Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 5

In Chapter 5, Troki responds to a different accusation that the Jewish people have suffered under the curses of the law more than the blessings. The Jewish people have no king, and have suffered persecution for 2,000 years. Isn't this evidence that the Jewish people have been doing things wrong and should return to Jesus?

Troki responds that Israel suffered under Nebuchadnezzar and under Alexander the Great. Troki also argues that the success of Islam, conquering territories that once belonged to Christendom should be evidence of Christianity's weakness. How could the prosperity of all these be a result of their goodness, as the Lutheran claimed?

Troki's accusations are easily refuted. Israel alone has been promised material prosperity for its obedience and persecution for disobedience (Deuteronomy 28, as well as the entire history of Israel during the era of the prophets). To non-Jews, no such promises were given. Hence it is to be expected that if Judaism is the truest of all faiths, and is faithfully observed, its followers will be in greater earthly prosperity, generally speaking, than others. But this is not the case. It is therefore not unreasonable to think that Judaism, in so far as it differs from Christianity, is not as true as it claims.

The church has been promised pain and suffering as a result of its obedence. John Piper notes this:

For example, Acts 14:22 says that Paul told all his young churches, "Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom." And Jesus said, "If they persecuted me, they will persecute you" (John 15:20). And Peter said, "Do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you, which comes upon you for your testing, as though some strange thing were happening to you" (1 Peter 4:12). In other words it is not strange; it is to be expected. And Paul said (in 2 Timothy 3:12), "Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted."

Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 4

In this chapter, Troki recalls a challenge given to him by a Lutheran. The Lutheran quotes Acts 5.

    But a Pharisee in the council named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law held in honor by all the people, stood up and gave orders to put the men outside for a little while. And he said to them, “Men of Israel, take care what you are about to do with these men. For before these days Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. After him Judas the Galilean rose up in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him. He too perished, and all who followed him were scattered. So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or this undertaking is of man, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!”
(Acts 5:34-39)

Since the movement started by these apostles has flourished for 2,000 years, the Lutheran argued, it must be from God. Troki responded that there is no record from the Rabbis regarding Gamaliel having ever said this. Many anti-missionaries will then conclude that Gamaliel had not spoken this at all, but even if he had spoken this, it was not in the spirit of prophecy.

For the most part I agree with Troki here. Gamaliel was not a prophet, and the size of a movement is no indication of its truth. However, I do have two points of contention:

1. Gamaliel did say this.
2. Gamaliel was a major Pharisaic authority figure in his time. If he spoke this, that is even more reason why the Jewish people need to consider seriously that the claims of Jesus and his apostles may very well be correct.

Gamaliel is quoted in Tractate Avot of the Mishnah, saying "Every dispute which is for the glory of God shall at last be established, and that which is not for the glory of God shall not be." This is parallel to the quote in Acts, so it would be in character for Gamaliel to say this. It contrasts with Paul's attitude because students do not always agree with their instructors. Paul was a Shammaiite Pharisee while Gamaliel was a Hillelite. The latter had a more gentle attitude toward heresy while the former were much more strict in their enforcement.

The Book of Acts was written around the year 62, given its abrupt ending and lack of details regarding the death of Paul, although more skeptical scholars will date it as late as 80. The Mishnah, on the other hand, is from the year 220. Both contain earlier oral traditions, but Acts is about 160 years earlier, and within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses to the life of Hillel. This is why professional historians of antiquity will almost always consider Acts to be a vastly superior historical source than the Mishnah.

A. Lukyn Williams also offers his opinion on the matter: 
"Observe also that the argument of R. Gamaliel, to call it by his name for convenience sake, was never intended to be conclusive. It was the prudent advice of a lawyer to do nothing rashly, but to wait and see what God's providence should determine. Yet surely it is not wrong for us Christians to urge this argument with superlatively increased force now. No one can deny that God's providence has been on the side of Christianity, or that His providence has been exerted in behalf of Christianity in a very different manner from that in which it was shown in the case of Heathenism and of Mohammedanism. Had idol-worship any opposition? We have no reason to suppose so. Did Mohammedanism use the same peaceful weapons that the Christians of the first four centuries employed when they were conquering the Roman world for their Master? We all know that Mohammed himself enforced his religion at the point of the sword, and that his followers always imitated his example. R. Isaac surely forgets the poverty and lowly origin of the first preachers of the Gospel, the countless persecutions they endured, and their faithfulness under distresses of all kinds, when he ventures to compare the success of idol-worship and of Mohammedanism with that of the religion of Jesus. Its triumph in spite of so many obstacles, by the use of only spiritual weapons, raises a presumption in its favour that is wholly absent from those false religions with which he compares it"

Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 3

In the third chapter of Faith Strengthened, Troki discusses the concept of the king of Israel. He mentions that Israel once had a king, but has not had a king for a very long time. One Eastern Orthodox churchman challenged Troki with the assertion that the lack of an Israelite king is evidence that God has rejected the Jewish people.

Troki acknowledges that Israel has been in bad shape since the exile. However, this took place almost 400 years before the birth of Jesus. Israel has suffered under the Babylonians, Persians, and Greeks, all before the birth of Jesus. How then can one argue that Israel's suffering is the result of rejecting Jesus?

Troki further argues that the Jewish crowds rejected the idea of a king in the period after the exile. They said "we have no king but Caesar." Christians also appear to be at a loss regarding who made Jesus king and from what throne he ruled over Israel. Even in the land of Israel, Christians are viciously persecuted. Areas that once belonged to the church, such as north Africa, are now under the power of Islamic rule. How can you say that Jesus is the Messiah and king if the church could lose the holy land?

Troki, of course, forgets the reign of the Hasmonaean kings, including Herod the Great, who ruled until shortly after the birth of Jesus. They were recognized as kings by the Jewish people of that day. Shortly afterward, the area came under Roman rule as the province of Iudaea. The Jewish authorities lost the right to enact capital punishment. They did perform occasional illegal executions, such as the stoning of Stephen, but these were risky if they attracted Roman attention.

Troki also asks the question "Where was Jesus formally anointed, crowned, and enthroned as king?" This can be answered with the simple question "Where in the Tanakh was it promised that Messiah would be formally anointed, crowned and enthroned as king?" The answer is "nowhere." God's inauguration of the Messianic kingdom need not be with blare of trumpets and human processions, but in a purely spiritual manner. 

As to the question "Where does Jesus rule?" The simple answer is "everywhere that his people can be found." Even highly secular publications like Time magazine recognize Jesus as the most influential person who has ever lived. No human being has ever received the level of homage and worship that Jesus is receiving right now. Despite the invasion of Islam over Christendom, the latter has expanded much faster than the former. Islam is also expanding primarily through birth, while Christianity is primarily expanding through conversions. A. Lukyn Williams concludes: "One who is King over men's hearts and consciences, and has His subjects, as even R. Isaac will confess, in all parts of the inhabited world, is far more truly a King than ever was David or even Solomon."

I would also take issue with Troki regarding the role of a king. Nowhere was it promised that the church would have a king ruling over it. However, Israel has been promised a king forever. As 1 Kings 9:5 states "I will establish your royal throne over Israel forever, as I promised David your father, saying, ‘You shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel.’"

God promised that Israel would always have a king, so where is Israel's king? The problem is not that Israel lacks a king, but that the unbelieving Jews refuse to acknowledge their true king.

Another objection which Troki does not raise, but which anti-missionaries love to bring up, is the idea that God promised that Messiah would descend through Solomon. This is only partially true. The promise to David was unconditional. The promise to Solomon was conditional.

     And of all my sons (for the LORD has given me many sons) he has chosen Solomon my son to sit on the throne of the kingdom of the LORD over Israel. He said to me, ‘It is Solomon your son who shall build my house and my courts, for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father. I will establish his kingdom forever if he continues strong in keeping my commandments and my rules, as he is today.’
(1 Chronicles 28:5-7)

    For now I have chosen and consecrated this house that my name may be there forever. My eyes and my heart will be there for all time. And as for you, if you will walk before me as David your father walked, doing according to all that I have commanded you and keeping my statutes and my rules, then I will establish your royal throne, as I covenanted with David your father, saying, ‘You shall not lack a man to rule Israel.’
(2 Chronicles 7:16-18 ESV)

And Solomon did not fulfill those conditions.

        For when Solomon was old his wives turned away his heart after other gods, and his heart was not wholly true to the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father. For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. So Solomon did what was evil in the sight of the LORD and did not wholly follow the LORD, as David his father had done. Then Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, and for Molech the abomination of the Ammonites, on the mountain east of Jerusalem. And so he did for all his foreign wives, who made offerings and sacrificed to their gods.

    And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart had turned away from the LORD, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods. But he did not keep what the LORD commanded. Therefore the LORD said to Solomon, “Since this has been your practice and you have not kept my covenant and my statutes that I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom from you and will give it to your servant. Yet for the sake of David your father I will not do it in your days, but I will tear it out of the hand of your son. However, I will not tear away all the kingdom, but I will give one tribe to your son, for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem that I have chosen.”(1 Kings 11:4-13 ESV)

The Rabbis will argue that 2 Samuel gives an unconditional promise to Solomon. This is the verse in question:

    I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever.’” In accordance with all these words, and in accordance with all this vision, Nathan spoke to David.
(2 Samuel 7:14-17 ESV)

This is a promise to David that the throne will be established forever and unconditionally. God promised that he would not remove his love from Solomon the way he removed it from Saul. How did God remove it from Saul?

    And Samuel said to Saul, “I will not return with you. For you have rejected the word of the LORD, and the LORD has rejected you from being king over Israel.” As Samuel turned to go away, Saul seized the skirt of his robe, and it tore. And Samuel said to him, “The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this day and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you.
(1 Samuel 15:26-28 ESV)

God then anointed David as king while Saul was still alive. This is how God tore the kingdom from Saul, which he did not do with Solomon. David later had the opportunity to kill Saul, but refused to lay a hand on God's anointed. This does not mean that Saul was still a king in God's eyes, but only that David believed that it was up to God to kill Saul.

    May the LORD judge between me and you, may the LORD avenge me against you, but my hand shall not be against you.
(1 Samuel 24:12 ESV)

Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 2

In chapter 2, Troki addresses a Christian argument, where members of the church say that the church has supplanted Israel. I agree with Troki on this point, but he also says that Christians are wrong to claim that Jesus died for the sins of the world.

Troki argues that Jesus was not seen as God until 100 years after his death. This is obviously false, as I have stated in my previous works:
http://messianicdrew.blogspot.com/2010/11/jesus-as-god-clearing-ground.html
http://messianicdrew.blogspot.com/2010/12/jesus-as-god-biblical-case.html
http://messianicdrew.blogspot.com/2011/01/jesus-as-god-closer-look.html

 Troki also claims that the church could not have inherited the promises of Israel. In Deuteronomy 28, God lists material prosperity as a reward for obedience, and material poverty as a punishment for disobedience. Deuteronomy promises that Israel can gauge its obedience based on how well it is doing materially. A wealthy and powerful Israel is a sign of obedience, and a persecuted and impoverished Israel is a sign of disobedience.

The early church faced extremely harsh persecution. Most of the apostles died violent and painful deaths, including Peter and Paul. Nero persecuted the church very harshly, lighting Christians on fire as torches for his parties. Decius roasted Christians alive. Constantine finally accepted Christianity and called together the Council of Nicaea shortly after the most hellish bouts of empire-wide persecution.

Even as Constantine made Christianity a preferred religion, his successor Constantine II adopted the heretical theology of Arianism, as did the emperor Julian. Missionaries to the Poles and Prussians, and to the Scandanavians faced very heavy persecution. Many missionaries gave their lives. Even today, much of the world is hostile to Christianity, and many Christians take great risk to their own lives and to the lives of their families by practicing their religion.

Christianity had also faced the threat of doctrinal pollution when many churches allowed the veneration of saints and icons, taught about purgatory, elevated Mary to nigh-goddess status, and taught their congregations to worship the bread and wine eaten at the Lord's Supper. These practices are contrary to what Jesus taught.

Christians also have practices that would be gross Torah desecration. They eat blood sausage, pork, and shellfish. They do not keep Saturday as the Sabbath. Christianity has been historically non-observant of the Laws of Moses, so how can it be Israel's replacement?

The answer is that the church is not Israel's replacement. It is a renewed covenant, that God can spread his word to the whole world. Most Christians are gentiles, who, even under ultra-Orthodox Jewish Law, are not required to follow the Mosaic Law. The blessings and curses in Deuteronomy 28 apply only to Israel, not to the church. This is something we need to keep in mind when prosperity preachers quote it out of context. Only ancient Israel is promised material rewards for good deeds. Instead, Paul writes in 2 Timothy that those who desire to live godly lives in Jesus will be persecuted. Jesus himself promises this in John 15 "Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours."

It is true that many Christians have treated Jews horribly. It is also true that many Christians have been prone to drunkenness, fornication, theft, idolatry, perversion of justice, fraud, and self-worship. Those who believe in Jesus, like everyone else, have the free will to follow the good inclination or the evil inclination. Many follow the good, but there are those who follow the bad.

Why do Christians not follow halacha? The answer is that halacha was given to ancient Israel, and not to the church. It was sort of the Constitution of this ancient nation, and applies only to it. There is no real Christian Sabbath. There is Sunday, which is not the Sabbath, but the Lord's Day. This is not to say that Jews can get away with rejecting Jesus. The Mosaic Covenant was not one of salvation, where the promise of obedience was everlasting life, and the promise of disobedience was everlasting torment. The test of obedience for ancient Jews was repentance and faith.

Ancient Israelites repented on the Day of Atonement, or Yom Kippur. The sacrifice was made to make atonement for the whole nation. The sacrifice made atonement available, and the faith of the Israelites is how the individuals obtained it. Those who reject Jesus do not have faith, and therefore are not saved.

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
- John 14:6 

Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.
- John 5:23

“The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”
- Luke 10:16 

No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.
- 1 John 2:23 

Whoever believes in Jesus is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
- John 3:18

Chizuk Emunah Under The Microscope: Chapter 1

In Chapter 1, Troki argues that Jesus of Nazareth could not have been Messiah and gives four reasons for it:

1. His pedigree disqualifies him
2. Messiah would come to bring peace; Jesus came to bring a sword
3. He came at the wrong time
4. He did not fulfill the required prophecies.

My issue with Troki is partially with his understanding of the facts but also with his criteria for what someone needs in order to be Messiah. Let's take a look at Troki's arguments and see what he has to say.

1. His pedigree disqualifies him.

Troki argues that in order to be Messiah, a candidate must descend through his father's line directly from King David. Matthew states that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus, and that the lineage of Mary was unknown to the gospel writers. Troki also argues that the genealogies in Matthew and Luke are contradictory and therefore cannot be trusted in any case.

A. Lukyn Williams notes that Troki finds three difficulties with the genealogies of Jesus:

A. According to Matthew, Joseph's father is Jacob and his line comes down through Solomon; according to Luke, Joseph's father is Eli and his line comes down through Nathan the son of David.
B. According to Matthew there were forty-two generations from Abraham to Jesus; according to Luke fifty-six.
C. Matthew makes an evident error in saying that Joram begat Uzziah, for he thus omits Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah (cf. 1 Chr. 3:11, 12).

Objections B and C are not exactly fitting objections for a rabbi to make, and one who does make these objections is either ignorant or dishonest. This is because the Tanakh contains the same issues regarding genealogy.

Ezra 7:1-5 states the generations of the priests as follows:

Meraioth
Azariah
Amariah
Ahitub
Zadok
Shallum
Hilkiah
Azariah
Seraiah

1 Chronicles 6:7-14 gives an expanded genealogy:

Meraioth
Amariah
Ahitub
Zadok
Ahimaaz
Azariah
Johanan
Azariah
Amariah
Ahitub
Zadok
Shallum
Hilkiah
Azariah
Seraiah

Either Ezra got confused, some scribe got confused with the repetitive family names, or Ezra abbreviates the genealogy, which was considered acceptable practice in Ancient Near Eastern literature. If it was fine for Ezra to do this, then on what basis is it wrong for Matthew to do this? Instead, Matthew was using a simple application of Gematria, adding the numerical value of Hebrew letters. the Gematria of David is 14, and Matthew clumps his genealogy into sets of 14.

The more important objection is regarding the royal bloodline. Possibly, Luke is referring to Mary's ancestry. The early portion of the book of Luke focuses on Mary, and it would be in context for Mary to be the true subject of the ancestral line.

There is also independent reason to believe that Mary descended from David as well. In Luke 1:32, the angel announces that  Jesus would take the throne of his father David. Paul as well proclaims in Romans 1:2 that Jesus was born of the seed of David according to his flesh.

It would be very weird to say that Jesus cannot be the Messiah because his paternal line comes from Yahweh himself, as though having a divine nature would somehow make him inferior and unworthy of the title. God can do as he pleases, just as he had Jonah proclaim that Nineveh would be destroyed, and then said that he would not destroy it.

Also, Joseph would bring a legal legitimacy to the claim of Jesus to the Davidic line. Luke likely gave the biological line, while Matthew gave the line of legal heirs. Williams concludes his notes with this:

A case such as that of Jesus was, of course, not anticipated by the law; but if no other human fatherhood was alleged, then the child must have been regarded as bestowed by God upon the house of Joseph, for a betrothed woman, according to Israelitish law, already occupied the same status as a wife. The divine will, in the case of this birth, conferred upon the child its own right of succession, which, once Joseph recognized it, would not have been disputed even by a Jewish judge.

2. Messiah would come to bring peace; Jesus came to bring a sword.

Here, Troki quotes Jesus in Matthew 10:34. "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword." Jesus also said of himself in Matthew 20:28 "The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." However, Troki argues that the Tanakh paints a picture of Messiah completely opposite of this self-description of Jesus.

Zechariah 9:10 states: "I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim and the war horse from Jerusalem; and the battle bow shall be cut off, and he shall speak peace to the nations; his rule shall be from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth."

Isaiah 2:4 states: "He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide disputes for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore."

Psalm 72:11 states: "May all kings fall down before him, all nations serve him!"

Daniel 7:27 states: "And the kingdom and the dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High; their kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey them."

These four Tanakh passages speak of a coming day where there will be a ruler who will come riding on a donkey. He will judge between the nations, who will serve him. He will rule over a kingdom that will be everlasting, and he will rule over the whole earth. Troki believed that Jesus did not do this. I would beg to differ.

Troki argues that Jesus cannot be Messiah if Jesus came to serve. This seems a rather odd objection. Is it not the role of a king to serve his people? Furthermore, the usage by Troki completely ignores the context of the passages. Jesus was teaching his disciples that unlike the gentiles, where power is imposed from the top down, the kingdom of Jesus would come from service. The disciples had to learn that through self-sacrifice, the world can be transformed.

That very mentality helped the church rise in the first few centuries despite extreme persecution. This is also what has brought the good news of Jesus to the third world. Force was never sufficient to win over the minds and hearts of the unevangelized to Jesus. And the attempt to do so by the Roman Catholic Church ultimately backfired and brought about a very nominal Christendom, rather than a genuine Christianity.

John 14:27 and 16:33 quote Jesus as having come in peace and that they may have peace. I am hoping that Troki and those who follow him do not read the verse as Jesus literally claiming that the purpose of his coming was to make people fight. That would be as ignorant as critics of the Talmud who think that tractate Ketubot endorses pedophilia.

The sword is the gospel, and Jesus knew that truth is often fiercely resisted. This is the case when someone enters a company or a government determined to flush out corruption. The whole practice is met with very fierce resistance, especially by the corrupt ones in power who do not want to relinquish their undeserved privileges.

As more and more people gave their lives to Jesus, it would create strife between them and their communities. This is exactly what happens when someone from an Orthodox Jewish background comes to know Jesus as Lord and Savior. The family will hold a funeral and disown the member as an outcast. Frum communities unintentionally fulfill this prophecy every time this happens.

Eventually,  there will be this peace, but it will take a long time. Jesus said that the kingdom of God is like a mustard seed. It starts small, but slowly will grow into a peaceful kingdom that will cover the whole earth.

3. Jesus came at the wrong time.

Troki argues that there would be certain conditions taking place before Messiah would come. He quotes

Isaiah 2:2-4

    It shall come to pass in the latter days
        that the mountain of the house of the LORD
    shall be established as the highest of the mountains,
        and shall be lifted up above the hills;
    and all the nations shall flow to it,
        and many peoples shall come, and say:
    “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
        to the house of the God of Jacob,
    that he may teach us his ways
        and that we may walk in his paths.”
    For out of Zion shall go the law,
        and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
    He shall judge between the nations,
        and shall decide disputes for many peoples;
    and they shall beat their swords into plowshares,
        and their spears into pruning hooks;
    nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
        neither shall they learn war anymore.

When Jesus came, he did not appear to judge between nations. No one beat their swords into plowshares. Instead, the temple was destroyed and the nation of Israel cast into dispersion.

Hosea 3:5 "Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek the LORD their God, and David their king, and they shall come in fear to the LORD and to his goodness in the latter days."

Daniel 2:44 "And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever,"

Israel, however, was destroyed. What followed the life of Jesus was not a political golden age for Israel, but perhaps her darkest hour. Troki argues that therefore, Jesus cannot be Messiah.

None of these passages have the word Messiah in them. Therefore, this whole idea that these are about Messiah is pure speculation. Troki believes that the term "last days" means that there will no time to come after this, but such is not the meaning of Scripture. Genesis 49:1 states: "Then Jacob called his sons and said, “Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you what shall happen to you in the last days." (בְּאַחֲרִית הַיָּמִים). These "last days" have been long over, yet they are last days. They are the latter part of a specific time.

These prophecies do not indicate that Messiah will come at the end of history, but at the end of some era. Indeed, Jesus did come at the end of the Second Temple era, and ushered in the age when the word of Yahweh would spread rapidly to the whole world. 

4. Jesus did not fulfill the required prophecies.

This fourth section is the longest section in this chapter. Troki argues that the future state of the world when Messiah comes will be one government for the entire world. There will be one religion and one creed. All idols will be destroyed. Idolatry will end. There will be no sins in the world, and Jerusalem will be a place of extra righteousness. War will cease. All troubles and anxieties will end. The Shechinah glory of God that filled the tabernacle will return to Jerusalem.

Troki argues that this was not fulfilled in Jesus. This description does not apply to the world at this time. Hence, Messiah could not have already come. The whole problem with this section is exactly the same problem that haunts the other sections. Troki assumes that Messiah will come, and then peace and prosperity would occur as an immediate result. The problem is not that Jesus didn't bring it about, but that Jesus did not bring it about as quickly as Troki demanded. What good would a peace do us if the human heart is wicked and corrupt? It would not be a true peace, but a peace forced upon the people, they way it is in a George Orwell novel.

Instead, the greatest peace is one where the human soul is healed and regenerated, then a lasting peace can come. Jesus is acknowledged, even by non-Christian sources, as the most influential person who ever lived. Half the world's population swears loyalty to him, and the other half is coming under his control.

A king also does not need to be seen for his rule to be felt. Much of the great British Empire 150 years ago had never seen its king. This is not evidence that there is no king. It also does not follow that because we do not see the king that we will never see him. Eventually, Jesus will descend in the same way he ascended, and he will put the finishing touches on fulfilling the prophecy, but only after the world hears of him.

Jewish evangelism is a part of this, although certainly not the only part. Jesus said: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! See, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.'"

Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: an Introduction

The main playbook for Jewish anti-missionaries is the book Faith Strengthened (Chizzuk Emunah חזוק אמונה) by Isaac Troki (1533-1594), a Karaite Jew of Lithuania. The text consists of two parts:

1. Countering Christian missionary arguments
2. Attacking the New Testament

Personally, I am more interested in the second part than I am in the first. I do not always agree with the standard prooftexts for the Messiahship of Jesus, and hence I will have points of agreement with Troki which I will try to minimize.

Nevertheless, it is important that anyone who deals with evangelism or apologetics with Jews become familiar with these objections. This is not because most Jews are even aware of these objections, but because it is dishonest to witness to the Jews while refusing to study their objections to Jesus.

Faith Strengthened is the standard text, from which anti-missionaries pull almost all their arguments. It is similar Cardinal Bellarmine's Disputationes, from which traditional Roman Catholics pull their arguments. Becuase of this, apologists who are familiar with the arguments from Faith Strengthened, and who also have responses to these arguments, will be very strongly prepared for Jewish evangelism, and will be able to answer objections graciously.

My journey through Faith Strengthened is mainly for myself right now. I, too, need to become more familiar with these arguments and their responses if I am ever to engage in public debates against Jewish anti-missionaries.

Faith Strengthened is a book of biblical arguments. This means that the historical arguments advanced by William Lane Craig, Michael Licona, Gary Habermas, and N.T. Wright are outside the scope of this book.

The author argues that the Jewish people know the original text in a way that the Christian church does not. This was definitely true when the book was originally written. However, the advent of today's scholarship of Semitic languages actually gives the Christian Hebraist an advantage over the Rabbis. While the Rabbis are locked into the traditional interpretations and are required to defend them regardless of whether archaeological evidence mounts against the traditional interpretations.

Furthermore, Troki's point of contention that Christianity is committing spiritual genocide is unfounded. Most Jews who lose their affiliation do so as a result of becoming secularized. They assimilate into society and will convert to other religions in order to marry. Also, many Jews who believe in Jesus maintain their cultural identity as Jews. An example is in New York City, where there are so many Jewish Catholics that some churches have special services for their Jewish members. Also, the return of the nation of Israel is helping to ensure that there will always be a Jewish nation, regardless of what religion its inhabitants practice.

A. Lukyn Williams notes three major flaws of Isaac Troki in Faith Strengthened:

(1). He forgets, or is not aware, that the New Testament was written by Jews, and must be judged in its arguments by Jewish methods. R. Isaac argues as though he thought that the New Testament was written, for example, by a learned and logical Pole of his own time. In other words R. Isaac fails to judge the New Testament by the same standard as that which he would apply to the writers of the Talmud. 


(2). He misunderstands the Christian doctrine about Jesus. He forgets, whenever at least he can score a point by doing so, that Jesus was not only God but also man, with a manhood perfect and complete in every respect. 

(3). He fails to see the attractiveness of the character of Jesus, and confines his argument much too exclusively to the relation that Jesus holds in word and work to the prophecies of Messiah contained in the Old Testament. 

The goal of this project is to respond in blog post form. After all 150 chapters are covered, I will revisit and expand each post and turn it into a YouTube video.

Troki's book is somewhat out of date, but is still the primary playbook for anti-missionaries today. Let's get started in finding some answers to Troki.

Index of Posts

Part 1
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
Chapter 8
Chapter 9
Chapter 10
Chapter 11
Chapter 12
Chapter 13
Chapter 14
Chapter 15
Chapter 16
Chapter 17
Chapter 18
Chapter 19
Chapter 20
Chapter 21
Chapter 21b
Chapter 22
Chapter 23
Chapter 24
Chapter 25
Chapter 26
Chapter 27
Chapter 28
Chapter 29
Chapter 30
Chapter 31
Chapter 32
Chapter 33
Chapter 34
Chapter 35
Chapter 36
Chapter 37
Chapter 38
Chapter 39
Chapter 40
Chapter 41
Chapter 42
Chapter 43
Chapter 44
Chapter 45
Chapter 46
Chapter 47
Chapter 48
Chapter 49
Chapter 50

Part 2
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
Chapter 8
Chapter 9
Chapter 10
Chapter 11
Chapter 12
Chapter 13
Chapter 14
Chapter 15
Chapter 16
Chapter 17
Chapter 18
Chapter 19
Chapter 20
Chapter 21
Chapter 22
Chapter 23
Chapter 24
Chapter 25
Chapter 26
Chapter 27
Chapter 28
Chapter 29
Chapter 30
Chapter 31
Chapter 32
Chapter 33
Chapter 34
Chapter 35
Chapter 36
Chapter 37
Chapter 38
Chapter 39
Chapter 40
Chapter 41
Chapter 42
Chapter 43
Chapter 44
Chapter 45
Chapter 46
Chapter 47
Chapter 48
Chapter 49
Chapter 50
Chapter 51
Chapter 52
Chapter 53
Chapter 54
Chapter 55
Chapter 56
Chapter 57
Chapter 58
Chapter 59
Chapter 60
Chapter 61
Chapter 62
Chapter 63
Chapter 64
Chapter 65
Chapter 66
Chapter 67
Chapter 68
Chapter 69
Chapter 70
Chapter 71
Chapter 72
Chapter 73
Chapter 74
Chapter 75
Chapter 76
Chapter 77
Chapter 78
Chapter 79
Chapter 80
Chapter 81
Chapter 82
Chapter 83
Chapter 84
Chapter 85
Chapter 86
Chapter 87
Chapter 88
Chapter 89
Chapter 90
Chapter 91
Chapter 92
Chapter 93
Chapter 94
Chapter 95
Chapter 96
Chapter 97
Chapter 98
Chapter 99
Chapter 100

What Christians Can Learn From Judaism: Anti-Missionary Tactics

Of all the religions encountered by Christian missionaries, Judaism is generally the most resistant. Centuries of conflict have so hardened the Jewish heart to belief in Jesus, that most Jews will not even give the idea a fair hearing.

 In fact, Judaism has become so resistant to the gospel, that they have hired people to work full-time in order to thwart Christian missionary efforts to the Jews. Such a role is called the counter-missionary or anti-missionary. The two main organizations that employ anti-missionaries are Jews for Judaism, who operate worldwide, and Yad L'Achim, which operates in Israel.

These organizations provide classes in how to battle missionaries and foil their tactics. They also provide role-playing where they teach teens and college age children how to spot and avoid missionary activity, as well as how to argue with missionaries who are engaging fellow Jews. They also provide a 24 hour hotline, which any Jew can call immediately if a friend or family member is being influenced by missionaries.

Tovia Singer told a story where a Jewish teenager who joined a Christian youth group and accepted Jesus as his savior. The teen's parents called Jews for Judaism, who sent Tovia Singer to talk to the boy. There was some resistance. The boy would not talk to Singer unless his pastor was at the meeting. Singer agreed, and not long afterward met with them. Singer managed to completely destroy the unprepared pastor in debate, having responses for any argument the pastor could mount. As a result, the boy renounced Christianity and joined Orthodox Judaism. Singer concluded the story with "Yeah, he's in yeshiva now."

You might be saying "This sounds like a very bad thing. What can Christians learn from this?"

The apostasy rate for Christians in college is somewhere around 70%. While many Christians return to their faith later in life, it is often with a worse set of beliefs. They give up their belief in an inerrant and authoritative Bible and instead join the church because it provides a social club for their children. In other words, they rejoin the church but retain the secularized belief system they acquired in college.

Why does modern Evangelical Christianity not have a system in place similar to Jews for Judaism? In addition to the aggressive missionizing by the New Atheists, especially in the online environment, conservative Evangelical Christians face a whole host of missionizing influences. Most skeptics will not care if your children are nominal Christians, but some professors make it their goal to strip your children of their conservative theology. They will argue that belief in an inerrant bible is untenable, and that any form of creationism is worthy only of the harshest ridicule. They will attack the biblical moral system, calling anyone a bigot who believes that fornication or abortion is evil. They will also attack the idea that truth is absolute, and that Christianity is right in a way that other religions are not. They will do everything they can to keep Christians from sharing their faith, and try to keep Christians from believing that Jesus is the only way to heaven.

Through peer pressure, and the vulnerability that comes from a change in environment, these missionaries of secularism and relativism will succeed if we do not have a system in place to stop it. This seems to be a very strong potential market for Christians who are both good at apologetics and counseling. These aplogetics counselors could reach these youth while their minds are still young and still open to change. There are no programs of this type of which I am aware, even though there is tremendous need for one.

Jesus Was Not The Messiah?

A common tactic by skeptics of belief in Jesus is to say that the Hebrew Bible lays out certain criteria for the role of Messiah. Skeptics then argue that Jesus is not fulfill one or more of these criteria, and therefore is not the Messiah.

Even in this form, there is a logical fallacy. It does not follow from:

(1) Messiah will fulfill prophecies A-Z
and
(2) Jesus did not fulfill prophecies A-Z
that
(3) Jesus is not the Messiah.

That simply does not follow. Instead, the skeptic needs to establish

(2') Jesus did not and will not fulfill prophecies A-Z

in order to fulfill their burden of proof. Unless and until they do, they have not established their conclusion.

With some arguments, however, they are more like the following:

(1) The New Testament claims that Jesus fulfilled X
but
(2) Jesus did not fulfill X
therefore
(3) Jesus is not the Messiah

The conclusion comes from practically nowhere. While (1) and (2), if they are both true, would undercut biblical inerrancy, the issue of inerrancy is a secondary issue. The Bible does not need to be inerrant in order to be an accurate witness to the life of Jesus of Nazareth.

But some arguments don't even fit that mold. Instead, they look like the following.

(1) Some Christian apologist says that Jesus fulfilled X
(2) Jesus did not fulfill X
(3) Jesus is not Messiah

That conclusion does not even follow.

Many skeptical arguments are a case of simple anachronism. The Gospel texts are not modern publications but are of the literary genre called "ancient biography." An example of this genre is Plutarch's Lives. Also, quotation in ancient Greek texts was not always verbatim. That is to say that if you expect quotations to be word perfect, then you are judging an ancient text by modern literary standards.

The purpose of an ancient biography not to give a list of technically accurate but dry details. It was to paint a general portrait of the subject. Richard Burridge is one of many proponents of this view, who says "we must study [the gospels] with the same biographical concentration upon their subject to see the particular way each author portrays his understanding of Jesus." J.P. Holding has a great series of articles refuting objections as well. Plutarch's Lives is a series of biographies of many ancient Romans. Some of their lives overlap, and among the many biographies, Plutarch can describe the same event from different perspectives, and contain variations in the secondary details. By today's standards, one might call them contradictions, but Plutarch's audience did not think of them as such.

Another argument made by skeptics is that the New Testament's quotation differs from that of the Hebrew Bible. First, ancient Greek does not hold direct quotation to the same standards that we do. Secondly, the New Testament generally uses the Septuagint for its source. I say generally, because Matthew is the main exception to this rule.

Matthew tends to get an unfair treatment by skeptical scholars because he does not use the very simple prooftexting, consisting of direct quotation, that modern popular Christianity is accustomed to using. His use of the Scriptures is more like that of the ancient rabbis, who had a method of Scriptural interpretation called PaRDeS. This stands for the four levels of interpretation: Pashat (literal), Drash (homiletical), Remez (hint), and Sod (secret). Those who insist that Matthew only use the Pashat, and only use direct quotation will severely misunderstand his interpretive method. One need only Read the Talmud to recognize just how free the rabbis were with their interpretations of the Old Testament.

At Qumran, the unearthing of the Dead Sea Scrolls revolutionized biblical scholarship. For years, biblical scholars thought that the Septuagint was a bad translation of a pre-existing Hebrew text. Once the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, all of that changed. About 35% of the Dead Sea Scrolls biblical manuscripts belong to the Masoretic tradition, 5% to the Septuagint family, and 5% to the Samaritan, with the remainder unaligned. This shows that there was some level of diversity in the textual traditions. This is important because it establishes that the Septuagint pre-existed Christianity. This means that the New Testament authors could not have fabricated their quotations of the Old Testament, and then created the Septuagint to cover it up. It also means that there was some diversity in the readings, meaning that we cannot rule out the possibility that Matthew, for example, was using non-aligned readings for some of his quotations.

Another blunder of the uneducated Bible reader is a misunderstanding of the word "fulfill" πληρόω in the Greek. The word means to fill up, to perfect, to render full, or to complete. It is fallacious to think that fulfillment = prooftext. It does not. 2 Peter speaks of God fulfilling his promise. James 2:8 states: "If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself,' you are doing well." The same word "fulfill" is being used, but no one would think that by loving your neighbor, you are the subject of a prooftext.

Next time, we will get into the texts that anti-missionaries and other skeptics use to argue that Jesus was not the Messiah.

My Sermon on Jeremiah 31:31

This sermon was my final project for my preaching class in seminary school. In it, I explain Jeremiah 31 and answer rabbinical objections to it.

Jeremiah 31:31-34

Let’s go back in history to a time when ancient Israel was still around. God had made his covenant with Moses at Sinai. He promised that if Israel obeyed the commands of God, there would be blessings. Israel would be prosperous, and her enemies would be crushed underfoot. However, if Israel was disobedient, she would experience disease, plague, hunger, famine, and strife. Israel’s enemies would come in and harass, and kill God’s people. If they did not repent still, then they would be taken from the land.

There is a scene in Lord of the Rings, the heroes were shown a vision of what would happen if they failed to defeat their enemy Sauron. The innocent Hobbits would be made slaves to Sauron, with their villages burned and the survivors taken away in chains to the evil land of Mordor. That is precisely what happened to the Northern Kingdom of Israel. In 720 B.C. the Assyrians under Tiglath-Pilesar deported all the survivors to Assyrian enslavement. The Northern Kingdom was wiped out forever.

Fast forward about 120 years. The Kingdom of Judah has been threatened, first by the Assyrians, and now by the Babylonian Empire. Israel had already been besieged and attacked once by the Babylonians, who were threatening to do it again. The first stages of the exile to Babylon had begun. Daniel and his friends, for example, had already been taken to Babylon. It would be 70 years before they would be able to return from that exile. The current king of Judah, Zedekiah was about to rebel against Nebudchanezzar, the ruler of Babylon. If that happened, the Babylonians might completely annihilate Judah, the way the Assyrians did with the Northern Kingdom of Israel.

In this situation, Jeremiah rebukes Judah for her sinful and idolatrous ways. But then, he gives them hope. Jeremiah 29:11 “For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for peace and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope” comes in the middle of one of the darkest passages in Jeremiah. It is not a promise to us of prosperity. It is a promise that God’s people will survive, even though they will suffer agony and humiliation. They must remain hopeful even in their punishment.

Then, something even bigger happens in Jeremiah 31:31-34. The translation is my own.
Behold, the coming days, declares Yahweh. I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. Not like the covenant that I make with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, a covenant which they broke. I was a husband to them, declares Yahweh. For this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares Yahweh. I will put my law inside of them, and write it on their hearts. To them, I will become their God. To me, they will become my people. No man will again teach his neighbor or his brother saying know Yahweh. For all will know, from the least to the greatest declares Yahweh. For I will forgive their iniquities and their sins. I will remember them no more.

God is declaring that in the future, he will make a new covenant with both the living house of Judah and the dead house of Israel. It will be a different covenant than the one he made with Moses on Sinai. No matter how hard that the rabbis try to explain away this verse, they have to face the fact that God will make a new covenant beyond the one made at Sinai. This means that the Sinai covenant is not the last covenant that God made with his people.

God also declares that even though he was a husband to the people of Israel, they still broke his covenant. After God made the covenant with Moses on Sinai, Moses died and Joshua took the task of conquering the Promised Land for the sake of the God of Israel. For hundreds of years afterward, the nation was split into loosely aligned tribes, where judges ruled the families, clans, and tribes. During this period, the tribes would begin to worship idols, and God had to call a great judge to bring Israel back. Then, after a while, Israel would fall into apostasy again. This cycle happened over and over again. And as the cycle continued, it got worse and worse.

Then, one day, the people of Israel wanted unity. They wanted a king, just like all the other nations. God said “okay” to that, but then said that he would appoint the king over all of Israel. He chose Saul, who was at first a righteous king, but then started to disobey God, and tried to murder David. When Saul died, unrepentant, David took the throne. He was a man after God’s own heart, but even he fell into wickedness when he had an affair with Bathsheba, and then murdered her husband Uriah to cover it up. But David repented, and so God forgave him, and let David lead Israel into prosperity.

Then, David’s son Solomon came into power at the height of Israel’s glory. Solomon finished building the temple, and all the rulers from the surrounding lands came to Jerusalem to learn from Solomon’s great wisdom. But even Solomon took many pagan wives, and added idol worship to Israel.

After he died, the kingdom of Israel split into the Northern Kingdom of Israel, and the Southern Kingdom of Judah. The Northern Kingdom had 19 kings. Every single one of them, without exception, was an apostate. None of them were good in the eyes of Yahweh. Within only a few hundred years, the kingdom was invaded by the Assyrians, deported, and assimilated into the Assyrian culture.

In the Southern Kingdom of Judah, the record was a little bit better. Twenty kings ruled. Eight were righteous, and twelve were apostate. As a result, the Southern Kingdom of Judah lasted a while longer. But even the kingdom of Judah could not stave off its own apostasy. Righteous kings like Asa, Hezekiah, and Josiah were outnumbered by wicked kings like Manasseh and Zedekiah. The act of compromise, where the people of Judah were allowed to worship foreign gods in addition to Yahweh was becoming sealed into the culture. There was widespread ignorance of the law, for example, the time when Manasseh decided to bring back worship of Yahweh alone. The book of Chronicles states that people still offered sacrifices from the high places, but only to Yahweh, even though the Pentateuch strictly forbids such a practice.

It was a bit like the novel Dr. Jekyll and Mr, Hyde. In the novel, Dr. Henry Jekyll, tired of experiencing this inner conflict between his good and evil inclinations, develops a potion to separate the two. When he takes it, he turns into the wicked Mr. Edward Hyde, who was free to indulge in his wickedest fantasies without any feeling of guilt.

As time went on, Mr. Hyde began to take over Dr. Jekyll. Jekyll would fall asleep, and wake up as Mr. Hyde. Jekyll had to take more and more of the potion to maintain his identity, until he ran out. In his last few moments before turning into Hyde for the rest of his life, Jekyll writes his last letter. He says “God knows; I am careless; this is my true hour of death, and what is to follow concerns another than myself. Here then, as I lay down the pen and proceed to seal up my confession, I bring the life of that unhappy Henry Jekyll to an end.”

Like Dr. Jekyll, Israel’s whole history was one downward spiral. The prophets could see that like Jekyll, it would only be a matter of time before Judah would fall permanently into apostasy. Judah would never again be the mighty power that she was in the glory days under David, at least not under the old covenant. However, there was hope under the new covenant.

The author of Hebrews quotes this passage from Jeremiah in the 8th chapter. Jesus offers a better covenant than the one God made with Moses at Sinai. If the covenant with Moses had been perfect, there would be no need for another. Does this mean that there was something wrong with the first covenant? I think the answer is in this passage. The problem with this covenant is that the Israelites broke it. Since they did not have the regenerating power of the atonement of Jesus, and did not have the Holy Spirit writing the commands of God on their hearts, they failed to keep the covenant.

Jeremiah’s promise of a new covenant is a hotly disputed passage between Christians and Jews. The Rabbis insist that this passage has nothing to do with God offering a new covenant between himself, since the covenant at Sinai was meant to stand for all of time. The rabbis reject the interpretation of the author of Hebrews, because the passage states that the covenant will be made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. It doesn’t mention throwing away the original covenant.

The law was written on the hearts of people like Abraham. The difference with this covenant is that it will be written on their hearts. Ezekiel 36:26-27 reads “And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.” Clearly, this covenant is reaffirming the Old Testament law, and cannot be about abolishing things like the dietary laws, right? Deuteronomy 30 says that the people of Israel, once they return from exile, will return to upholding the same commandments.

The rabbis will also say that there is no way Jesus could have fulfilled this command because we need to teach each other about God, yet this passage states that we will not need to be told about God because they all shall know him!

Instead, they will say that Jeremiah 31 was fulfilled at the return from the Babylonian exile. The rabbis believe that the people of Judah were suffering for their own sins plus for the unatoned sins of their ancestors. The rabbis argue that the exile will bring atonement for the sins of the parents. That way, the returning generation can have a fresh start without any of the baggage of previous generations. They believe that the new covenant is a renewal, just as God renewed the covenant with Josiah and of Hezekiah, and even in Moab in Deuteronomy 29.

Whenever the people of Israel return to God, he makes a reaffirmed covenant with them. The people of Israel will understand why they are chosen, and their willingness to follow God will not be because of punishment or reward, but because of an internal identity. God said that his relationship with Israel is as fixed as the laws of nature.

So how strong are these arguments? Notice how none of these rabbinical objections address the central point of the passage. God said that he will give Israel a new covenant. Just in case you think it is just a reaffirmation of the original covenant, he goes on to say that this covenant is not like the one given at Sinai. I don’t see how God could be any clearer that this is not the Mosaic covenant.

Ezekiel 36 says nothing about a new covenant, nor does it say anything about people following the Mosaic Law. In order to interpret Ezekiel that way, you have to already assume that walking in God’s ways and obeying his laws is equivalent to following the commands of the Mosaic Law. In other words, it already assumes that there will not be a greater covenant. But this is what the rabbis are trying to prove!

There is an old ethical question: would you lie to the Nazis in order to save someone’s life. Most people say they would. But this does not mean that morality is relative. Instead, it means that there is a hierarchy of moral values and duties. When confronted with an ethical dilemma, you choose the greater good, and are released from lesser, conflicting obligations. Let’s apply this to the covenant. Does the fact that the New Covenant allows us to eat non-kosher foods mean that the old covenant has ceased to exist? Not at all. It just means that the new covenant is superior to the old one, and that by following the new covenant, you are released from the punishment of failing to uphold the old covenant.

What about the objection that we still need to teach each other about God? Well, think with me for a second. In the time of Jeremiah, how many people knew about the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Only the people of Judah, and perhaps a few merchants who traded with them. It was a very small percentage of the world’s population. Then, when Jesus died, rose again, and gave the Holy Spirit to his followers, something amazing happened. Knowledge of the God of Abraham started spreading, and for the first time in history, started spreading outside of Judaism, so that of the people who know of the God of Israel, Jews would be in the vast minority.

The task of world evangelism is shrinking rapidly. In the year 100, there were about 360 non-Christians to every practicing Christian. In the year 1000, that number dropped to 270. In the year 1500, it was 85. In the year 1900, there were only 21 non-Christians to every Christian. In 1970, it was down to 13. The most recent figures from 2010 set that number at only 7 non-Christians for every Christian. If Jeremiah were here in the modern world, he would be amazed at the number of people who know about the God of Israel. He would say something like: “This is amazing. In my day, no one outside Israel knew who God was. We always had to tell them about the great God who brought Moses out of Egypt. In this time, I do not even need to tell anyone about the God of Abraham, because everyone already knows who he is”

Nothing like this happened during Israel’s return from exile! They returned, as in Ezra and Nehemiah, and they built a new temple. There is nothing in the Bible to indicate any sort of a new covenant taking place during any time in the Old Testament. Furthermore, the exile did not bring about a fresh start for the people of Judah. Malachi is one of the last prophets, who lived after the exile, but his whole letter was a scathing rebuke to the people of Judah, who were still profaning the covenant and robbing God. Judah had not been healed, but was building up divine wrath against herself all over again.

Like the ancient nation of Israel, we all face a struggle between the good and evil inclinations. We know we cannot win on our own. Just like Israel, that internal fight between Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde rages on, and over time, we will slowly lose ground. This was the sad reality for Israel under the old covenant. They were losing the fight, and they were dying because of it. God responded by saying that he would make a new and different covenant, but not with the nations of Israel and Judah directly. Instead, he made the covenant with Jesus the Messiah, who acted as a representative of the two nations, like an ambassador or an Olympic athlete. Jesus made the covenant with God and obeyed the old Law perfectly, so that when he died, he received our sin, and we received his righteousness.

With the coming of the Holy Spirit in the book of Acts, the law of God is no longer “out there,” requiring legions of legal scholars to decode it. Instead, it is written in the conscience of each of us. Because we have the Holy Spirit, we have a personal relationship with Yahweh that we live out on a daily basis. And when we really listen to the Holy Spirit, he can instruct us in the ways of right and wrong.

This is different than the old covenant. Modern Rabbinical Judaism believes that true obedience and knowledge of God can only come through following a very detailed set of commandments. For example, according to the rabbis, Jews cannot eat milk and meat together. This means that if you eat milk, you have to cleanse the palate with water before eating meat. However, if you eat meat, you have to wait six hours before having any sort of dairy product, and you have to make sure your teeth to not have any remains of meat in them. If you have only one set of cookware, there is a whole plethora of regulations on what you can and cannot cook in them, as well as how to purify the set between using the cookware for dairy and for meat. Foods like chicken and fish are in a different category altogether, and have different laws that apply to them. This is why Orthodox Jews need to be in contact with a rabbi to deal with issues that take an entire lifetime to study.

Under the new covenant, that burden has been lifted. Even peasants in the third world, who do not have access to scholarship, and might not even be able to read, can still know the God of Israel through personal experience. They are not bound to the details of the law, where not doing the rituals properly makes them worthless. How much better is the good news of Romans 10:9. If you confess with your mouth “Jesus is Lord” and believe in your hearts God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

That’s great for us, what about everyone else? It is great that we have the power of the Holy Spirit to overcome the Mr. Hyde in all of us. But Jesus did not just call us to focus on living holy and righteous lives. On the Simpsons TV show, the character Ned Flanders represents what happens to Christians who focus on personal piety to the expense of everything else. Flanders is sort of a stereotypical fundamentalist, who seeks very strongly to limit the influence of the non-Christian world on his life and the life of his family. As a result, his children grow up very sheltered and naïve.

As a result, he and his family are completely ineffective at making any real impact on the surrounding world. Yet this is not what we are called to do. We are not called to protect our children from apostasy at any price, and how dare we attempt to do so. We need to reach out and put not only our lives, but also our ideologies at risk in order to spread the Gospel.

Jerry Pipes and Victor Lee wrote the book Family to Family to help inspire Christian families to evangelize, not as individuals, but as a unit. I recommend reading this book. There are not many books on family evangelism out there. There are so many ways your family can help out others and spread the Gospel, even in your local communities.

Do you know your neighbors? Do you know who lives next-door and across the street? If not, how do you expect to have an influence on them? What are their needs? One family managed to spread the love of Christ simply by handing out batteries for their neighbors’ smoke detectors.

Also, evangelism usually requires asking interesting questions. I have found in my experience that non-Christians are actually pretty open to talking about spiritual matters so long as they are not lectured or bullied on the subject. As long as we keep a respectful tone and seek first to understand just what it is they believe before we share our faith. Otherwise, we are like doctors trying to sell someone a cure before we even hear about what disease they have.

In conclusion, then; because of the new covenant and the transforming power of the Holy Spirit, no longer does God have to endure a strained relationship with his nation, who is at times like Dr. Jekyll, and at times like Mr. Hyde. No, the atonement of Jesus broke that cycle and set us free from it, so that we can tell the world about his redemption and life-transforming power of Jesus. What are you doing to spread the Gospel to others?

Shalom Aleichem.

How to Suck at Criticizing Religion

The Oatmeal is a very witty comic site, but the author, Matthew Inman, has been showing his true colors recently. After bashing Jerry Falwell, and defending war in the name of atheism, he now comes out with this whiny tirade comic called How to Suck at Your Religion.

Here is Inman's basic method.

1. Assume that all claims to supernatural revelation are either false or unjustified. This is really the most important of my points, and it is kind of necessary to make your sucky criticism work. It is important that your readers don't try substituting "political view" or "ethical ideology" for "religion." That would sort of ruin it.

2. Treat religious beliefs like personal preferences. This is related to point 1. It will make the task of treating religious leaders as maniacal tyrants much, much easier.

3. Never apply your criteria for religion to your own unbelief. It would make you look like a hypocrite.

4. Perpetuate myths about religion conflicting with science. Don't worry if they have no basis in reality.

5. Use silly terms to describe these religions. By poisoning the well this way, you can use your own sense of smug superiority to gloss over all the holes in your arguments.

Awesome. Now let's take a look at the comic strip.


What's really ironic is that this is from Matthew 7, where Jesus is condemning the Pharisees, not for judging, but for judging people unjustly. Like the Pharisees, Inman is judging Christians for having a splinter in the eye, while Inman has a plank in his.





Ahh. The ever-popular Galileo myth. Here is a short response, and a longer one. In short, Galileo's beliefs were not considered heresy. He developed arguments for Copernicus' heliocentric view while he was bankrolled by the Roman Catholic Church. His arguments were terrible and failed to convince anyone, including Tyco Brahe.

When Galileo's financial benefactors told him to quit wasting their money on developing these arguments, Galileo feigned compliance, and then secretly wrote a dialogue between himself and a foolish tyrant representing the Pope and then published it. After then lying about it to the inquisition, he was forced to recant and placed under house arrest. This seems like a light sentence, considering that Galileo committed massive fraud against the Pope.

Regarding stem cells, Inman's assertion is just as ridiculous. Stem cell research was never condemned by the Roman Catholic Church. Adult stem cell research has resulted in over 70 treatments, including leukemia. Embryonic stem cell research, which has been condemned by the Roman Catholic Church, has resulted in zero treatments, and for good reason. Embryonic stem cells, if used in these treatments, have an unacceptably high chance of causing malignant cancer and killing the patient. Adult stem cells do not carry this risk.



This is because religion is nothing more than imaginative speculation. Never mind that the religion of ancient Israel alone proclaimed that the universe had a beginning, in opposition to everyone else. Remember that if you place a comic about personal preferences like favorite colors next to a comic about life after death, it means that the latter is just as subjective as the former.

Instead, we need to let people believe whatever feels right to them. Obviously, no one would ever do this with physics, chemistry, biology, law, medicine, safety, or ethics.

But we can say this about religion because we have proof that divine revelation (which would provide real knowledge of this topic) is impossible, right?



If by "sexuality" Inman means "whatever turns you on sexually" one only need probe the Internet to realize the depth of our depravity there. Leviticus 18 seeks to place restrictions on this. The Bible places restrictions like not having sex with your mother, or your dog. Don't kill your infant children in a sacrifical ritual to pagan gods, such as Molech. These perverse sexual appetites were (and probably still are) so widespread that they had to be outlawed in order to be stopped. If Matthew Inman has a problem with this, then that really scares me.



Preaching so you could validate your own beliefs? Is this what Isaiah meant when he said Yahweh has bared his holy arm before the nations, that the ends of the earth shall see him? Is this what Jesus says in Luke 9, when he send out his apostles? Is this what Paul and Apollos were doing when they were arguing in the synagogues?

And is this what Matthew Inman is doing when he is trying to spread his beliefs about religion to us?

Oh, and that last panel would be hilarious to anyone who grew up in an ultra-orthodox family, especially in the Yiddish communities of Williamsburg. It is kind of hard to leave the fold when you are completely financially dependent upon them, and don't speak English. Considering his vitriol about forcing your religious views on your children, he does not seem consistent here.



This assumes that all religious views are equally insane. This might be true if we already assume that divine revelation is impossible, but isn't this comic supposed to be directed at religious people?




In other words, it is okay to affirm the silly, childish stuff that your religion practices, but don't you dare actually bring it into the serious, adult world of politics!



Way to caricature religion as mentally deranged. Again Inman assumes that religion is false.
If it turns out that Inman is wrong.
If it turns out that God is out there.
If it turns out that God revealed himself to humanity.
If it turns out that Jesus is who he said he was, and that the only way to God the Father is through him, why shouldn't we want to suffer and die, if it would advance that cause?



In other words, because your religion is obviously false, you shouldn't really believe it. The reality is that we are evolved primates on a dying planet with no God, no life after death, no objective meaning, no objective morality, and no free will. But if that is too depressing for you, it's okay to follow some noble lie, as long as it helps you get through your day. Carry on.