Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 36

And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn. (Zechariah 12:10)

Troki believed that this prophecy is about Israel in the last days, the ones where Israel finally triumphs over God and Magog. The other nations will look on the Jews and mourn for them. Specifically, Troki does not believe that this can apply to Jesus because they look upon one person and mourn for another. Therefore, the one that they pierced cannot be the subject of mourning.

The grammar in this verse is very awkward. The word for pierced is Strong's H1856, and occurs 11 times. Only once is it used in the 3rd common plural form (דָּקָ֑רוּ), which is this verse. One would expect a 1st person ending to be added onto the end, yet no such ending is on this word. The second problem is that the one they pierced should be the same subject as the subject of mourning, yet it is not.

The simplest solution to the problem is that the passage has a textual error. The vav at the end of (אֵלַ֖י) was lost. It was originally (אֵלַ֖יו) "upon him." Many of the manuscripts in the Masoretic library have this rendering of the verse, and would read as follows 

(  וְהִבִּיטוּ אֵלַיו אֵת אֲשֶׁר־דָּקָרוּ וְסָפְדוּ עָלָיו כְּמִסְפֵּד עַל־הַיָּחִיד)

They will look upon him who they pierced and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child.

This reading has been preserved in the Talmud (Succah 52a) and in the Masoretic library.

Just as importantly, the "upon me" rendering better supports a Christian translation. With the doctrine of the Trinity, they can look upon God and mourn for him, having both as the same being but different persons. They will look upon God the Father who they pierced by crucifying Jesus, and will mourn for him as one mourns for a child.

Presuppositionalism Under the Microscope: A Rejoinder to Critics

In this post, I wanted to offer a quick response to critics of my Presuppositionalism argument. One critic believed that when I accused presuppositionalists of circular reasoning, I failed to draw a distinction between vicious and innocuous circularity. My response is that no such distinction exists. ALL circular reasoning is vicious, because it is reducible to bare assertion.

An example of this circularity would be something like asserting that miracles are impossible because they never happen, and that they never happen because they are impossible. This does not actually explain anything, and is no different than merely asserting that miracles are impossible, period.

One response is that not all forms of circular reasoning are fallacious instances of begging the question. This is true. Circular reasoning sometimes requires begging the question, but not always. Circular logic, regardless of whether it begs the question, cannot prove a conclusion because, if the conclusion is doubted, the premise which leads to it will also be doubted.

 Begging the question: Basing a conclusion on an assumption that is as much in need of proof or demonstration as the conclusion itself.

Someone can try to get around this by stating that some forms of circular reasoning are not fallacious.

Douglas Walton states: Circular sequences of questions and answers are not always fallacious instances of begging the question in all contexts of dialogue.

Suppose I ask you, ‘Why does Bruno like Betty?,’ and you reply, ‘Because Betty likes Bruno.’ This sequence is circular, but it need not be fallacious as an explanation of human behavior…. Whether circular reasoning is fallacious or not depends on the context of the dialogue in which the circular argumentation was used.

The problem here is that the argument is not yet circular, and drawing it in a circle does not prove anything.

The problem is the misunderstanding of "because" statements. If I say "the car is wet because it is raining outside" the statement is equivalent to the following chain of inference:

1. If it's raining outside, the car is wet
2. It's raining outside
3. Therefore, the car is wet.

The argument would be circular if (and only if) the only reason I have for believing 1 or 2 (it doesn't matter which one) is that I already believe 3. The Betty & Bruno statement "Betty loves Bruno because Bruno loves Betty" can be rephrased as:

1. If Bruno loves Betty, then Betty loves Bruno
2. Bruno loves Betty
3. Therefore, Betty loves Bruno

The argument, again, is only circular if the only reason I have for believing one of the premises is that I already believe the conclusion. I see no more reason to think that about the Bruno and Betty argument than I do about the wet car argument.

In fact, language is not defined circularly. The definitions of words in the dictionary are not really definitions, but descriptions. We have experience and ideas associated with these words, and the job of the dictionary is to bring those ideas to the surface. Very few words can be defined exhaustively in terms of other words. Richard Swinburne explains:



With no successful counterexamples, I would like to revisit what my opponents would need to show in order to shoot down my criticism. My hypothesis is that there is no distinction between innocuously circular reasoning and viciously circular reasoning. All that my opponents would need to show is some set of criteria by which they can distinguish the two. So any counterargument would need to take the following form:

1. A circular argument or epistemology is not viciously circular if it meets criteria x, y, and z.
2. Here is why Van Til meets criteria x, y, and z.
3. So, Van Til's epistemology is not viciously circular.

Any attempt to refute me that does not contain such an argument simply cannot affect my hypothesis. Furthermore, the burden of proof rests fully on the presuppositionalist.


Presuppositionalists might go for a "tu quoque" response, stating that if circularity is irrational, then all reasoning is irrational. The problem is that any claim, and any argument to support that claim requires that we have the rational reasoning to come to any sort of a reliable conclusion. Any argument that undercuts the reliability of reason will equally undercut the reasoning which led to that conclusion. Hence, any argument that all reasoning is ultimately circular is self-refuting, and can be immediately dismissed without further argument.

This is similar to people's theories of language and truth. Any worldview that denies absolute and objective meaning or absolute and objective truth is going to be self-refuting, and hence is not worth investigating. In fact, the impossibility of the contrary proves absolute truth and absolute meaning, even if we can give no further account, description, or explanation as to how or why  it is the case. The impossibility of the contrary is sufficient.

Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 35

Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion!

   Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem!

Behold, your king is coming to you;

   righteous and having salvation is he,

humble and mounted on a donkey,

    on a colt, the foal of a donkey. (Zechariah 9:9)

 Most of Troki's interpretation here is mere speculation. There is nothing in Zechariah that will say that when the king comes on a donkey, war will have already ceased. This is made obvious in verse 14, where God will later devour his enemies. If the time of Zechariah 9:9 is after war has ceased and everyone has beaten their swords into plowshares, verses 14 and onward would make no sense.

Troki takes verses 1-8 to mean that the territory of national Israel would be enlarged, the Philistines would be subdued, Jerusalem and the Temple would be enlarged, and all nations would be at peace. Troki does not deny that Jesus did ride on a donkey into Jerusalem. So if Jesus was the true king, then he would fit the prophecy. Traditional Jews expect Messiah to be something like Napoleon, running his armies into foreign nations and forcing them into submission.

Skeptics will object that Matthew misunderstood the prophecy when he wrote about the triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem. 

The disciples went and did as Jesus had directed them. They brought the donkey and the colt and put on them their cloaks, and he sat on them. (Matthew 21:6-7)

 The charge is that Matthew is portraying Jesus as straddling both the colt and the donkey. The Greek words for "colt" and "donkey" are masculine. The word for "coat" is neuter The Greek word for "them" is αὑτῶν, which is a plural noun, and can be masculine, feminine, or neuter. So the grammar is ambiguous. It seems more likely that Matthew intended that Jesus rode the coats. In ancient times, it was much more common for people to ride animals than it is today. The audience would have laughed at the idea of Jesus riding the colt and the donkey, as they knew from experience how absurd that would have looked. A story like that would never have made it into the final print edition of the book of Matthew.



Troki might also be too inflexible when he thinks of peace. The political sense of the term peace either exists voluntarily or it is imposed. If the latter, then the peace of which Troki speaks is really a type of oppression. This would mean that Messiah is supposed to oppress the other nations under his powerful military heel. This is not a divine government. It is fascism.

The other kind of peace, the one that is voluntary, requires a transformation of the people's desires. This is what Jesus brought through regeneration. By taking the punishment meant for sinful humans, Jesus appeased the wrath of the Father. By giving humans regeneration, he can transform us into a new creation, and one that has different innate desires. The process of developing that new self is called sanctification, and can take a lifetime. The beginning step is to repent before God and to ask for forgiveness, and then to put your faith and trust in Jesus as your savior.

If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (Romans 10:9)

Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 34

The latter glory of this house shall be greater than the former, says the Lord of hosts. And in this place I will give peace, declares the Lord of hosts.’” (Haggai ,2:9)

The dispute between Troki and the Christians of his day is what made the glory of the Second Temple greater than the glory of the first temple. In the Talmud, tractate Bava Batra discusses the issue.

Greater shall be the glory of the latter' house than the former. [The word 'greater' was interpreted differently by] Rab and Samuel [or, according to another report, by R. Johanan and R. Eleazar], one referring it to the size and the other  to the duration; and both are correct. (Bava Batra 3a-b)

There were five things in the first temple which differed from the second: the ark, the ark-cover, the cherubim, the shechinah, the Holy Spirit, and the Urim and Thummim (Yoma, 21b)

Rashi writes in his commentary that the first temple stood 410 years while the second temple stood 420 years. In reality, the first temple stood from 957-586 BCE (371 years), while the second temple stood from 516 BCE to 70 CE (586 years).

Interestingly enough, although not surprisingly, Troki rejects the explanation given by Bava Batra. Instead, he conflates the prophecies about the ultimate peace in the end of days with the glory being fulfilled. Troki believed that Haggai 2:9 has not yet been fulfilled, and argues that this will only take place in the days of the third temple. This is very hard to swallow, considering that Haggai called the second temple "this house" as though we was referring to something that existed in his time. Troki also rejected the idea that Jesus could have brought glory since Jesus, in Troki's view, brought about the destruction of that temple.

Remember that Haggai lived during the time when the second temple was being built, which is why nearly all biblical scholars reject the idea that "this house" would be the third temple. He did refer to the first temple as "this house" in order to draw a comparison between the temple he saw and the temple that stood on the same spot. Also, the term "latter" means the latter glory, not the latter house, as in verse 3, Haggai refers to the term explicitly.

It also seems unlikely that a slightly bigger temple or one that stood longer would have greater glory, especially with all the Shechinah glory of God himself now departed from it. It would take a visit from God himself to equal that level of glory, and therefore only through the visit of Jesus, who is Yahweh in the flesh, could such a prophecy be fulfilled. The second temple is now destroyed, so either this prophecy was already fulfilled, or Haggai was wrong. Jesus, again, is the best candidate for this prophecy's fulfillment.

Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 32

“Fallen, no more to rise,

is the virgin Israel;

forsaken on her land,

with none to raise her up.” (Amos 5:2)

Christian missionaries often use this verse to state that this means the old nation of Israel is annihilated. While this is a warning that the Northern Kingdom would be wiped out, this just does not apply to the Southern Kingdom. The problem with saying that this passage is about the eternal death of the nation of Judah is that chapters 9 and 12 speak to the contrary.

 “In that day I will raise up

the booth of David that is fallen

and repair its breaches,

and raise up its ruins

and rebuild it as in the days of old,

that they may possess the remnant of Edom

and all the nations who are called by my name,”

declares the Lord who does this.

“Behold, the days are coming,” declares the Lord,

“when the plowman shall overtake the reaper

and the treader of grapes him who sows the seed;

the mountains shall drip sweet wine,

and all the hills shall flow with it.

I will restore the fortunes of my people Israel,

and they shall rebuild the ruined cities and inhabit them;

they shall plant vineyards and drink their wine,

and they shall make gardens and eat their fruit.

I will plant them on their land,

and they shall never again be uprooted

out of the land that I have given them,”

says the Lord your God. (Amos 9:11-15)

Necessary Synthetic Truths: Part 2

This argument is similar to the one I gave in a previous post, but it may be easier to understand, and so here is the second version of my argument for necessary synthetic truths:

Now what is a synthetic truth?

Philosophers have divided truths into two kinds of truths, analytic truths and synthetic truths. Analytic truths are basically the relationships between ideas. The definitions of words are analytic truths. Other analytic truths include 1+1=2, all bachelors are unmarried, and all triangles have three sides. Those truths simply tell you about how ideas are related. Once you understand what a bachelor is, you realize that a bachelor is by definition an unmarried male.

Synthetic truths are truths that deal with the way reality is. They are about matters of fact The mass of the Eiffel Tower, what clothes you are wearing, the number of books on your bookshelf, the length of a movie, are all synthetic truths.

One common objection I often see regarding the Ontological Argument is that the existence of a being is a synthetic truth, and therefore cannot be a necessary truth. I intend to put this to bed once and for all.

To say that "there are no necessary synthetic truths" if true would either be an analytic truth or a synthetic truth. If it were a synthetic truth, then the statement "there are no necessary synthetic truths" would itself be a necessary synthetic truth! Therefore, if true, it would have to be an analytic truth. If so, then the term is merely a sterile definition of a word, having no applicability to which ways reality could or could not be configured. The statement would be trivial and irrelevant to the debate.

To then say that there are no necessary truths about how reality is configured is again, to claim a synthetic truth. If any statement is about the configuration of reality, and not merely about the relation of ideas, the statement "there are no necessary truths about how reality is configured" is. If true, it would be a necessary synthetic truth, and therefore self-refuting.

Any statement about what matters of fact could or could not be the case is by definition a statement about matters of fact, not relations of ideas. Any statement about what could or could not be the case is by definition a modal statement (concerning possibility and necessity). Hence, any assertion that there are no necessary synthetic truths is either self-refuting, or twists its vocabulary to the point that it is no longer talking about necessary synthetic truths.

Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 31

    Thus says the LORD:
    “For three transgressions of Israel,
        and for four, I will not revoke the punishment,
    because they sell the righteous for silver,
        and the needy for a pair of sandals—
    those who trample the head of the poor into the dust of the earth
        and turn aside the way of the afflicted;
    a man and his father go in to the same girl,
        so that my holy name is profaned;
    they lay themselves down beside every altar
        on garments taken in pledge,
    and in the house of their God they drink
        the wine of those who have been fined.
(Amos 2:6-8)

Amos was a prophet who lived in Judah but gave his prophecies to the Northern Kingdom of Israel. The imagery in the passage is similar to that of Jesus being betrayed for 30 pieces of silver. Northern Israel has sinned so grievously that God will not revoke the punishment. Northern Israel was to die. Overzealous Christians have tried to apply this to the Jewish people, but the Jews are descendants of the Southern Kingdom of Judah, not the Northern Kingdom. Furthermore, the passage applies to the kingdom itself, and not to each individual inhabitant in the kingdom.

Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 30

    She shall pursue her lovers
        but not overtake them,
    and she shall seek them
        but shall not find them.
    Then she shall say,
        ‘I will go and return to my first husband,
        for it was better for me then than now.’
    And she did not know
        that it was I who gave her
        the grain, the wine, and the oil,
    and who lavished on her silver and gold,
        which they used for Baal.
    Therefore I will take back
        my grain in its time,
        and my wine in its season,
    and I will take away my wool and my flax,
        which were to cover her nakedness.
    Now I will uncover her lewdness
        in the sight of her lovers,
        and no one shall rescue her out of my hand.
    And I will put an end to all her mirth,
        her feasts, her new moons, her Sabbaths,
        and all her appointed feasts.
    And I will lay waste her vines and her fig trees,
        of which she said,
    ‘These are my wages,
        which my lovers have given me.’
    I will make them a forest,
        and the beasts of the field shall devour them.
    And I will punish her for the feast days of the Baals
        when she burned offerings to them
    and adorned herself with her ring and jewelry,
        and went after her lovers
        and forgot me, declares the LORD.
(Hosea 2:7-13)

This passage is a clear prophecy of Israel's utter destruction. As a result, God would put an end to Israel's observance, because the nation will be dead. Remember that Hosea was a prophet of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, which became assimilated, never to recover. Dead people and dead nations do not observe things. This is why Rabbinical tradition almost always requires breaking a commandment of God if it is to save someone's life. This passage does not apply to Jesus, except in a homiletical sense.

Chizuk Emunah Under The Microscope: Chapter 29

    “Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”
(Jeremiah 31:31-34)

Much of my response to Rabbinical objections has already been stated in a previous post.

In this passage, Jeremiah is declaring that after the horrible destruction that awaits Israel, God will one day make a new covenant with both the surviving house of Judah and the dispersed house of Israel. Will it be a mere renewal of the old covenant? Not at all! The new covenant will be not like the previous covenant.

What is fascinating is that Troki accepts this interpretation. He states that the new covenant would not be a mere renewal of the Mosaic covenant, but a whole new covenant which is different than the one established on Sinai. However, he denies that God will give a new law, but will instead write his law on the hearts of the people. He argues that due to the perpetuity of the Mosaic Law, God will not write a new law on the hearts of the people.

This is true. There would be a new covenant, but no indication that some new law (תּוֹרָה) would be given. The New Testament does not talk of a new Law, but of a new covenant. This is prominent in Hebrews 8. Catholic Bible has a list of different covenants. The Mosaic covenant certainly was not the only one.

I have also heard the rabbis declare repeatedly that Torah (תּוֹרָה) does not literally mean "law" but "instruction." Well, we can run with that as well. Through regeneration in Jesus, we have the Holy Spirit indwelling in us, so that God's instruction is written on our hearts. Furthermore, it is not only the people of Israel who know of Yahweh. Most people throughout the world have heard of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Jeremiah's prophecy does not state that in the instant the new covenant is made, everyone will know of Yahweh, and misssions will be unnecessary. Instead, the prophecy is being fulfilled by the church to this day.

Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 28

Thus says the Lord:

“A voice is heard in Ramah,

lamentation and bitter weeping.

Rachel is weeping for her children;

she refuses to be comforted for her children,

because they are no more.” (Jeremiah 31:15)

 Then Herod, when he saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, became furious, and he sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had ascertained from the wise men. Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah:

“A voice was heard in Ramah,

weeping and loud lamentation,

Rachel weeping for her children;

she refused to be comforted, because they are no more.” (Matthew 2:16-18)

As I have stated before, fulfillment does not imply prediction. The word in Greek is πληρόω (Strong's G4137) which occurs 91 times in the New Testament. Let me go over some examples:

But Jesus answered him, "Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he consented.(Matthew 3:15)

When it was full, men drew it ashore and sat down and sorted the good into containers but threw away the bad.(Matthew 13:48)

After he had finished all his sayings in the hearing of the people, he entered Capernaum.(Luke 7:1)

 "Now when forty years had passed, an angel appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in a flame of fire in a bush. (Acts 7:30)

 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. (Romans 13:8)

 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Galatians 5:14)

 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"--and he was called a friend of God. (James 2:23)

 Those who have loved one another have fulfilled the law. This does not mean that when the law was written, your love for one another was predicted by the original writers. Yet, your love for one another fulfills the law in the same sense that Jesus fulfilled what was said by the prophets.

Jeremiah 31 is a series of independent oracles, and therefore context is of very limited value. The saying in verse 15 occurs pretty much in isolation. It applies to the immediate context of imminent destruction, as well as the massacre during the time of Jesus.

Troki states that there is no warrant for the application of this passage to Matthew. Perhaps this can be forgiven of him, since he is a Karaite. However, most Jews believe in oral tradition, which includes homiletical interpretations called midrashim. These midrashim take far more interpretive liberties with quoting the Bible than the New Testament authors ever do. Matthew's Jewish contemporaries were used to this homiletical style of interpretation. If Matthew had not interpreted the Tanakh homiletically, his contemporaries would have questioned his Jewishness.

Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 27

Then the word of the Lord came to me: “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter has done? declares the Lord. Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel. If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it. Now, therefore, say to the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem: ‘Thus says the Lord, Behold, I am shaping disaster against you and devising a plan against you. Return, every one from his evil way, and amend your ways and your deeds.’ (Jeremiah 18:5-11)

First, this reference is Paul's reference to the potter in Romans 9. That chapter does not teach that personal salvation is independent of human free choice, but that God's decision to use the church to witness to the world is God's sovereign choice. The metaphor of the potter is conditional. We are like clay in the potter's hand. If we do well, God will shape us into vessels of honor. If we do poorly, God will shape us into vessels of wrath. Hence, God's election, including election unto salvation, is indisputably conditional.

This warning given by Jeremiah was not that Israel would be destroyed, but that Israel would be punished for doing evil. The Northern Kingdom is completely dead, never to recover. Judah was meant to be a sovereign theocratic state, and is also dead, but waiting the resurrection as Ezekiel foretold in chapter 37.

Another interesting observation is in N.T. Wright's book The New Testament and the People of God, Wright shows from a survey of the literature that in the Second Temple period, the people of Israel believed that they were still in exile. They had not received the ingathering and were not a sovereign state for any length of time. In this case, it is history, and not biblical prooftexting, that vindicates the church's position against objectors like Troki.

Lest anyone think Paul was quoting the Wisdom of Solomon, remember that Romans was written in the year 58 at the latest. The Wisdom of Solomon was written around 70 at the absolute earliest, although modern scholarship attributes a date of around 200. So if anything, Wisdom would have been quoting Paul, not the other way around.

Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 26

You shall loosen your hand from your heritage that I gave to you, and I will make you serve your enemies in a land that you do not know, for in my anger a fire is kindled that shall burn forever.” (Jeremiah 17:4)

Christians during Troki's time believed that this verse was a prooftext that the Law of Moses and the associated covenant would be done away with. As we have seen in previous posts, no provisions were ever made for the covenant to end. Jeremiah said in chapter 31.

Thus says the Lord:

“If the heavens above can be measured,

and the foundations of the earth below can be explored,

then I will cast off all the offspring of Israel

for all that they have done,

declares the Lord.” (Jeremiah 31:37)

The greatest apostasy would not cause God to lose his covenant with national Israel, which is a separate entity from the church.

Troki points out that the Hebrew word for "forever" עַד־עֹולָם has multiple meanings.

For the palace is forsaken,

the populous city deserted;

the hill and the watchtower

will become dens forever,

a joy of wild donkeys,

a pasture of flocks;

until the Spirit is poured upon us from on high,

and the wilderness becomes a fruitful field,

and the fruitful field is deemed a forest. (Isaiah 32:14-15)

It seems like "forever" has more than one use, which admittedly weakens Troki's case that the covenant with Moses was to endure forever.

Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 25

“Though our iniquities testify against us,

act, O Lord, for your name's sake;

for our backslidings are many;

we have sinned against you.

O you hope of Israel,

its savior in time of trouble,

why should you be like a stranger in the land,

like a traveler who turns aside to tarry for a night?

Why should you be like a man confused,

like a mighty warrior who cannot save?

Yet you, O Lord, are in the midst of us,

and we are called by your name;

do not leave us.” (Jeremiah 14:7-9)

The question regarding this passage is: does this apply to Jesus? Troki says that it is not a good prooftext for the status of Jesus as Messiah, and I agree with him on that. He quotes Hosea 13:4 stating that there is no savior besides Yahweh. Since Jesus is Yahweh, the God of Israel, I see no problems with this.

The point of the passage is that God should be helping Israel, and not acting like a stranger (the word here is גָּר ger which, once again, does NOT mean convert) in a strange land. A stranger in a strange land cannot help the populace, and this is the point of the passage. Jeremiah is begging God for help.

In a similar vein, Jesus was like a stranger in a strange land. He used Israel as a dwelling place for a while, before later sending off his followers to preach to all the Gentiles.

Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 24

And when you have multiplied and been fruitful in the land, in those days, declares the Lord, they shall no more say, “The ark of the covenant of the Lord.” It shall not come to mind or be remembered or missed; it shall not be made again. (Jeremiah 3:16)

Troki recalls from this the Christian argument that the Law of Moses would one day be annulled. I can agree here, since I have stated in my post A Messianic Look at Roman Catholic Claims that the Law of Moses had no expiration date or terms of expiration. It was a covenant between God and the nation of ancient Israel. This was a covenant between God and a sovereign nation-state. It is not a covenant between God and a mere people group, nor is it a covenant between God and a group of religious observers. It is a system of national law, not a system of religious observance.

This means that the law does not govern a people group. It governs a sovereign nation and none of it is applicable outside that nation's borders. This is why God did not give the full Mosaic covenant until after the exodus from Egypt. The law was not meant as personal observance, and would have been meaningless to the Israelites in Egypt.

That nation of Ancient Israel no longer exists, and hence no one is bound to observe this covenant. This does not mean that the covenant is dead, but that the nation is dead. Hopefully, God will bring it back to life one day. He has not yet, as Modern Israel is not a theocracy, and hence, cannot be the same nation as Ancient Israel. God's Mosaic covenant does not apply to Modern Israel.

Troki interprets the passage to mean that the whole of Jerusalem will be so holy that Gentiles will not come into it. This interpretation ignores the fact that the passage is talking about Jews, not Gentiles, who do not enter the passage until verse 17.

Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 23

You meet him who joyfully works righteousness,

those who remember you in your ways.

Behold, you were angry, and we sinned;

in our sins we have been a long time, and shall we be saved?

We have all become like one who is unclean,

and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment.

We all fade like a leaf,

and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.

There is no one who calls upon your name,

who rouses himself to take hold of you;

for you have hidden your face from us,

and have made us melt in the hand of our iniquities.. (Isaiah 64:5-7)

In this passage, Isaiah is lamenting the sins of his people. He states that even the righteous deeds are like filthy rags, and that all of Israel has been wicked and refuses to call upon the name of God.

Troki admits that we depend upon God's righteousness to deliver us. He then argues that this means that salvation does not depend solely upon our imperfect individual merit and righteousness, but upon the mercy of God.

He states that "all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment" means that religious works which are performed out of wicked motives. He cites other verses which state that God hates it when we do the right things for the wrong reasons. There is not a hint of this in the context, immediate or otherwise.

The term "polluted garment" is (עִדָּהבֶּגֶד) meaning a menstruated rag. The imagery makes a powerful rhetorical point on just how much God hates such acts. The term for righteous deeds is (צְדָקָה)(Strong's H6666), which generally means "righteousness." It is used 167 times in Tanakh:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6666&t=ESV

In Isaiah, it is used 12 times, and never used to describe doing the right things for the wrong reason.

Thus says the LORD: "Keep justice, and do righteousness, for soon my salvation will come, and my righteousness be revealed.(Isaiah 56:1)

I will declare your righteousness and your deeds, but they will not profit you. (Isaiah 57:12)

Yet they seek me daily and delight to know my ways, as if they were a nation that did righteousness and did not forsake the judgment of their God; they ask of me righteous judgments; they delight to draw near to God. (Isaiah 58:2).

Therefore justice is far from us, and righteousness does not overtake us; we hope for light, and behold, darkness, and for brightness, but we walk in gloom. (Isaiah 59:9)

Justice is turned back, and righteousness stands far away; for truth has stumbled in the public squares, and uprightness cannot enter. (Isaiah 59:14)

He saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no one to intercede; then his own arm brought him salvation, and his righteousness upheld him. (Isaiah 59:16)

He put on righteousness as a breastplate, and a helmet of salvation on his head; he put on garments of vengeance for clothing, and wrapped himself in zeal as a cloak. (Isaiah 59:17)

Instead of bronze I will bring gold, and instead of iron I will bring silver; instead of wood, bronze, instead of stones, iron. I will make your overseers peace and your taskmasters righteousness. (Isaiah 60:17)

I will greatly rejoice in the LORD; my soul shall exult in my God, for he has clothed me with the garments of salvation; he has covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decks himself like a priest with a beautiful headdress, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels. (Isaiah 61:10)

 For as the earth brings forth its sprouts, and as a garden causes what is sown in it to sprout up, so the Lord GOD will cause righteousness and praise to sprout up before all the nations. (Isaiah 61:11)

Who is this who comes from Edom, in crimsoned garments from Bozrah, he who is splendid in his apparel, marching in the greatness of his strength? "It is I, speaking in righteousness, mighty to save." (Isaiah 63:1)

Instead, the word always means being morally good. Hence, even the righteousness of Isaiah and his people was like the filthiest rags before God.

Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 22

Behold, my servant shall act wisely;

he shall be high and lifted up,

and shall be exalted. (Isaiah 52:13)

This chapter deals with Isaiah 53, which is the battleground passage between Christians and unbelieving Jews. I have already given a longer analysis of this issue in The Isaiah 53 Controversy. it is now time to deal with more specific objections here.

Troki gives two kinds of objections:

1. Objections that argue against Jesus being the Servant.
2. Objections that argue for Israel being the Servant.

I believe that I have thoroughly answered and refuted Israel's candidacy as the Servant in The Isaiah 53 Controversy, so I will focus on objections to Jesus being the Servant.

First, Jesus is a better candidate for the Servant than any other figure in history. For any set of objections you could have to reject Jesus, I could create a better set of objections to reject any other given figure. Given that this prophecy has to point to someone, I propose Jesus is the best option.

Troki objects that God cannot be God's servant, that Jesus was not exalted and lifted up, that Jesus did not see offspring, that Jesus did not make intercession, that Jesus did not have his days prolonged, and that Jesus did not have a portion with the strong.

As I have mentioned before, this is the kind of nit-picking that would be dismissed in a court of law as being argumentative. An example is saying that Jesus was given immortality and therefore, his days were not prolonged? How petty can this get?

If a doctor gave you a pill and said that it would make you live longer, and you later realized that the pill gave you immortality, would you honestly say that the pill did not do what the doctor said it would do? One would have to say that to live forever is not to live longer. This would mean that eternal life is not longer than a 30 year life, which is absurd. Immortality is the ultimate form of a longer life.

The statement that he shall see seed is a parallel to "I will prolong his days" and has synonymous meaning. Seeing seed, in this context, means seeing future generations. One who is given immortality certainly would see future generations. The verse does not say that the seed will be his own biological offspring, so that objection does not apply to this passage.

Troki himself provides the answer to who "the Great" are. He says that they are the prophets. Since Jesus called Israel to obedience and even foretold the fall of the temple, he more than fulfills this role. The ascension of Jesus into heaven would fulfill him being "lifted up." To say that Jesus did not make intercession is simply to argue against the truth of the New Testament by assuming the falsehood of the New Testament. And that is simply circular reasoning.

Also, the Targum states that the servant of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah, and not national Israel, nor any Old Testament prophet. Maimonedes, although he rejected Jesus, also rejected the idea that Isaiah 53 was about Israel or about any of the other prophets that came before him.

Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 21b

For to us a child is born,

to us a son is given;

and the government shall be upon his shoulder,

and his name shall be called

Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,

Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6)

Troki objects to this passage being about Jesus, since he argues it is about King Hezekiah. One of the arguments used is that the passage is in the "perfect" tense, which implies that the events are past. This would support the Hezekiah interpretation, as Hezekiah was already a child when this prophecy was told. Many prophecies of the exile are told in this perfect tense, even though they came before the exile.

It is not quite that simple, though. The perfect tense is not only a tense in Hebrew for past events, but there are also future events that use the perfect tense. Prophets sometimes proclaimed so boldly a future event, that they This is like answering a request by saying "consider it done."

Therefore my people go into exile

for lack of knowledge;

their honored men go hungry,

and their multitude is parched with thirst. (Isaiah 5:13)

He has come to Aiath;

he has passed through Migron;

at Michmash he stores his baggage;

they have crossed over the pass;

at Geba they lodge for the night;

Ramah trembles;

Gibeah of Saul has fled.

Cry aloud, O daughter of Gallim!

Give attention, O Laishah!

O poor Anathoth!

Madmenah is in flight;

the inhabitants of Gebim flee for safety.

This very day he will halt at Nob;

he will shake his fist

at the mount of the daughter of Zion,

the hill of Jerusalem. (Isaiah 10:28-32)

Therefore thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, concerning the shepherds who care for my people: “You have scattered my flock and have driven them away, and you have not attended to them. Behold, I will attend to you for your evil deeds, declares the Lord (Jeremiah 23:2).

All three are use the perfect tense to describe future events, so the quote "a son has been born" is far from a prooftext that the event happened in the past.

Another consideration with the verse is the adjectives that are used at the end. Are they all referring to one person? The language used points to "yes" as the answer. The text packages all four terms together. It states: (וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמֹו פֶּלֶא יֹועֵץ אֵל גִּבֹּור אֲבִיעַד שַׂר־שָׁלֹום) "He will call his name Wonderful Counselor Mighty God Everlasting Father Prince of Peace."

If it were meant to be translated as "The Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, and Everlasting Father will call him Prince of Peace" the Hebrew would have changed the word order to something like
וְהַפֶּלֶא יֹועֵץ אֵל גִּבֹּור אֲבִיעַד קָרָא שְׁמֹו שַׂר־שָׁלֹום

Which is like saying "The great, high, and mighty ruler of all of eternity will call his name Bob"
Sort of anticlimactic for a prophecy.

This is why Abraham Ibn Ezra stated "Some say that פלא יועץ אל גבור אבי עד are the names of God, and the name of the Child is שר שלום, but the right opinion to my mind is that all are the names of the Child."

The issue with Troki's interpretation is that the term "Mighty God" is a different term than it is for Hezekiah. The former is אֵל גִּבֹּור while the latter is חִזְקִיָּהוּ. Furthermore, if the term in this verse had been translated literally into a name, the name of the one referenced would be Gabriel, not Hezekiah.

 Another key to the divinity of the person in question is the use of אֵל גִּבֹּור which is a divine title used in only in two other places, and both describing the God of Israel.

A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the Mighty God (Isaiah 10:21)

You show steadfast love to thousands, but you repay the guilt of fathers to their children after them, O great and mighty God, whose name is the LORD of hosts (Jeremiah 32:18)

Furthermore, the verses describe great joy at the one who is yet unborn when the prophecy was written. It cannot describe Zerubbabel, either, for we know almost nothing about him, and he did not accomplish much more than rebuilding the second temple, and having Jeconiah's curse reversed. Again, this is why the Aramaic Targum explicitly calls him Messiah, (משיחא דשלמא יסגי עלנא ביומוהי) who is the Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, and Prince of Peace.

Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 21

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14)

 In Chapter 21, Troki disputes whether this verse is about a virgin, or about a young woman.

The word is עַלְמָה Strong's H5959, and is referenced exactly seven times in the Bible.

behold, I am standing by the spring of water. Let the virgin who comes out to draw water, to whom I shall say, “Please give me a little water from your jar to drink,” (Genesis 24:43)

 And Pharaoh's daughter said to her, "Go." So the girl went and called the child's mother. (Exodus 2:8)

 the singers in front, the musicians last, between them virgins playing tambourines: (Psalm 68:25)

 the way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship on the high seas, and the way of a man with a virgin. (Proverbs 30:19)

your anointing oils are fragrant; your name is oil poured out; therefore virgins love you. (Song of Songs 1:3)

 There are sixty queens and eighty concubines, and virgins without number. (Song of Songs 6:8)

These are the six other verses. The word is quite rare, and refers to a young woman of marriageable age. Song of Songs 6:8 contrasts virgins with the king's concubines.

There is an objection that Proverbs 30:19 speaks of a woman who is not a virgin. After all, an eagle in the sky, a serpent on a rock, and a ship on the high seas leave no trace. In fact, the next verse states "This is the way of an adulteress: she eats and wipes her mouth and says, 'I have done no wrong'"

The problem with this line of reasoning is that the interpretation is forced. The way of an adulteress does leave a trace, but she then erases the evidence. The other three have other things in common as well. They are about things that travel. Are we then to suggest the way of a man with a virgin is supposed to be about travel as well?

The commentaries on the verse that I have read state that these things are amazing to him. The eagle is amazing because it is this massive creature that can fly higher than the other birds, and even pick up large prey while in flight. The serpent on a rock is amazing because it's amazing that a creature with no arms or legs can move, especially with no dirt to push off of. The ship is amazing because it is larger than any land vehicle, and yet it floats on water.

Just as amazing to the author of the proverbs, is the night where the new husband consummates the marriage, breaking the woman's virginity.

R. Laird Harris pulls no punches

"There is no instance where it can be proved that 'almâ designates a young woman who is not a virgin. The fact of virginity is obvious in Gen 24:43 where 'almâ is used of one who was being sought as a bride for Isaac." (R. Laird Harris, et al. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, p. 672.)

The question is then asked: why not use בְּתוּלָה which is the legal term for virgin? That word is Strong's H1330. It occurs 50 times in the Tanakh. The problem is that it does not always mean virgin.

Consider Joel 1:8 "Lament like a virgin wearing sackcloth for the bridegroom of her youth." The word for "bridegroom" is בַּעַל which in this context means "husband." The problem with translating בְּתוּלָה as "one who has never copulated" is that a man cannot be her בַּעַל until after consummation.

The other issue is that בְּתוּלָה can be used in both the masculine and feminine sense.

Fire devoured their young men, and their young women had no marriage song. (Psalm 78:63)

 Young men and maidens together, old men and children! (Psalm 148:12)

 Be ashamed, O Sidon, for the sea has spoken, the stronghold 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)

 with you I break in pieces man and woman; with you I break in pieces the old man and the youth; with you I break in pieces the young man and the young woman; (Jeremiah 51:22)

"The LORD is in the right, for I have rebelled against his word; but hear, all you peoples, and see my suffering; my young women and my young men have gone into captivity. (Lamentations 1:8)

Women are raped in Zion, young women in the towns of Judah. (Lamentations 5:11)

The contrast in Jeremiah is particularly telling. It contrasts the old man and the old woman to the young man and young woman. Virginity is not consistent with the context here. Lamentations 5 states young women as being raped, so it is questionable whether virginity is the context here as well.

I think Troki is right in that the common sense meaning of the verse does not describe Jesus. Troki writes:

Had it been the purpose of inspired writ to announce, as the Christians maintain, the advent of Jesus, how could Ahaz be concerned in a sign that could only be realized many centuries after his death, or how could any promise cheer his heart that was not to be fulfilled in his own days?

This is the issue with New Testament prooftexting. The authors are not making the case that the one and only meaning of these passages is Jesus. That would have made announcements like Isaiah's announcement unintelligible for his immediate audience.

The problem with interpreting this as Isaiah's son is that in 8:8, Immanuel is said to be the owner of the land. As Rabbi David Kimchi (a.k.a. The Redak) stated "this cannot apply to the son of Isaiah."

 So the language may apply to immediate purposes, but it is a bit too strong to think that it is meant only for that. A birth from an ordinary woman who was not a virgin is hardly a sign. It happens all the time. Only a virginal conception would be a sign in the highest and fullest sense of the word.