israelite nation itself, beginning with the sacrifice that prevented the death angel from taking the Israelites' first born sons on the Passover (Exodus 12:3-13). While the animal sacrifices served a number of different purposes, it is the Christian contention that all such sacrifices prefigured the ultimate sacrifice to come-that of Jesus Christ [Glenn Miller has a thorough treatment of this subject on this page. See especially the section entitled "Sacrifice (NT)" where the different types of sacrifices are discussed and how the NT authors related their anti-typical fulfillment in Christ]. The most important purpose of Christ's sacrifice of which we will be concerned in this section is the atonement that can be made for sins. The author tries to argue that the Torah gives examples of other ways in which atonement might be made besides bloody sacrifices. Leviticus 17:11 is often cited to "prove" that blood atonement is needed to atone for sins. The KJV translates it like this: For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. This interpretation has problems. First, the passage does not say that blood is the only means to atone for souls, and, in fact, Torah lists several other means -- e.g. flour (Lev 5:11), money (Exodus 30:15-16), jewelry (Numbers 31:50) or putting fire from the altar in a censure (Numbers 17:11). In addition, Hosea 14:3 says that our lips (i.e. prayers from our lips) can substitute for bulls (i,.e. blood sacrifice), Micah (6:6-8) says G-d wants a good heart rather than blood sacrifices, and the both Isaiah (1:11) and the Psalmist (40 and 50) say that G-d does not need or care about blood sacrifices. Blood is just one of many means for atonement. (See "Verses Missionaries Ignore" for details.) We'll consider these objections one at a time. First up, we have Leviticus 5:11 where it is asserted that flour can be utilized as a means for atonement. Brown responds: "The answer is really quite simple, as the verses themselves indicate: 'If, however, he cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, he is to bring as an offering for his sin a tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering. He must not put oil or incense on it, because it is a sin offering. He is to bring it to the priest, WHO SHALL TAKE A HANDFUL OF IT AS A MEMORIAL PORTION AND BURN IT ON THE ALTAR ON TOP OF THE OFFERINGS MADE TO THE LORD BY FIRE. It is a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for him for any of these sins he has committed, and he will be forgiven. The rest of the offering will belong to the priest, as in the case of the grain offering.' (Leviticus 5:11-13, emphasis added) "According to verse 12, the priest will 'take a handful of it [i.e., the flour] as a memorial portion and burn it ON THE ALTAR ON TOP OF THE OFFRINGS made to the Lord by fire.' Then, 'the priest will make atonement for him' (v. 13). In other words, the priest, in his capacity as mediator for the people, and having mingled the flour with the blood sacrifices that were already on the altar, would make atonement for his fellow Israelite. "Nowhere is it written that 'the flour will make atonement' or that 'the life of a creature is in the flour.' Rather, the whole basis for the atonement was in the sacrificial blood on the altar, and through a flour offering, even poor Israelites could participate in the atoning power of the altar. But there is not a single verse in the Bible that would even hint that flour, in and of itself, had any atoning power, and the rabbis never suggested that, in the absence of the Temple, flour could be substituted for sacrifices. Without the atoning altar and its sacrifices, the flour had no power at all."[Brown (1): 112-113] Next, what about the references to money and jewelry as alternative means of atonement? Here are the pertinent passages: "When you take a census of the Israelites to count them, each one must pay the Lord a ransom for his life at the time he is counted. Then no plague will come on them when you number them. Each one who crosses over to those already counted is to give a half shekel, according to the sanctuary shekel, which weighs twenty gerahs. This half shekel is an offering to the Lord. All who cross over, those twenty years old or more, are to give an offering to the Lord. The rich are not to give more than a half shekel and the poor are not to give less when you make the offering to the Lord to atone for your lives. Receive the atonement money from the Israelites and use it for the service of the Tent of Meeting. It will be a memorial for the Israelites before the Lord, making atonement for your lives (Exodus 30:12-16) "Then the officers who were over the units of the army-the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds-went to Moses and said to him, 'Your servants have counted the soldiers under our command, and not one is missing. So we have brought as an offering to the Lord the gold articles each of us acquired-armlets, bracelets, signet rings, earrings and necklaces-to make atonement for ourselves before the Lord." (Numbers 31:48-50) These texts are not about atonement for sins, but rather protection from God's wrath. In the first passage, God commanded all the males to pay a ransom ("kopher") for their lives. In the second passage, the officers offered a ransom (same word "kopher") to God in gratitude for His protection of them (as not one soldier was missing when the count was taken). Brown notes that the word "kopher" is used 14 times in the Old Testament and means "ransom" (as with the verses cited, along with others such as Isaiah 43:3), "bribe, payoff" (as in 1 Samuel 12:3; Proverbs 6:35; Amos 5:12). However, it does not in any of the 14 occasions have anything to do with making atonement for sin. So why does it appear in the texts in this case as "making atonement"? Brown again notes that "kopher," which means ransom, and "kipper," which means atone, come from the same Hebrew root. Since the texts have to do with protection from a plague rather than atonement for sins, the text is more properly rendered, "to pay a ransom for your lives" or "to make appeasement." Brown also quotes a plethora of Jewish commentators which agree on this rendering. One example is Rashi, the famous traditional commentator on the Torah that lived in the 11th century A.D. He explains the Exodus passage to mean "so that you will not be smitten with a plague because of the census." Commentaries on Rashi's Torah commentary agree. The Siftey Hachamim commentary, referring to Exodus 30:15, explains that Rashi means, "that is not to atone [lekapper] for your sins as is the one with the other [biblical usages] of kapparah, but the concept is of 'kapparah' in connection with the census.'" More corroboration comes from the Gur Areyh commentary on Rashi. It states, "but not atonement [kapparah] for sins, since it is already written (Exod. 30:12), 'so that there will be no plague against you.'" [Brown (1): 114-116] Next, we are given a mention of fire from the altar being placed in a censure for atonement of sins. A pertinent passage is found in Numbers 16:46-48: "Take your censer and put incense in it, along with fire from the altar, and hurry to the assembly to make atonement for them. Wrath has come out from the Lord; the plague has started.' So Aaron did as Moses said, and ran into the midst of the assembly. The plague had already started among the people, but Aaron offered the incense and made atonement for them. He stood between the living and the dead, and the plague stopped." The context for this passage in chapter 16 is the rebellion of Korah who was "swallowed whole by the earth" (16:31-32) and all of the men that were part of the rebellion were subsequently consumed by fire (16:35). Later in the chapter, we are told that the congregation arose against Moses and Aaron because of the people that were killed (16:41). For this, God caused a plague, as is detailed in verses 46-48 above, to fall upon the people. Once again, similar to the case discussed above with the money, we see that the fire in the censure is to quench the plague that has befallen the Israelites. The only difference is that the money was used to prevent a plague in the former case whereas the fire in the censure was used to stop a plague that had already started. As in the previous case, it had nothing to do with atonement for sins. One pushback in this case, however, is that the word for atone, "kipper," is used here whereas it was not in the cases of the money and jewelry. Regardless, the context makes it clear that this passage has nothing to do with spiritual atonement for sins, but rather the stoppage of a plague. Brown notes: "Jacob Milgrom states that the verb kipper, usually translated to make atonement or expiation, 'in this context carries the connotation of 'make appeasement.' He further explains, 'In the cults [i.e., temple-related rituals] of the ancient Near East, incense served to appease and sooth divine wrath,' citing examples from ancient Egypt to support his claims." [Brown (1): 117; cf. also Milgrom, "Numbers." 142.] The Jewish authority Rashbam explains this passage in light of what started the whole problem in the first place, which was God's rejection of the incense offered by Korah. Thus, Rashbam describes that this "was to demonstrate to the people that the incense which brings death, if offered by unauthorized persons, brings life if it is offered by lawful priests.'" [Brown (1): 118] Brown also writes: "The Talmud also found it necessary to explain how incense could 'make atonement,' discussing this very text and concluding that it only atoned for gossip, since 'if someone brings a word in secret, he will make atonement by a deed in secret' (see b. Zevahim 88a). This, of course, underscores just how difficult it was to connect incense with atonement from a biblical-or even logical-viewpoint." [Brown (1): 118] The author of the piece to which we are responding also makes reference to Numbers 17:11. In chapter 17, God commands Moses to obtain 12 rods, each of which represents a tribe of Israel (17:1-2). Aaron's name was to be written on the rod of Levi (17:3). Moses placed the rods in the tabernacle of witness (17:7) and the next day Aaron's rod budded, blossomed, and put forth almonds (17:8). This was a further sign to the Israelites, as the rest of this short chapter details, that it is indeed Aaron that has the authority to perform the priestly services. In chapter 18, God goes on to tell Aaron that it is he and his sons that are to "bear the iniquity of the sanctuary" and to "bear the iniquity of his priesthood." (18:1-2) How the author feels that this helps his case we do not know for certain. If it is because Aaron and his sons are described as the ones that must "bear the iniquity of the sanctuary and of the priesthood," then there is a contextual issue. The passage makes it clear that this is the case simply in the sense that it is only Aaron and company that are to perform the divinely-appointed priestly rituals through which atonement is made, not that they will in any way serve as an atonement for sins in and of themselves. Then, we are told by the author, "Hosea 14:3 says that our lips (i.e. prayers from our lips) can substitute for bulls (i.e. blood sacrifice)." Brown writes: "First, it is quite natural to take Hosea 14:1-2[2-3] figuratively, just as Psalm 141:2, in which David, as we saw, asks that his prayer be set before God AS incense and that the lifting up of his hands be AS the evening sacrifice. So even following the traditional Jewish translation, God's people could be saying, 'We will fulfill the vows of our lips as if they were bulls being offered up in sacrifice.'" [Brown (1): 93] Brown goes on to note that Hebrews 13:15 draws on the imagery used in this verse [Brown (1): 93]. "By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his name." That said, there are translation problems as well. According to Brown, the Hebrew reads, "Forgive all iniquity, and take good, and we will pay bulls our lips." "For this reason," Brown continues, "there are leading Jewish scholars (such as Robert Gordis) who suggest that the oldest Jewish translation of this verse, namely, the Septuagint, should be followed here, reading the word 'fruit' (peri) instead of 'bulls' (parim)-thereby undercutting the entire anti-missionary argument." [Brown (1): 94] Brown also notes that since the Hebrew word "shillem" is never used in conjunction with making animal sacrifices in the Bible, the verse has nothing to do with sacrificial offerings. The meaning of "shillem" is "to fulfill, complete, pay, repay, compensate." Consider Ecclesiastes 5:4: "When you make a vow to God, do not delay in FULFILLING it [shillem]. He has no pleasure in fools; FULFILL [shillem] your vow." Thus the phrase should be rendered, "We will pay the vows of our lips to God" rather than "We will replace animal sacrifices with the offerings of our lips." [Brown (1): 94] Next we have the Micah 6:6-8 passage: "Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself down before the high God? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He hath shown thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" What are we to make of this? Given that Micah was writing in the time before the first Temple was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, and given the fact that the Jews continued to make sacrifices until the Temple's destruction, and built a second Temple after their captivity in Babylon and reconstituted the sacrificial system, it is very unlikely that the Jews would have understood this as Micah's purpose. Otherwise, it is unlikely that Micah would have even been considered to be an inspired prophet. The key to this passage is clearly in verse 8. While Micah is certainly not repudiating the sacrificial system of atonement for forgiveness of sins, he is indicating that God wants us to: "….do justly,….love mercy, and walk humbly with God." Brown notes of this: "What then was Micah saying? He was reproving his sinful people and telling them (with some obvious hyperbole) not to think that they could please God merely by bringing thousands of sacrifices and offerings or to imagine that the Lord would want them to sacrifice their own sons to pay for their sins. Rather, what God was looking for was justice, mercy, and humility, something that some of them apparently overlooked in their zeal to bring sacrifices and special offerings. They put their emphasis on the wrong thing, emphasizing the outward ceremonies and ignoring the inward corruption. Such is human nature." [Brown (1): 75-76] We see a similar theme running through the New Testament texts. For instance, consider Matthew 23:25-27: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness." This invokes in this author's mind the situation of a Christian that attends church services every weekend, participates in baptism and the Lord's Supper, supports the church financially, etc. yet whose heart remains unchanged (Matthew 22:37-40). As with the sacrifices outlined in the Torah as being an essential element for the atonement of sins, it is true to the Christian that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ fulfils the same essential purpose. However, in both the Old and New Testaments, we are admonished by God to live righteously and follow Him in a spirit of humility. In a sense, we can say that, just as Micah (and also David, see Psalm 40:5-10) in the Old Testament indicate that the sacrificial system of the Torah is not to be used as a license for sin, the New Testament teaches that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ is also not to be used in this manner (See Romans 6). This, quite clearly, does not negate the efficacy of sacrifice as an atonement for sins. Up next is Isaiah 1:11: "Hear the word of the Lord, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah. To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? Saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts? Bring me no more VAIN OBLATIONS; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and Sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them. And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood." (Isaiah 1:10-15, emphasis added) In light of factors discussed in the last section, it would not make sense that God would be repudiating not only animal sacrifices, but also the annual sabbaths that were so important to the Jewish nation well after the 8th century B.C. (when Isaiah was writing). As with Micah, since the Jews continued to cherish these Torah-ordained institutions in that day as well as afterwards, it would not make sense to conclude from the above passage that God literally hates the appointed feasts and new moons. If this was Isaiah's intent, it is unlikely that his work would have been accepted by the Jews as inspired (since they obviously did not cease from observing the appointed days). So how do we explain this passage? When we go back to the beginning of this chapter when Isaiah is having his vision, God indicates that the Israelites have rebelled against Him (verse 2); they are "a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the Lord (verse 4). God says in verses 16-20: "Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it." Thus it appears that this collapses back into the same discussion we had in the previous section. It is a matter of Israel performing the divinely-appointed rituals outlined in the Torah yet inwardly being evil and rebellious to the Lord. Finally, we are given Psalm 40 and 50. Here are the pertinent passages of each: "Many, O Lord my God, are thy wonderful works which thou hast done, and thy thoughts which are to usward: they cannot be reckoned up in order unto thee: if I would declare and speak of them, they are more than can be numbered. Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required. Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart. I have preached righteousness in the great congregation: lo, I have not refrained my lips, O Lord, thou knowest. I have not hid thy righteousness within my heart; I have declared thy faithfulness and thy salvation: I have not concealed thy lovingkindness and thy truth from the great congregation." (Psalm 40:5-10) "Hear, O my people, and I will speak; O Israel, and I will testify against thee: I am God, even thy God. I WILL NOT REPROVE THEE FOR THY SACRIFICES OR THY BURNT OFFERINGS, TO HAVE BEEN CONTINUALLY BEFORE ME. I will take no bullock out of thy house, nor he goats out of thy folds. FOR EVERY BEAST OF THE FOREST IS MINE, AND THE CATTLE UPON A THOUSAND HILLS. I KNOW ALL THE FOWLS OF THE MOUNTAINS: AND THE WILD BEASTS OF THE FIELD ARE MINE. If I were hungry, I would not tell thee: for the world is mine, and the fullness thereof. WILL I EAT THE FLESH OF BULLS, OR DRINK THE BLOOD OF GOATS? OFFER UNTO GOD THANKSGIVING; AND PAY THY VOWS UNTO THE MOST HIGH: And call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me. BUT UNTO THE WICKED GOD SAITH, WHAT HAST THOU TO DO TO DECLARE MY STATUTES, OR THAT THOU SHOULDEST TAKE MY COVENANT IN THY MOUTH? SEEING THOU HATEST INSTRUCTION, AND CASTEST MY WORDS BEHIND THEE. When thou sawest a thief, then thou consentedst with him, and hast been partaker with adulterers. Thou givest thy mouth to evil, and thy tongue frameth deceit. Thou sittest and speakest against thy brother; thou slanderest thine own mother's son." (Psalm 50:7-20, emphasis added) First, on Psalm 40, as we had alluded to in a previous section in a parenthetical note, this is essentially the same situation we find in the Isaiah 1:10-15 passage as well as that in Micah 6:6-8. David alludes in verse 5 to his innumerable sins and later in the passage to his "ears being opened" and God's "law within his heart." David is speaking here not of some inefficacy of blood sacrifices for atonement, but about the importance of repentance and following the acceptable way of the Lord. Perhaps the passage in Psalm 50 is most exemplary of this concept, even though the author of the piece to which we are responding feels that it suits his purposes. Notice in the emphasized portions that God will *NOT* reprove the Psalmist for sacrifices made continually before Him, and despite the fact that He will not "eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of the goats" because "every beast of the forest," "the cattle upon a thousand hills," "the fowls of the mountains," and "the wild beasts of the field" all belong to God, He still tells the Psalmist to "offer unto God thanksgiving, and pay thy vows unto the most High:…." However, in the latter emphasized portion, we see God asking the wicked why they follow His statutes when they despise His word. In other words, why make sacrifices and follow His statutes yet still commit the acts described in verses 18-20, clearly condemned in the same Torah which describes these statutes? This goes back, once again, to the concept that Jesus described in Matthew 23:25-27 (discussed above) of giving outward expressions of loyalty to God when your inward heart is in rebellion against Him. This seems to be the key concept to understand in the last few texts we have considered. While this concept, quite obviously pervades the Old Testament, it is also a concept pervading the New Testament as well. Although Jesus Christ atones for all sins, we are to submit to the power of the Holy Spirit in order to live lives that are more acceptable to God. (See, for example, Romans 3:31, Romans 6, and Galatians 5:16-26) See the following link for more on the concept of Semitic Totality. Alas, we move to the next argument of our subject: Secondly, Leviticus 17:11 speaks of atonement ("kapare" in Hebrew) for our souls, but not for 'sin' -- i.e. an act of intentional wickedness. What else could atonement be for? The Bible evidently has additional uses for the word, because the Bible speaks of atonement for acts committed by mistake (which we do not usually consider sins), and also speaks of making atonement for the altar (Exodus 29:36). The word here may have the implication of making durably holy by applying a coating (see the story of Noah's ark), but whatever the meaning, one cannot impute deliberate wrongdoing to an altar. Besides making atonement for an altar, other examples could be given as to when sacrifices served a function besides atoning for sins. Burnt offerings ("olah") were offered as symbols of one's full devotion and dedication to God. Other sacrifices, such as one called the "today," were offered to God as a means of giving thanks. One other example, the sin offerings ("hatta't") were made to cleanse of ritual impurity. [Brown (1): 127] However, these examples do not negate that sacrifices were also made in order to atone for sins. The author claims that sacrifices only atoned for unintentional sins. However, the "asham," or guilt offering, could be used to atone for both unintentional AND intentional sins. Brown quotes Baruch Levine, a top Jewish authority on sacrifice and atonement: "The offenses outlined here [in Lev. 5:20-26, or 6:1-7 in most English translations] were quite definitely intentional! A person misappropriated property or funds entrusted to his safekeeping, or defrauded another, or failed to restore lost property he had located….If, subsequently, the accused came forth on his own and admitted to having lied under oath-thus assuming liability for the unrecovered property-he was given the opportunity to clear himself by making restitution and by paying a fine of 20 percent to the aggrieved party. Having lied under oath, he had also offended God and was obliged to offer an 'asham sacrifice in expiation….God accepts the expiation even of one who swears falsely in His name because the guilty person is willing to make restitution to the victim of his crime." [Brown (1): 128] Consider also the following excerpt concerning the Day of Atonement (quoted from Brown): "When Aaron has finished making atonement for the Most Holy Place, the Tent of Meeting and the altar, he shall bring forward the live goat [in English, this is commonly known as the "scapegoat"]. He is to lay both hands on the head of the live goat and confess over it all the wickedness and rebellion of the Israelites-all their sins-and put them on the goat's head. He shall send the goat away into the desert in the care of a man appointed for the task. The goat will carry on itself all their sins to a solitary place; and the man shall release it in the desert." (Leviticus 16:20-22) The text says clearly that "all" of the Israelites' sins were to be confessed on the head of the goat. The text speaks of the "wickedness" (which can be translated "iniquity"' Hebrew 'awon) and "rebellion" (pesha' in Hebrew, or willful transgression) of the Israelites, not only the sins that were committed unintentionally. [Brown (1): 129] The Talmud is, interestingly, even more explicit than the Biblical text in this regard. Consider the following two translations of a well-known text in traditional Jewish law, m. Shevu'ot 1:6: "A. And for a deliberate act of imparting uncleanness to the sanctuary and its Holy Things, a goat [whose blood is sprinkled] inside and the Day of Atonement effect atonement. "B. And for all other transgressions which are in the Torah- "C. the minor or serious, deliberate or inadvertent, those done knowingly or done unknowingly, violating a positive or a negative commandment, those punishable by extirpation [karet] and those punishable by death at the hands of the court, "D. the goat which sent away [Lev. 16:21] effects atonement." [Neusner, Jacob, "The Mishnah" 622.] "And for uncleanness that occurs in the Temple and to its holy sacrifices through wantonness, [the] goat whose blood is sprinkled within [the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement] and the Day of Atonement effect atonement, and for [all] other transgressions [spoken of] in the Law, light or grace, premeditated or inadvertent, aware or unaware, transgressions of positive commands or negative commands, sin whose penalty is excision or sins punishable by death imposed by the court, the scapegoat makes atonement." [Blackman, Philip. "Mishnayoth" 340, n.1] Moses Maimonides, almost a millennium later, writes: "Since the goat sent [to Azazeil] atones for all of Israel, the High Priest confesses on it as the spokesman for all of Israel, as [Lev. 16:21] states: 'He shall confess on it all the sins of the Children of Israel.' The goat sent to Azazeil atones for all the transgressions in the Torah, the severe and the lighter [sins]; those violated intentionally and those transgressed inadvertently; those which [the transgressor] became conscious of and those which he was not conscious of. All are atoned for by the goat sent [to Azazeil]. This applies only if one repents. If one does not repent, the goat only atones for the light [sins]. Which are light sins and which are severe ones? Severe sins are those which are punishable by execution by the court or by premature death [karet]. [The violation of] the other prohibions that are not punishable by premature death are considered light [sins]."["Laws of Repentance," 1:2] There is also a Talmudic reference regarding the atoning power of the blood of the goat that is sprinkled inside the Most Holy Place. Discussing Leviticus 16:15-16: "He [i.e., the High Priest] shall then slaughter the goat for the sin offering for the people and take its blood behind the curtain and do with it as he did with the bull's blood: He shall sprinkle it on the atonement cover and in front of it. In this way he will make atonement for the Most Holy Place because of the uncleanness and rebellion of the Israelites, whatsoever their sins have been. He is to do the same for the Tent of Meeting, which is among them in the midst of their uncleanness." Brown notes that the rabbis specifically comment on the words "rebellion" (Hebrew for "transgressions") and "sins," the former referring to acts of rebellion (i.e. intentional sins) and the latter to inadvertent acts. Brown further claims: "And it is the goat whose blood is sprinkled in the Most Holy Place that effects atonement for the people, just as the blood of the bull offered up by the High Priest effects atonement for him (m. Shevu'ot 1:7, following Lev. 16:11, 'Aaron shall bring the bull for his own sin offering to make atonement for himself and his household, and he is to slaughter the bull for his own sin offering.') Notice also that it is a sin offering that effects atonement for Aaron and the people of Israel, demonstrating that it is not only the guilt offering that effects atonement for willfull sins." Brown also discusses Solomon's prayer to God at the Temple's dedication in 1 Kings 8 and 2 Chronicles 6. Solomon asks God to forgive the sinning Israelites when they turn to repentance and prayed toward the Temple. In 2 Chronicles 7:12-16, the Lord promises that He would forgive them because of the sacrifices offered in the Temple. This includes ALL transgressions, and not just unintentional ones, as can be seen from 1 Kings 8:33-36, 46-50, and 2 Chronicles 7:14. [Brown (1): 129-131] Next we are offered by the author…. One cannot apply this verse to Jesus' blood in any event, because it specifies blood on the altar, and Jesus did not die on any altar, let alone the altar in the Holy Temple in Jerusalem which is clearly the altar Leviticus is referring to. This appears to be an objection based on "thinking inside the box." Christians maintain that the whole sacrificial system was established by God to foreshadow the ultimate sacrifice that was to come, that of Jesus Christ. The altar, and that of the temple furniture, etc. symbolized the New Covenant that was to be instituted by the Messiah and His sacrifice. Since these were mere symbols of the reality to come, this objection misses the point. Finally, the verse is taken out of context. Verses 10 to 14 say (KJV): 1 10 And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people. 11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. 12 Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood. 13 And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, which hunteth and catcheth any beast or fowl that may be eaten; he shall even pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust. 14 For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off. In other words, the verse has nothing to do with salvation. It is about the dietary laws -- specifically, the comments about the life being in the blood are an explanation for the prohibition against eating blood. While the author is partially correct about context, Brown responds, "Unfortunately, while Messianic Jews are accused of failing to pay attention to Leviticus 17:11 in context, in reality, some anti-missionaries have actually failed to pay attention to the verse itself. As Rashi explained, 'For every creature is dependent on blood, therefore I have given it to you on the altar to atone for the life of man; let life come and atone for the life.' In other words, the reason that blood sacrifices played such a central role in the Torah is because they operated on the principle of substitution, i.e., on the principle of life for life. Thus, an ancient midrash on Leviticus 1:2 states: 'When you voluntarily offer a "korban olah" [i.e. burnt offering] and it is slaughtered and its blood sprinkled upon the altar, I consider it as if you have offered your very selves.' Similarly, Rabbi J.H. Hertz, commenting on Leviticus 17:11, observed, 'the use of blood, representing life, in the rites of atonement symbolized the complete yielding up of the worshipper's life to God, and conveyed the thought that the surrender of a man to the will of God carried with it the assurance of Divine pardon.' Similarly, with respect to Leviticus 17:11, Christian Old Testament scholar John E. Hartley noted that: 'the pouring out of the animal's blood is also important. The blood represents the animal's "nps," "life." The offerer has already identified himself with the animal by laying his hands on the animal's head; with this gesture the offerer recognizes that the death of the animal will commute the penalty for his sin. It needs to be underscored that the sacrificial system loudly proclaims that the penalty of sin is death. Thus the giving of a life (nps) on the altar for the life (nps) of the offerer upholds justice." "It is therefore no surprise that Leviticus 17:11 was the proof text commonly used by the Talmudic rabbis to indicate that the atoning power of the sacrifices was in the blood. Several different times in the Talmudic literature-in quite authoritative sources, I should note-it is observed that 'there is no atonement without the blood,' exactly as stated in Hebrews 9:22. In fact, there are leading Jewish scholars (see below) who point out that the author of Hebrews was simply repeating the universally accepted Jewish view of his day when he wrote that, according to Torah, 'without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.' As expressed concisely by New Testament scholar Harold Attridge, these words 'constitute a cultic maxim well known in Jewish tradition.'"[Brown (1): 107-108] "Talmudic rabbis asked, in the context of animal sacrifices, particularly the wording of Leviticus 1:4 ("He is to lay his hand on the had of the burnt offering, and it will be accepted on his behalf to make atonement for him"), "Does the laying on of the hand [on the sacrifice] make atonement for one? Does not atonement come through the blood, as it is said: For it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life! [Lev. 17:11] "….Does the waving [of the offering] make atonement? Is it not the blood which makes atonement, as it is written, 'For it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life" [again, Lev. 17:11]? (b. Yoma 5a, as translated in the "Soncino Talmud; cf. also the virtually identical wording in b. Zevahim 6a; b. Menahot 93b; Sifra 4:9)."[Brown (1): 108] Michael Brown details more answers to all of the objections discussed here as well as others that anti-missionaries tout in his book, "Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: Volume 2." For a book review, please see the link at the top of this article. For more on soteriology, please see this piece by JPH as well as this one by Quennel Gale. Trouble for the Trinity? Our treatment in this section will be the least comprehensive of the 3 since the author only alludes to a couple of pertinent passages. However, Christian assertions regarding the Trinitarian nature of God are much more sophisticated than general proof-texts such as the "we" and "us" sayings in Genesis 1, 3, and 11 and the underlying Hebrew regarding the Shema. The Christian understanding of the Trinity (or at the very least plurality within the Godhead) and a divine Messiah, when properly expounded, finds root in Wisdom literature found in certain Old Testament Scriptures as well as inter-testamental literature, certain Messianic prophecies (some of which we discuss later), as well as the mysterious Theophanies (such as with the "Angel of the Lord.") On these subjects and more, we recommend the following resources: In addition to these resources, Robert Morey also has a book on the subject (a review can be read on this page. Brown's 2nd volume also contains a few pertinent sections relevant to this topic in [Brown (1): 3-59]). Genesis 1:1; 1:26 Genesis 1:1 (KJV) "1 In the beginning G-d created the heaven and the earth." Hebrew has several words for G-d. A common one is the word used here in Genesis 1:1 -- Elohim. The grammatical form of this word is plural, leading missionaries to say that G-d must therefore be plural. What they don't realize is that many Hebrew words have a plural form but a singular meaning -- for example water (myim), heaven (shamyim), life (chaiim), and face (panim) to mention a few. "Yesh l'yilda panim yafot" means the girl has a pretty face. Using the missionary logic, one would say something like that the poor girl is two faced. 1:26 (KJV) "26 And G-d said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion" The assertion here is that because the verb is in plural form, it indicates that G-d is plural. This reasoning seems extreme to me. Rashi says that G-d is talking to the angels, and enlisting their cooperation in the creation of humans, which seems much simpler. I think this verse describes how royalty talks. When the Queen of England says, "We are not amused," does anyone think she has a multiple personality disorder? (See comments on Deuteronomy 6:4) Comparing the usage of ancient Hebrew with 20th century English is probably a shaky analogy, yet Michael Brown concedes in regard to the plural usage in the ANE: "In the Ancient Near East, it was common to refer to the deity in the compound plural, and when speaking of an owner or master, it was often the rule to speak of him in such terms." He then goes on to give a few examples. For instance, Abraham's servant speaks to him in the plural in Genesis 24 ('adonim, literally, "lords"), Joseph speaks of Potiphar in the plural in Genesis 39, and David is referred to as "lords" in 1 Kings 1:11. More to the point, God speaks in Malachi 1:6, which reads: "If I am a Lords where is my honor?" Deuteronomy 10:17 refers to God as "the Gods of gods and the Lords of lords." In regards to pagan parallels to this in the ANE, Brown writes the following in an endnote: "See, e.g., 2 Kings 1:3, where Baal Zebub is called 'the god [Hebrew, 'elohim] of Ekron.' Note that in the Akkadian dialect attested in Tell El-Amarna, Egypt, the Pharaoh, who was considered divine, is literally called 'my gods'' cf. also Rykle Borger, 'Assyrisch-babylonishce Zeichenliste, Erganzungsheft zur 1. Auflage (AOAT 33)' (Kevelaer/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker/Neukirchener, 1981), 417, who cites evidence that the Sumero-Akkadian plural form 'dingir-mes (meaning 'gods') can also have a singular meaning.) [Brown (1): 267-268, n. 17]] However, Brown does goes on to note:"But before you conclude from all this that plural nouns for God have no bearing on the question of his unity, consider this simple truth: Hebrew, along with other Semitic languages, sometimes expressed greatness, supremacy, exaltation, majesty, and fullness by means of compound plural nouns. Plurality could express prominence, ownership, or divinity, all with reference to a single person or single deity. This means that the very concept of 'compound unity' or 'plurality in unity' was part of the language of the Tanakh. Such concepts would not be foreign to the biblical mind. So while these references to God or Lord in the plural do not in any way prove Trinitarian beliefs, they are certainly in perfect harmony with everything we are trying to say here, namely, that in some way the Lord's unity is complex." [Brown (1): 9-10] The reader is encouraged to compare Brown's work with Glenn Miller's piece (See here), which discusses in much more detail the significance of the OT usage of "Elohim" as well as a short section on the "we" and "us" passages. Deuteronomy 6:4 Next we have a brief look into the Shema. My thanks go to Jeremiah whose contributions form the bulk of this subsection. The author writes…. Deuteronomy 6:4 (KJV) "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our G-d, the LORD is one" One is surprised any missionary would use this, since it states the oneness of G-d. It would only be surprising to anyone that is unaware of sound Christian doctrine. The "oneness" of God's being i.e. strict monotheism is a basic foundation of our belief. However, some, (I don't know how many) retranslate it to: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our G-d, the LORD is a compound unity." This sounds sort of funny, but they are literally trying to change the meaning of the word "ehad" from "one" to "compound unity". We do not hold that 'echad' must denote a compound unity. What we do believe, and can prove, is that the word 'echad' does not exclude the possiblity of a 'compound unity'. Examples of such are provided below. By this logic, three minus two would equal a compound unity, and dance instructors would give their students the beat by counting "compound unity, two three." The number 21 (esreem v ehad) would be twenty plus a compound unity. This is just a pointless distraction that has nothing to do with the linguistic plausibility of "echad" denoting "plurality within unity." Biblical Hebrew is the same. For example: 2 Genesis 40.5: "And they dreamed a dream both of them, each man his dream in one night ..." (lila *echad*). To say that a night is a compound unity composed of hours, is pushing it. 3 Exodus 29.3: "And thou shalt put them into one basket ...." (sal *echad*). To say a basket is a compound unity of a basket because it is composed of fibers is getting silly. Yet in support of our argument above, we have the following as provided by Glenn Miller's address of this topic: Genesis 2.24--the man and his wife will be one (ehad) flesh--clearly a composite unity. 26:6, 11--the fifty gold clasps are used to hold the curtains together so that the tent would be a unit (ehad). Samuel 2:25--many soldiers made themselves into 'one group' (ehad) 34:16 --the men of Shechem suggest intermarriage with Jacob's children in order to become 'one(ehad) people'. 9.2 -- the western kings agree to fight Joshua as "one (ehad) force" 10.42-- "And Joshua captured all these kings and their lands at one (ehad) time" (NAS) or "All these kings and their lands Joshua conquered in one (ehad) campaign" (NIV) 24.3 --"Then Moses came and recounted to the people all the words of the Lord and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one (ehad) voice, and said" Chr 5.12--"and all the Levitical singers, Asaph, Heman, Jeduthun, and sons and kinsmen, clothed in fine linen, with cymbals, harps, and , standing east of the altar, and with them one hundred and twenty blowing trumpets 13 in unison when the trumpeters and the singers were to make themselves heard with one (ehad) voice to praise and to glorify the Lord" 11.6--"And the Lord said, "Behold, they are one (ehad) people, and they all have the same language." SourceIf you ask these missionaries what is the Hebrew word for 'one', they will either say "yachid" (which means "individual", not "one") or they will not have an answer. An interesting point can be made from the above - If "yachid" means "individual," (see for example its use in Ps. 68:6 - "solitary") then why is it never used of YHWH when Unitarians would expect it to be? At any rate, the point has been made. The word used ("echad") to denote God's essence can be and is often used in the Old Testament to indicate a plurality within unity. So, in conclusion to this section on Christian theology regarding the nature of God, it seems reasonable to conclude that Plurality within the Godhead is not established or refuted based upon the texts examined. However, we once again strongly recommend the sources mentioned at the beginning of this section for those wishing to delve more deeply into this subject. Messianic Prophecy Objections We now embark upon the author's objections to a number of Messianic prophecies. Since this takes up by far the largest section of our article, we were hoping to divide this section into various subsections (e.g. birth prophecies, prophecies indicating Messianic divinity, suffering Messiah passages). However, it proved difficult to properly categorize them due to the overlapping themes found in some of them. For instance, while Micah 5:2 is an obvious birth prophecy, it is also one of the strongest passages indicating a divine Messiah. Another example is that of Zechariah 12:10 which could be placed into the "suffering Messiah" category or the "divine Messiah" category. Thus we decided simply to answer them in the order that they appear in the author's article. Genesis 3:15 Genesis 3:15 (KJV) "'And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel..'" Genesis 12:7 (KJV) And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him,'" Christians, apparently following the lead of Paul, say that because the word "seed" (Hebrew "zera") is singular, that the verses refer to just one person, who must be Jesus. Paul does not explain why it would have to refer to Jesus, but even so, his basic premise is wrong. The author's comments regarding Paul's use of "seed" presumably comes from Galatians 3:16: "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one. And to thy seed, which is Christ." It appears from this verse that Paul is claiming that "seed" in Genesis 12:7 must be singular since He applies it to Christ. Let's consider briefly the context of Galatians 3, which is about the unity of Jews and Gentiles in the body of Christ: "Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham." (Galatians 3:7-9) "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." (Galatians 3:13-14) "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Galatians 3:26-29) Notice in verse 29 that Paul applies "seed" in the plural sense. He is telling the Galatians that, through Jesus, they are of Abraham's seed. It appears that, in context, Paul is claiming in verse 16 (cf. also verse 19) that Christ is the consummation (or "seed") of the promise God gave to Abraham, and that all who accept Christ as Savior, Jew and Gentile, are part of this "seed" and are thus beneficiaries to the covenant promises. Thus, in terms of "plural vs. singular," we probably are not on solid ground here to argue one way or the next. And, this ambiguity must be acknowledged as we progress into our discussion of Genesis 3:15 as well. The Tanach uses the word "zera" to indicate many descendants just like the English word "seed" can refer to many. While the word "zera" can and does indicate "more than one" in many cases throughout the Hebrew Bible, it can also be used to refer to just one individual. One does not have to go far beyond the Genesis 3:15 passage to find an example: "And Adam knew his wife again: and she bare a son, and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed (zera) instead of Abel, whom Cain slew. And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord." (Genesis 4:25-26) In the above case, the word "zera" is applied to Seth. Missionaries reply that this plural meaning holds only with the "seed" of a man (though why this should be so they do not explain.) They say that because the Genesis 3 verse refers to the seed of a woman, it must be singular and refer to Jesus. But this is not correct either -- in Genesis 16:10, the many descendants of Hagar (who was not in the line leading to the messiah), are also referred to as her "seed." Jeremiah responds on this point: "Note carefully the context: Hagar is currently impregnated with Ishmael (vs. 17). Could the author be referring to the (singular) 'seed' within her is to be 'multiplied'? That is possible. In fact, see Gen. 17:20 where YHWH states that 'Ishmael' will be made into 'a great nation.'" Before we progress further, let's quote a few Jewish traditions that connect Genesis 3:15 to the work of the Messiah and make comments. "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between the offspring of your sons and the offspring of her sons; and it shall be that when the sons of the woman observe the commandments of the Torah, they will direct themselves to smite you on the head, but when they forsake the commandments of the Torah you will direct yourself' to bite them on the heel. However, there is a remedy for them, but no remedy for you. THEY ARE DESTINED TO MAKE PEACE IN THE END, IN THE DAYS OF THE KING MESSIAH." (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan; emphasis added) [Webster (4): 156] "And it shall be that when the sons of the woman study the Torah diligently and obey its injunctions, they will direct themselves to smite you on the head and slay you; but when the sons of the woman forsake the commandments of the Torah and do not obey its injunctions, you will direct yourself to bite them on the heel and afflict them. However, there will be a remedy for the sons of the woman, but for you, serpent, there will be no remedy. THEY SHALL MAKE PEACE WITH ONE ANOTHER IN THE END, IN THE VERY END OF DAYS, IN THE DAYS OF THE KING MESSIAH." (Fragmentary Targum to the Pentateuch; emphasis added) [Webster (4): 156] In the above traditions, the seed ("zera") appears to be understood as plural as it is the Torah-observers that have the power to "smite the serpent on the head," or be "bitten on the heel by the serpent" for not observing the Torah. However, the ultimate "remedy" to the problem is the Messiah. Consider also, Rabbi David Kimchi (lived in the south of France and lived 1160 - 1235) "As thou wentest forth for the salvation of thy people by the hands of Meshiha, the Son of David, who shall wound satan, who is the head, the king and prince of the house of the wicked..." (Source) In this tradition, the seed of the woman is, in fact, the Messiah. A critic has stated that the above translation of the quote from Rabbi Kimchi as is portrayed on the source website is not correct. Instead it is said that the correct translation is: "And you went forth to save your people by way of the King Messiah, son of David, Who shall bruise the head of the evil inclination." Regardless of which translation is the accurate one, however, the point remains that the "seed" is still interpreted by Rabbi Kimchi to be the Messiah. Based on this evidence, there is corroboration from prominent Jewish sources that Satan will ultimately be defeated by the Messiah, although there is a discrepancy as to whether or not the Messiah or the descendants of Eve as a whole is/are the actual "zera" in question. We'll come back to this just below, but for now we should summarize that the Messiah in the two traditions cited by Webster, while acknowledging Eve's descendants as the "zera," concludes that the "remedy" is the Messiah. On the other hand, the famous medieval Jewish commentator David Kimchi argues that the "seed" is the Messianic key word in the passage. We'll now consider the historical context behind this prophecy. This passage is, IMO, perhaps one of the most "underrated" Messianic prophecies touted by Christians. It will not do justice to the prophecy simply to quote this verse and then present a New Testament proof-text indicating that Jesus has defeated Satan. This Messianic prophecy is more vague in content than many of those that come from later writings (some of which we will look at later in this article). However, what makes this prophecy valuable is not so much the detail, but rather the timing and context in which it was given. God had told Adam that eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil would result in death (Genesis 2:16-17). After the serpent succeeded in tempting Eve, and subsequently after Adam ate of the fruit of the forbidden tree, the rights of the first humans to the tree of life were revoked. They were removed from the garden and the process of death ensued (Genesis 3:22-24). This as well as the other consequences caused by the sequence is detailed in Genesis 3:7, 14, 16-19, 21-24. A disaster had occurred that cost the first parents' their rights to eternal life, and this disaster was brought about by the serpent's temptation. After the serpent is rebuked by God in verse 14, we are given the passage in question: "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Despite the serpent's victory in causing the sins of the first parents (and thus causing all of the grief and consequences described in the aforementioned passages just above), God declares that the serpent will ultimately be defeated. One important question to be asked would be, "Who or what is it exactly that is going to defeat the serpent, but in the process be 'bruised in the heel'?" [By the way, the Hebrew word for "bruise" in each case above is "shuwph, which according to "The New Strong's Dictionary of Bible Words" means "to overwhelm:--break, bruise, cover."] From a simple reading of the text, it looks like this subject might have one of two possible denotations: the "enmity" and, of course, the "seed." Most Christians argue for the latter, and this will be the position that we take (see below for why). However, either option would probably lead us to similar conclusions. If the "enmity" is the subject, then we have a situation described in which God will provide some way, force, or entity by which the serpent's power over Eve and her descendants will be alleviated. On the other hand, if the "seed" is the subject, the text conveys the idea that the defeater would be derived from the first parents' lineage. Either way, it seems probable that the defeater is in some way a personal entity (although this need not necessarily be a single person) given that he/she/it will be "bruised on the heel." Gray Pilgrim, a seminary student, gives us the following statement regarding why it is more probable that the "seed" is the subject in question: "Syntactically it refers to the seed not the enmity, as enmity is feminine and seed is masculine and the one who crushes is masculine, and the one whose heel is bruised is also masculine. So I would say it points to the seed." The three sources quoted above conclude this as well, although two of them believe the "seed" to be referring to Torah-keepers. So let's try to summarize the data. The serpent enticed the first parents into sin. This invoked the forfeiting of the first parents' rights to eternal life in addition to causing other calamities outlined in the text. The serpent was, it seems, victorious. However, God proclaimed that the serpent's influence over them would be interrupted and in the process the serpent would be dealt a "blow to the head." However, in the process of this defeat, the serpent would manage to "bruise the heel" of the defeater (which is probably the "seed," or "zera"). So where does all of this lead us? Certainly this understanding is in complete harmony with the Christian message. It was (and is) the message of the church that Jesus Christ, despite being crucified after the betrayal of one of his disciples under Satanic influence (Luke 22:3-6), provided the way through which Satan was ultimately defeated. (In other words, Jesus "bruised the head of Satan" although Satan "bruised His heel.") Although the first parents' sins brought about death, Jesus paved the way through which we can once again obtain the eternal life that they had lost (Romans 6:23). The problem caused by the serpent was resolved. We should, of course, be cognizant of the fact, based solely on the narrative in which Genesis 3:15 is contained, that at least one other interpretation is plausible, and this comes back to the question of whether "zera" is to be rendered in the singular or plural in this case (The same is the case with Genesis 12:7). We may not be able to settle this part of the debate one way or the other. Thus that an entity consisting of a multitude of people, such as a nation (e.g. Israel), can be plausibly exegeted from the text (at least based on linguistic grounds regarding "zera") should be acknowledged. In fact, in our two Targumic references we find that the "seed" was understood to be Torah-observers, although in each case the ultimate remedy was said to be the Messiah. And, of course, on the other hand, Rabbi Kimchi understood the "seed" to be referring to the Messiah, corroborating our position. The bottom line is that the solution to the influence of the serpent is given by God within the very same narrative which describes the loss of eternal life and other dubious changes that would occur as a result of the serpent's success. The solution imposed comports well with Christian theology. While this prophecy is admittedly vague, and cannot, it seems, by itself, establish the Christian assertion of a suffering Messiah, it sets the stage for prophecies that would later be revealed (many of which we will look at later), describing in substantially more detail the import of this role of the Messiah's work. Isaiah 7:14 Here we have one of the author's extended pieces detailing the virgin birth prophecy. Isaiah 7:14 (KJV) "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Christians say this verse predicts the virgin birth of Jesus, who they maintain is the deity come down to earth to be with us. However, this citation has been poorly translated, taken out of context, and is not messianic in any event. (Note, by the way, how the book of Matthew in the Christian Bible misquotes this verse). Translation: The Hebrew word for virgin is "betula". The root of the word is so specific that the Hebrew scriptures mention it with reference to stained bedsheets. We'll examine most of the author's accusations in more depth later. As far as Matthew's alleged misquoting of the verse is concerned, this remains to be seen. Some Christians point out, at this point, that the Greek word "parthenos," found in the Septuagint, means "virgin." However, even that word, apparently, does not always imply virginity. An example mentioned by Brown is found in Genesis 34:3 where Dinah is considered to be a "parthenos" despite being raped in the LXX [Brown (2): 28]. However, the word used in Is 7:14 is "alma" which most dictionaries translate as "young woman." The word "alma" is found only seven times in scripture. In some places, it could mean either "virgin" or "young woman" but two verses suggest that an "alma" need not be virginal (Proverbs 30:19 -- "the way of a man with an alma", which is usually sexual -- and Song of Songs 6:8 -- "queens, concubines, and almas", the first two clearly not virginal, which suggests the third also is not.) To think the prophet would have used "alma" rather than the unequivocal "betula" strains credulity. Brown notes that there is no single word that always means "virgin" in Biblical Hebrew. The word "betulah" is translated by the NJPSV, the most widely used Jewish translation of the Old Testament today, as "maiden" rather than "virgin" thirty one of the fifty times that the word occurs in the Old Testament. The Stone edition, which reflects traditional Orthodox Jewish scholarship, translates "betulah" as "maiden" in various places as well (e.g. Isaiah 23:4; 62:5; Jeremiah 2:32; 31:12; 51:22, etc.). In certain cases when the word does mean "virgin," there are indicators that "betulah" cannot always be rendered in this manner. Consider Genesis 24:16: "The maiden (na'arah) was very beautiful, a virgin (betulah) whom no man had known." In this example, it would be pointless to add the qualifier at the end of this verse if the word always could be defined as "virgin." [Brown (2): 22] Brown also notes a few examples where the word "betulah" is used when defining it as "maiden" makes more sense than to translate it as "virgin." The following verses and commentary are provided by Brown: "Be ashamed, O Sidon, for the sea has spoken, the fortress of the sea, saying: 'I have neither labored nor given birth, I have neither reared young men nor brought up young women'" (Isaiah 23:4 NRSV). "Could you imagine translating this with 'brought up virgins'? What parent says, 'I've raised young men and virgins'?)" "In Joel 1:8 "betulah" refers to a widow: 'Lament-like a maiden girt with sackcloth for the husband of her youth' (NJPSV). A widow is hardly a virgin!" (See also Ezekiel 9:6; cf. 2 Chronicles 36:17; Job 31:1; Isaiah 47:1, 8-9.) [Brown (2): 22-23] In light of the preceding, and also from material in Miller's article (See here), "betulah" is not at all an unequivocal reference for "virgin." Brown also provides evidence that the word "almah" cannot be proven to refer to a virgin either, although it can be rendered as such. Some of his reasons for this conclusion include: 1. The masculine equivalent to 'almah, which is 'elem, occurs twice in the Old Testament and means "youth" or "young man" with no reference to virginity. Consider, for instance, whether it makes sense to substitute "virgin" or "male virgin" for "son" in the following verse: "And the king said, Inquire thou whose son the stripling is." (I Samuel 17:56) 2. Both "elem" and "almah" "should be derived from a Semitic root which means 'to come into puberty, to come into heat (for an animal),' not from a Semitic root meaning 'to hide, be hidden.'" 3. "Almah" does not specifically mean "virgin" in other Semitic languages. 4. "Almah" in Aramic ("ulemta") is sometimes used in reference to women that have been sexually active. [Brown (2): 20-21] Brown ultimately argues that it cannot be proved or disproved on linguistic grounds that a virgin birth was predicted in Isaiah 7:14 due to this problem, but does conclude that this is a clear Messianic prophecy indicating a supernatural birth. [cf. Brown (2): 24-32] For a couple of other Christian perspectives, consider the work of Glenn Miller here and James Price here. While these two authors do not seem to draw the same conclusions as Brown regarding "alma," I personally am inclined to agree with Brown, but these perspectives are provided for the reader to compare. See Miller's article, most importantly, for some hard lexical data on "betulah." Also, "will conceive" is unlikely. The Hebrew "hara" is most likely present tense and is better read "is pregnant." The author doesn't give us anything to back up this claim. However, we ran it by our Hebrew specialist, Gray Pilgrim, who had the following to say in response: "That would be quite extraordinary for two reasons. First, in Modern Hebrew there is in fact a present tense, however, there is no 'present tense' in Biblical Hebrew, moreover time is NOT bound up in the morphological forms of verbs in Hebrew in general, but that is another discussion; 2) and the real biggy here. This is the first adjective I have ever seen that encodes time. I have not seen in it in Ugaritic, I have not seen it in Biblical Hebrew, I have not seen it in Qumranic Hebrew, I have not seen it in Rabbinic Hebrew, I have not seen it in Medieval Hebrew, I have not seen it in Modern Hebrew, I have not seen it in German, I have not seen it in Koine Greek, nor have I seen it in English. Now there is a modicum of something to his argument though. If he had said that this clause has an elided verb, that he postulates is in the present tense he would have some merit, but though it may be plausible to insert a present tense verb, it is NOT a sure bet. Besides the other clauses in this verse are all future tense verbs, which would incline me to render this as a future as well." Context: This verse concerns a specific political problem of that era, and has no messianic significance at all. Isaiah writes in a highly flowery style, which makes it difficult to follow his point. However, if you read verses 1-15 slowly and carefully, you will see that Isaiah is telling his king, Ahaz, not to worry about two neighbors, Rezin and Pekah, who threaten the kingdom, because these two "firebrands" will be vanquished. How long will that take? A few years -- i.e. in the amount of time it takes a young woman to bear a child, and raise him to know the difference between good and evil. Actually, the Lord in verse 11 prompts Ahaz to ask for a sign. Ahaz in verse 12 refuses and the subject being addressed shifts from Ahaz to the house of David in verse 13. Thus it sets the stage for a fulfillment that need not take place in the days of Ahaz. For more on this, please visit the link given above to Glenn Miller's commentary where this objection is dealt with in detail. As for the name of the child, Emanuel, though Christians render it as "G-d with us," it should be rendered as "G-d is with us," a statement to King Ahaz that he will defeat his two neighbors because he, Ahaz, has a divine ally. The name is a comment about G-d, not a description of the person so named. (See also comments on Isaiah 9:6). What the text says is simple. To paraphrase -- look, the young woman is pregant and will give birth to a boy and she will call him "God is with us" he will be eating butter and honey before he knows to choose good from ill. Before he knows how to choose good from ill the lands of those people you fear will be forsaken. We respond in detail regarding the historical context just below, but note that the author's assertion regarding the placement of "is" in the meaning of the child's name does not nullify the POSSIBILITY that this verse indicates the divine nature of the Messiah. However, we agree, in this case, that the meaning of the name does not prove the Christian assertion either (See our comments on Isaiah 9:6). Parenthetically, Jesus was never called "Emanuel".Jeremiah responds: "Yet see 2 Sam. 12.25; Jer. 20:1-6, et al. These names were applied yet never used. Is the author employing a double standard? In any case, the very fact that Christians today refer to Him as 'Immanuel' fufills the prophecy perfectly." In addition, we must ask how the author would know whether or not Jesus was ever referred to as Immanuel. Furthermore, the purpose of the name in this prophecy could be merely to indicate the divine nature of the Messiah rather than to indicate an actual name by which He must be called. In fact, the author in the Isaiah 9:6 section (see below) provides us with an example of someone not considered to be divine yet has a name indicating an attribute/action of God. With this being the case, any argument asserting that the Messiah MUST be divine based SOLELY on the interpretation of the name "Immanuel" is probably faulty. On the other hand, since God chose a name that indicates the presence of God among His people as the name for the child, it well COULD be a hint at the Messiah's superhuman nature. The author next gives us his commentary of verses 1-16. We will not comment specifically on that, but the reader can access it by clicking the link at the beginning of this section. We admonish the reader to compare the author's commentary, in light of the factors already discussed above, with our commentary that follows. While we have argued, based on linguistic grounds, that we may not be able to prove or disprove that a virgin birth was being predicted, we should note that the context provides good reason to believe that a supernatural birth is intended by Isaiah. It should be kept in mind, of course, that the promise of the sign was shifted from Ahaz to the house of David in verse 13. This establishes the possibility of a future fulfillment beyond the days of Ahaz, which we will get to a little later. So, how is it that the context allows us to argue for the probability, rather than a mere possibility, of a supernatural birth being predicted in this passage? This assertion may be supported by examining the context of the passage and asking the question, "What exactly is the sign that God is going to give the house of David?" Let's look at verses 14-16: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings." Once again, what exactly is this sign? Let's consider the options: 1. A young woman (virgin?) will conceive and bear a son. 2. The son's name will be Immanuel. 3. Immanuel shall eat butter and honey. 4. Immanuel will eventually know to choose good and refuse evil. 5. The land will be forsaken of its kings. Remember that God implores Ahaz to ask for a sign in 7:10-11 that would confirm that Isaiah's prophecy in 7:4-9 would come to pass (i.e. that the two kings will not prevail against Jerusalem). For a sign to be given that is supposed to compel Ahaz to believe that God will prevent the capture of Jerusalem by Rezin and Pekah, there must be something about it to which divine activity can reasonably be attributed. With this in mind, let's examine the list. Young women conceive and bear children (including sons of course) all the time. Naming a child Immanuel could be self-fulfilling as could a child consuming butter and honey. Furthermore, there is nothing inherently impressive about a child growing up to choose good over evil (although some parents may disagree with us on that assessment ). This leaves us with two options; the "supernatural" option of #1 and also #5. It may be argued that option #5 is a reiteration of the prophecy itself given in verses 4 through 9, and thus to argue for it would be to argue that the fulfillment of the prophecy itself is the sign. Obviously, this would not make any sense. God tells Ahaz that He will give him a sign that the prophecy will come to pass. This would preclude option #5 from being included in the mix of possibilities. One pushback to this, however, is that the original prophecy of verses 4-9 foretells that Judah will not be overcome by Rezin and Pekah and that their attempts to establish the son of Tabeal as king there (verse 6) will not come to pass. In other words, the prophecy does not say that Rezin and Pekah themselves will be overthrown (as is indicated in 16b), but merely that they will not prevail against Judah; thus option #5 in this case is not precluded as possibly being the sign that God will give the house of David. Of course, in response to this pushback, it should be noted that the overthrow of the 2 kings would make it obvious at that point anyway that those same 2 kings will be unable to prevail against Judah. If there is to be a sign unconnected to the struggle between Judah with Israel/Syria itself that Israel and Syria will not prevail, the Christian assertion of a supernatural birth seems to make sense. Given the verses in question, what other option exists? So what about the problem of historical context? If the sign was to be given to Ahaz, then it would only make sense that this occur within his lifetime. Ahaz in verse 12 refuses to ask for a sign, but Isaiah gives a prophetic oracle anyway. However, we see in verse 13 that he is not only addressing Ahaz, but the "house of David." (The Hebrew indicates that a plural audience is being addressed in the verse) Also important is the fact that this turns into an oracle of judgment against Judah in addition to the two kings: "The Lord shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father's house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria." (Isaiah 7:17; consider also verses 18-25) Beginning in chapter 8, we see that a second child comes into the picture: "Moreover the Lord said unto me, Take thee a great roll, and write in with a man's pen concerning Maher-shalal-hash-baz." (Isaiah 8:1) Through Isaiah, a prophetess conceived and this child was given the above name (verse 3). Then we see a similar oracle to that in 7:16 regarding Immanuel: "For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria." (verse 4) With Maher-shalal-hash-baz, we have here an interesting parallel to the Immanuel child of Isaiah 7:14. The births of both children are important in terms of Isaiah's prophetic oracle(s). Rezin and Pekah will be defeated before each child develops an ability that virtually every child eventually develops. Is it possible then that the birth of Maher-shalal-hash-baz fulfills the Immanuel prophecy of Isaiah 7:14? Probably not, as Glenn Miller notes: "Actually, not only is it NOT 'clearly described', there are in fact, NO TEXTUAL REASONS to equate Immanuel and the child of 8.3! They differ in virtually EVERY detail: 1. They have different names! And the passage in 8 is NOT cited as a 'fulfillment', as would have been typically done HAD it been a fulfillment (e.g. 1Kgs. 12:15; 1Kgs. 2:27; 2Kgs. 15:12; 1Kgs. 14:18; 2Kgs 7.17; 2 kgs 23.16). [the 'dual-names are okay' reply only works when the passages are far apart, btw] 2. Immanuel's name is positive and encouraging; Maher-shalal-hash-baz (i.e. "quick to the plunder, quick to the spoil") is ominous, alluding to the Assyria swift-power, which was soon to overtake Ephraim and Judah (v. 6-8). 3. The mother of Immanuel is an unknown virgin; Maher's mom is Isaiah's wife. 4. Immanuel is keyed to a moral or dietary spec; Maher is keyed to linguistic ability ("mama") 5. Immanuel is related to the larger destruction of the land; Maher is related to Damascus and Samaria (v.4) 6. Immanuel is from the house of David (9.7); Maher, as a descendent from Isaiah, probably was not. (although Jewish tradition says Isaiah was of royal stock) 7. Maher shows up as a 'bit' player (like his brother in 7.3); Immanuel is in the middle of passages that sweep wide spans of history (8.8,10)." Regarding the "unknown" aspect of #3 on the above list, Miller explains: "In verse 14, the Hebrew translated 'a virgin' (NIV et. al) is actually the 'almah' word, WITH THE DEFINITE ARTICLE (e.g. 'the' in English). The significance of this for our understanding of the passage can be found in the standard Hebrew grammars. In Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (as updated by Kautzsch and Cowley) this passage is discussed in 126q: "Peculiar to Hebrew is the employment of the article to denote a single person or thing (primarily one which is as yet unknown, and therefore not capable of being defined) as being present to the mind under given circumstances. In such cases in English the indefinite article is used." The import for our passage is that 'the virgin' is SOMEONE 'unknown' to either Ahaz or Isaiah, and hence could NOT refer to Isaiah's wife (the Prophetess of 8.3) or Ahaz' royal court virgins (as many commentators argue for). This reference is left nebulous before Ahaz...a 'floating' referent, as it were... " (Source) As in 7:17-25, Isaiah foretells that Assyria will overcome Judah as well: "Now therefore, behold, the Lord bringeth up upon them the waters of the river, strong and many, even the king of Assyria, and all his glory: and he shall come up over all his channels, and go over all his banks: And he shall pass through Judah; he shall overflow and go over, he shall reach even to the neck; and the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel." (Isaiah 8:7-8) It is very interesting to note here that the land that will be taken over by the Assyrians is attributed to Immanuel. It seems reasonable to suggest that this is the same Immanuel spoken of in Isaiah 7:14, given that this is the only other time in the Hebrew Bible that the name occurs and, of course, the fact that the two instances occur so closely together. So what exactly are we to make of this "Immanuel" figure in light of this? It appears that he will be a very important individual given that he is attributed, in some sense at least, ownership of the land! With this being the case, we start to see a picture emerging where a Messianic theme is not only to be found in Isaiah 7, but also through chapters 8-11 as well. The rest of chapter, starting at verse 11, details God's admonition to Isaiah not to walk in the ways of his rebellious people. This then leads us into Isaiah 9, which contains another prominent Messianic prophecy (see our section on this just below). Despite the oracles of judgment against Israel that lead us up to this point, Isaiah reveals the following: "Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations. The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined. Thou has tmultiplied the nation, and not increased the joy: they joy before thee according to the joy in harvest, and as men rejoice when they divide the spoil. For thou hast broken the yoke of his burden, and the staff of his shoulder, the rod of his oppressor, as in the day of Midian. For every battle of the warrior is with confused noise, and garments rolled in blood; but this shall be with burning and fuel of fire." (Isaiah 9:1-5) Following these verses, of course, comes the pregnant Isaiah 9:6-7 passage, which discusses the birth of another child that will head an everlasting government. The rest of the chapter and much of chapter 10 serves as a further oracle of judgment against Israel and Ephraim (verses 8-9). God's vessel through which these nations will be judged is Assyria (10:5). However, because of the pride of the king of Assyria, they too will be judged and broken (10:12-19). A remnant of Israel will then escape (10:20-22). The rest of the chapter proceeds to describe further the judgment that is to come upon Assyria. Next, we move into chapter 11 where we find another important Messianic passage: "And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord;….And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious. And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." (Isaiah 11:1-2, 10-12, emphasis added) Finally, in chapter 12, God will be praised when He will bring them this salvation: "And in that day thou shalt say, O Lord, I will praise thee: though thou wast angry with me, thine anger is turned away, and thou comfortedst me. Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the Lord JEHOVAH is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation. Therefore with joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation." (Isaiah 12:1-3) So, let us now summarize the data. God promises Ahaz that, if he has faith, Israel and Syria will not prevail against him. God wishes to give Ahaz a sign, but the latter refuses to ask. However, God declares that He will give a sign to the house of David, but in the prophetic oracle judgment is not only pronounced upon Israel and Syria, but also Judah. The land that shall be overrun by Assyria is also said to be Immanuel's (8:8), the same child of promise in 7:14-16. God continues to pronounce judgment on Judah, warning Isaiah not to take part in their wickedness (8:11-12) and that he should place his trust in the Lord (8:13). However, in chapter 9, God gives words of encouragement that "the people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined." (9:2; Matthew applies 9:1-2 as a fulfilled Messianic prophecy in Jesus (see below)) In verses 9:6-7, a child that will be called "Wonderful," "Counselor," "the mighty God," "The everlasting Father," and "the Prince of Peace" will establish David's kingdom and a reign that will have no end. From 9:8-10:11, further oracles of judgment are spoken against Israel, Ephraim, and Syria. After this, Assyria will be judged for its haughtiness (10:12-19). A remnant of Israel will return (10:20-23). In chapter 11, the righteous Davidic king is once again foretold, the one to which the Gentiles will seek (11:10). God will then recover the remnant of his people a second time. Finally, God will be praised for His salvation (12:1-6). When we consider chapters 7-12 as a whole, an interesting picture seems to emerge. The backdrop for these chapters is clearly the judgment that will befall Israel and Judah by the hands of the king of Assyria. However, this Immanuel child is given a very special status as the land is later said to be his land. This could be an indicator of the child's imperial status. From this, it seems quite reasonable to postulate that the Davidic kingly figures of Isaiah 9:6-7 and 11:1-12 also refer to this seemingly imperial Immanuel figure (especially since these passages are so close together and within the same literary unit). In fact, Matthew seems to connect Isaiah 7:14 and Isaiah 9:1-2, since he cites both as fulfilled by Christ (The latter referring to His ministry in Galilee (Matthew 3:12-16)). It is also possible that Matthew, in 2:23, is referring to Isaiah 11 as well (See Glenn Miller's piece for a discussion on this point). Given the universal and perpetual reign that the Davidic king of 9:6-7 and 11:1-12 is said to have, it appears that against the backdrop of the Assyrian invasion we have some explicit Messianic themes emerging. The return of the remnant from Israel a second time in 11:12 that follows the last of the 3 Messianic passages in this unit is particularly worth noting. N.T. Wright explains that the Israelites of the 1st century A.D. were still awaiting their true return from exile, despite already being in the land with the end of the exile to Babylon occurring hundreds of years in the past. They awaited the return of God to Jerusalem to overturn the Roman yolk and to reign as the true king. This would mark the true end to their exile. While Jesus clearly antagonized His contemporaries' violent revolutionary hopes, He claimed to be the Messiah, the One through which Israel could finally return from exile. It was through Him that the remnant of Israel would be restored. This, quite obviously, deserves much more space, and we hope at some time in the not-too-distant future to work up another article developing this theme. However, interested readers may consult N.T. Wright's "Jesus and the Victory of God" for a thorough treatment on this point (cf. especially chapters 5-10). In conclusion, we can say that the historical context is not an issue and, upon closer examination of its textual setting, the Messianic themes of Isaiah 7:14 appear to indeed be present, as Christians assert. As far as the virgin birth issue is concerned, it may not be possible on linguistic grounds to prove or disprove, although the context itself may well argue for something more than a mere ordinary birth. See also the valuable commentary provided by Brown in [Brown (2): 24-32]. Isaiah 9:6 Isaiah 9:6 (KJV). "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty G-d, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.'" Christians say this refers to Jesus and indicates that Jesus will be born a child who is, at the same time, G-d. Mistranslation: The two letter word "is", is usually not stated in Hebrew. Rather,"is" is understood. For example, the words "hakelev" (the dog) and "gadol" (big), when joined into a sentence -- hakelev gadol -- means "the dog IS big," even though no Hebrew word in that sentence represents the word "is." A more accurate translation of the name of that child, then, would be "A wonderful counselor is the mighty G-d, the everlasting father ..." Like the name "Emanuel," this name describes G-d, not the person who carries the name. Gray Pilgrim notes in response: "Context, context, context! You also forgot to mention that 'hakelev gadol' can simply signify big dog. One cannot tell without looking at context whether an adjective following a noun is meant to be an attributive adjective or a predicate adjective without looking at the context. "Ok let us look at this verse using the Masoretic markings to break it up as we go (Note in the Hebrew text this is verse 5): (Atnach) "A few things to note here there is that there is only one animate subject in this verse, as a simple clause analysis will show Notice that the only other grammatical subject in this verb is his rule which is feminine and as the verb in 09:05b1 is unequivocally masculine, the only fitting person that the titles can belong to is the child in verse 1. Moreover, the Masoretes would take umbrage with reading the titles as a clause (i.e. a group of words that have predication in them, see A.F. den Exter Blokland In Search of Text Syntax Applicatio 14. Amsterdam: VU press, 1995, for an explanation of my clause analysis and a further development of what is a clause and predication.) But back to your flaw here, the Pashta on Yoe'tz (counselor) is a disjunctive of a high quality. 2. The Zaqeph on Gibur (mighty) is even stronger and right there puts to kibosh on your proposed verbless clause explanation, 3. The Tiphcha on Aviad (Eternal Father) is even further problematic. I double checked my Koren edition (one of the major Jewish editions of the Hebrew text of the OT) to see if they had a variant notation on the Hebrew text, but they have it pointed the same except they added a maqqeph (basically a hyphen) between avy-ad (thus Eternal-Father). For a brief explanation of the Masoretic notes mentioned here one could see a number of sources, such as William R. Scott: A Simplified Guide to BHS; N. Richland Hills, TX: Bibal, 1987; or Page H. Kelley, Daniel S. Mynatt, and Timothy G. Crawford. The Masorah of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: Introduction and Annotated Glossary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998, or for the standard work Israel Yeivin: Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah: Translated and Edited by E.J. Revell. Masoretic Studies 5. Atlanta: Scholars, 1980. Gray Pilgrim, upon request, has also provided us with a key for the symbols used above: "A = Actant or the subject of the clause. @ signifies that the clause is using the same subject. However, it is not thematized, i.e. the actual word does not occur in that clause. Thus in 05a1 A = child, 05a2 @=child (but it not thematized 5a3 @ = child 5b1 @ = child.) In all of the clauses the subject is in fact the child, thus it strengthens the argument that these titles do refer to the child. An explanation of this system can | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
