Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 11

Troki now attacks the teachings of Jesus on loving your enemy.

Matthew 5:43, "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thy enemy."

This passage, which is pretended by Matthew to be taken from some part of our Scriptures, originated partly in his own imagination. Scripture no where bids us to hate our enemy, but teaches us a totally different doctrine; for we find in Exodus 23:4, 5, "If thou meet thine enemy's ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again. If thou seest the ass of him that hateth thee, lying under his burden, and wouldst forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him." See also Leviticus 19:17, 18, "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt rebuke thy neighbour and not suffer sin upon him. Thou shalt not avenge nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. I am the Lord." Again, in the Book of Proverbs 24:17, "When thine enemy falleth do not rejoice, and when he stumbleth let not thine heart rejoice." And ibid 25:21, "If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat, and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink." 

As a bit of background, the use of love and hate in Semitic languages is different than it is in modern English. Ancient Semitic languages, like Hebrew, generally did not use comparative terms "I love my son more than my daughter." To say that in ancient Hebrew, you would say "I love my son. I hate my daughter." This is not  to say that you hate your daughter or even that you love your son. You simply love one more than the other.

Then Joab came into the house to the king and said, “You have today covered with shame the faces of all your servants, who have this day saved your life and the lives of your sons and your daughters and the lives of your wives and your concubines, because you love those who hate you and hate those who love you. For you have made it clear today that commanders and servants are nothing to you, for today I know that if Absalom were alive and all of us were dead today, then you would be pleased. (2 Samuel 19:6-7)

This verse implies in some sense that you are to love those who love you and hate those who hate you. Remember that in the Semitic tongue, the love/hate comparison is not an absolute one. Joab may very well have been saying that you are to love your neighbors more than your enemies.

Jesus took this likely well-known slogan and turned it on its head. A. Lukyn Williams writes that this teaching about loving your neighbor and hating your enemies was a popular slogan, not a Scriptural prooftext. Tacitus confirms this in volume 5 of his histories, stating that the Jews had absolute trust for other Jews, but absolute emnity and hatred for all outsiders. From Williams:

For though love to enemies was taught in the Law (and Jesus does not say the contrary), and though it was taught by individual Jewish leaders before our Lord's time, or independently of Him about the same time, there is no reason to think that it was ever the popular theory or practice. So far from this, it may be pointed out that the precept "Love your enemies" is not the popular theory or practice even now, either among Jews or Christians. The religion of an ordinary man down to this twentieth century has always permitted hatred of a private enemy.

Someone in the Skeptical Community Has Taken Notice

Do Not Link is a popular tool, especially in the Internet Skeptic community. As the package says, Do Not Link lets you link to a site, without improving a site's hits and hence, its search engine's rankings.

In the past 24 hours, someone posted a Do Not Link to my article on Susan Gerbic and the skeptical Wikipedia activism movement, which means that this site actually has the attention of the Internet Skeptic activist community.

I have no idea why they would take interest in a site whose main focus is argumentation against rabbinic tradition, involving mainly philosophical arguments and biblical exegesis. But hey, who am I to judge?

Basically, my article explained why Wikipedia is so extremely important for swaying the opinions of the public. While the people who you debate on the Internet are set in their ways, most people do not have a strong opinion on culture war issues, because they do not think about them everyday, nor do they discuss them very often. People go to Wikipedia often when they do not know a subject, which usually means that they have not formed an opinion. This means that they are open to be swayed in either direction. That is why for the Evangelical Christian movement, it is so important to have a Wikipedia presence.

For those of you who want to get started with Wikipedia editing, the following links are useful.

Overview of a Wikipedia Page
Talking About Talk Pages

Very Simple Editing Example

Wikipedia Stats

Creating a User Page

Hyperlinks In Other Languages

Uploading Photos and Using Them on Wikipedia

Graph Cells

Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 10

Troki wonders why Christians do not feel compelled to obey the Mosaic Law:

Matthew 5:17, 18, 19, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled. Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." So in Luke 16:17, "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than one tittle of the law to fail." These words are in direct opposition to the belief and the assertion of the Christians, that the law of Moses has been superseded by the coming of Jesus. Thus, circumcision is replaced by baptism, and the sanctity of the seventh day is deferred to the keeping of the first day of the week. With the same inexcusable freedom, many other Divine laws have been rejected by the Christians, only few having been retained, such as those regarding incest and moral enactments, respect to parents, love to our neighbour, charity to the poor, avoidance of theft, rapine, adultery, murder, shedding of blood, and some other crimes which reason enforces, and which other nations, who were without revelation, had acknowledged before the coming of Jesus.

One of the common Christian responses is that Jesus fulfilled the law instead of destroying it. This is akin to ending a mortgage contract. One can tear up the contract and experience foreclosure, or one can pay off the house in full, and fulfill the contract. One does not continue to pay the mortgage payments after the mortgage has been fulfilled. So too with the Law of Moses.

That previous argument might be a false analogy. There are no conditions in the Mosaic Law whereby someone's ability to fulfill them ceases their binding enforcement. For this argument, I will use the rabbinic technique of recognizing that the Torah and the mitzvot (commands) are two different things. The Torah is simply the Law of Moses. The mitzvot are the individual observances. Wearing fringes, not eating pork, and not lighting a fire on the Sabbath belong to the latter category.


In Midrash Vayikra Rabbah, all sacrifices except the thanksgiving offerings will be annulled, since there will be no need for them. In Midrash Schochar Tov, God will permit what is now forbidden. The Babylonian Talmud (Niddah 61b and Shabbat 151b) states that in the world to come, most of the mitzvot (commands of the Jewish law) will not be in force.

 “You shall keep the commandment, the decrees and the judgments which I command you today to do them,” the Talmud interprets: “today to do them, and not to do them tomorrow; today to do them, and tomorrow to receive their reward.”
-Tractate Eruvin 22a

"The mitzvot will be nullified in the world to come"
-Rav Yosef, Sanhedrin 90b

Here is an article written by an orthodox rabbi. His main point is that the Torah means the divine will, but the mitzvot means the specific commands. the former is eternal. The latter is not.

Therein lies the distinction between the term “mitzvot” and “laws of the Torah.” Mitzvah means “commandment,” implying the existence of an “other” [or, “someone outside of the commander”] who is being (and needs to be) commanded. Thus the term “mitzvah” relates to the pragmatic function of Torah: to impose a code of behavior upon an imperfect world—a world that is separate from, and at times even in conflict with, its Creator.

The word “mitzvah” also means “connection,” implying a higher function to the mitzvah: to connect the commanded mortal with the divine commander. But a connection, by definition, is the link between two otherwise separate entities; so the mitzvah as the agent of connection between G-d and man also implies a purpose extrinsic to the divine essence of Torah’s laws.

“The laws of the Torah,” on the other hand, is a reference to the divine will per se, unencumbered by purpose or objective. A commandment is not a commandment unless it is issued to another (or, an “other”), a connection is not a connection unless it is connecting another; in contrast, a “law” is an objective truth, independent of how (or even if) it is applied.

Similarly, the New Testament shows that Jewish believers in Jesus are allowed to eat with Gentiles, indicating that the strict sectarian laws are no longer in force. This is not an abolition of the Torah, but a reinterpretation of the mitzvot. Jesus did not come to abolish the divine will. He came to fulfill it. This is perfectly compatible with the teaching that the mitzvot during the time of the Tanakh have been abolished.

Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 9

Troki gives a brief attack on the language "fishers of men" 

Matthew 4:18, 19, "And Jesus, walking by the shores of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon, called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea, for they were fishermen, and he said unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men." The same is related in Luke 5:10, "And Jesus said unto Simon, Fear not, from henceforth thou shalt catch men." This metaphorical language employed by Jesus, appears most inapt and undignified. The net catches the unwary by stealth, and those who are caught are destined to death by those who spread the net.

The objection need not be discussed in detail. The language of Jesus in the New Testament was filled with imagery and figures of speech. It was part and parcel of the time for Jewish teachers to use easily memorized pieces of oratory to make their points. This is why Jesus used expressions like "I am the door" and "chew my flesh and drink my blood" and "you must be born again." People at the time did not have an abundance of stationery to take notes, so they had to learn everything by memory. Those of us who have learned mnemonic devices know that the more extreme the imagery, the easier it is to remember the material.

Peter and Andrew were fishermen by trade. Just as they had spent their careers catching fish, they would now recruit people into the kingdom of God. Troki's attack is a classic fallacy called the false (or weak) analogy.

X is like Y.

Y has property P.

Therefore, X has property P.

Life is like a box of chocolates. A box of chocolates should not be eaten by a diabetic. Therefore, life should not be eaten by a diabetic. People who buy stocks are no different from people who bet on horse racing. They both risk their money with little chance of making a big profit. Lots of jokes are based on false analogies. Why is a raven like a writing desk? Because Poe wrote on both!

The disciples knew who Jesus was before they encountered him. Luke gives a more detailed account of Jesus' recruiting efforts. John the Baptist had preached for years to prepare the people for Jesus, and Jesus had already been known as a miracle-worker before he called his first disciples.

Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 8

In this chapter, Troki charges the New Testament passage in Matthew 4 with contradicting the meaning of Isaiah 9:

Now when he heard that John had been arrested, he withdrew into Galilee. And leaving Nazareth he went and lived in Capernaum by the sea, in the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali, so that what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled:

“The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali,

the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles—

the people dwelling in darkness

have seen a great light,

and for those dwelling in the region and shadow of death,

on them a light has dawned.” (Matthew 4:12-16)

But there will be no gloom for her who was in anguish. In the former time he brought into contempt the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the latter time he has made glorious the way of the sea, the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations.

The people who walked in darkness

have seen a great light;

those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness,

on them has light shone.

You have multiplied the nation;

you have increased its joy;

they rejoice before you

as with joy at the harvest,

as they are glad when they divide the spoil. (Isaiah 9:1-3)

Immediately, Troki attacks a straw man when he says: "Let the reader refer to Isaiah 9:1, and see whether the detached passage, as given in the New Testament, proves anything relating to Jesus." As I will continue to state throughout this entire attack on the New Testament. Matthew's quotations are not prooftexts.

Furthermore, this passage is not about the deliverance of Judah by Hezekiah. It refers to the Northern Kingdom of Israel. This segment is the climax of the section begun in chapter 7. In the place of a wicked and unfaithful monarch whose shortsightedness will bring the nation into greater trouble, Isaiah lifts up the ideal monarch.

Troki also complains about the use of "borders" which in New Testament Greek often means "districts." This is why the ESV translates it "territory" instead of "boundaries." Most of Troki's objection has been rendered obsolete by the fact that we have better translations of the New Testament than the one that Troki used.

Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 7

Troki now attacks the divinity of Jesus, arguing that Satan would not dare to tempt God incarnate:

Matthew 4:1-11, "Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the Devil. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterwards an hungered. And when the tempter came to him he said. If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Then the Devil taketh him into the Holy City, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the Temple, and saith to him. If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give His angels charge concerning Thee; and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. Jesus saith unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Again, the Devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them, and saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him. Get thee hence, Satan; for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve."

The same subject occurs in Luke 4. The reader must certainly perceive by this narrative that the Jesus tempted by Satan, is not intended to pass for a God incarnate. For can any man, in his sound senses, suppose that Satan would have presumed to tempt one whom he knew to be a God; or can it be imagined that he would have dared, as a creature, to lead him away by force against his will? Reason recoils from such a belief.

Where does it say that Satan knew Jesus to be God? There isn't any passage in the New Testament that I know of. 1 Corinthians 2:8 seems to contradict such a notion "None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." This can refer to human rulers, but can also apply to angelic beings. In the book of Daniel, for example, some angels were known as princes.

Troki also does not take into account the extent of the incarnation. Paul explains the incarnations in a passage called the Carmen Christi:

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be exploited, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:5-11)

Quite a bit of theological teaching is in this passage. It teaches that Jesus is God. This is the meaning of the form of God. It then uses the Trinitarian name of God the Father (God) to compare Jesus to the Father. Jesus did not count his equality with the Father something to be exploited, or to be held on to, but emptied himself by taking on the form of a servant. He added a human nature to his own divine nature, and by doing so, walked among us. He then went humbly to his execution, and received glorification as a result.

Jesus as God needs no glorification, but remember that Jesus took on a human nature that was not exalted. This new being, which resulted from the combination of the divine Word with a human nature, became glorified and received the name above all names. This superior name is not "Jesus" because if that were the case, anyone named "Joshua" or anyone in the ancient world with the common name of Jesus could claim to have the supreme name. Instead, the name is "Lord."

This is how Jesus could experience genuine temptation, even if he was not able to succumb to it. How can someone freely choose something if they are not able to do otherwise? Philosopher Harry Frankfurt had the answer.

Imagine a guy named Stanley who registers to vote. He shows up at the booth on election day. Unbeknownst to Stanley, a mad scientist has wired Stanley's brain with electrodes so that if Stanley tries to vote for anyone but the United Torah Judaism party, the electrodes will go off and make Stanley vote for the United Torah Judaism candidate. Stanley votes for United Torah Judaism, and the electrodes never go off. Did Stanley freely vote for United Torah Judaism? Most people would say that he did, and that the decision was non-deterministic, even though he was not able to vote otherwise.

Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 6

Troki gives a short but common objection regarding Matthew's use of the Tanakh:

Matthew 2:23, "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets. He shall be called a Nazarene." This quotation has been falsely made, and is not to be found in any part of our prophetic writings; which subject has been more fully treated of in the former part of this work.

Ancient Greek has no symbol for quotation marks, and this does not look like a direct quotation. Modern translations of the Bible often render this passage "it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, that he will be called a Nazarene."

This is a reference to Isaiah 11, which speaks of the branch that will come from the stump of Jesse. The targum translates the branch as Messiah. It is also a reference to Jeremiah 23:5 "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and he shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land."

The basic thrust of the passage is a pun. Jesus is the branch, and is from Branchville. Modern Evangelicalism might not be comfortable with this kind of exegesis, but it certainly was at home with the rabbinic style of interpreting the Bible.

Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 5

Troki's assault continues:

Matthew 2:16, 17, 18 , "And Herod sent forth and slew all the children that were born in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet [chapter 31:15], saying, "Rachel [was] weeping for her children, and would not be comforted because they are not."

The construction of these words of the prophet is incompatible with what follows. For we read in the same chapter of Jeremiah, verse 17, "And the children shall return to their boundaries." This cannot mean slain but only captive children. The ten tribes are here alluded to as the captives who are mentioned under the collected name Ephraim, because their first king Jeroboam was of the tribe of Ephraim, the descendant of Rachel. Had Jeremiah's prophecy had any connection with the extermination of the infants of Bethlehem Judah, it would not have been for Rachel to weep, but for Leah, the ancestress of the children of Judah. See chapter 28 of Matthew.

As my commentary on the previous chapter notes: fulfillment does not entail prediction. If this were a debate, that would be all I had to say about this issue, but Troki's misunderstanding of Matthew's use of the Tanakh needs to be further explained. Christian Thinktank has an excellent article on typology, which is Matthew's
view on fulfillment. It also has a long and detailed response to prophecy objections like this one.

A common objection that Troki does not use is to state that since nobody else records such a slaughter, therefore it is unhistorical. For most of our ancient history, we have to rely upon one witness without corroboration. If a lack of multiple accounts was a criterion for dismissing an event as unhistorical, we would have to throw out most of what we know of ancient history.

For Troki's argument. He argues that if this verse had any application to Jesus, it would have been Leah that wept, and not Rachel, since Leah was the mother of Judah. Secondly, he argues that Jeremiah is not applicable to a mass slaughter.

Troki argues that Jeremiah is talking about the Babylonian exile. If so, then it is the people of Judah that are going into exile, with a few stragglers from the 10 lost tribes and from Benjamin. So why is Jeremiah saying that Rachel, rather than Leah, is weeping for the exile of the kingdom of Judah? Also, the Midrash calls the tribe of Manasseh a descendant of Rachel. It also refers to Rachel as the mother of the nation of Judah. The targum also states that Rachel was weeping for Jeremiah as one of her children, even though Jeremiah was from Levi.

Genesis 35:19 records Rachel's burial at Bethlehem, so it is likely that the birth of Jesus and the slaughter of other children in that same location triggered this association in Matthew. In Jewish culture, she was sort of a "patron saint" of Bethlehem.

A. Lukyn Williams writes: "Observe also that in Jeremiah happiness and blessing follow lamentation. So in the mind of the Evangelist the massacre connected with the infancy of Christ was a prelude to His appearance as the Deliverer." So why should this apply to a slaughter rather than just an exile? Think of the mission of Jesus. It was not only to bring forgiveness of sins, but resurrection from the dead. Just as Judah was in exile, and awaits return, the dead await their resurrection which will be brought about by Jesus.

The True Purpose of the Ham/Nye Debate

Thunderf00t is one of the most famous atheists on YouTube. He minces no words telling people exactly what he thinks, even when it is unpopular and not politically correct. Normally, I ignore the cheerleading of the New Atheists, but this clip shows that Thunderf00t actually got the real point of the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye:




 Ironically, this is the one point in the debate in which Ken Ham clearly and decisively defeated Nye. But don't take my word for it. Atheist Michael Schulson says as much in his review in The Daily Beast:

Last night, it was easy to pick out the smarter man on the stage. Oddly, it was the same man who was arguing that the earth is 6,000 years old.

He goes on:

Nye went into the debate, he says, in order to protect and promote science education in the United States. His most important argument was that people like Ham are ruining America’s global competitiveness by weakening science education. It’s a shame that Nye pushed that point so strongly, because it was the one thing he said all night for which he did not have any actual evidence. Creationism in public schools may be a social disaster, but it’s hard to prove that it’s a financial one, too. And Ham was ready. He had a recorded statement in which Raymond Damadian, who helped invent MRI, expressed his firm belief that the world was created in six days, six thousand years ago, as outlined in Genesis. Ham’s message was clear—and accurate: you can be a creationist and invent economically useful stuff.

Nye made a video a while back, arguing that belief in creationism stifles a nation's ability to compete in industries that require scientific research. What is implied in Nye's case is that we should use the law to shut down creationism, lest we lose our ability to compete economically. It is the one important point of that debate, since it has political implications. If creationism is harmless, why spend all that time and energy trying to talk people out of it?

In this area, Ham gave quotes and showed video after video of young earth creationists who were also top research scientists. If there is one point in which Ham won the debate, it is that belief in creationism does not in any way damage one's ability to do scientific research.

This makes sense if you think about what scientific research entails. When you do economically useful scientific research, you are investigating how things currently work. One's belief as to what happened in the distant past is irrelevant. Bertrand Russell argued that there is no way to disprove the hypothesis that the world popped into existence five minutes ago with the appearance of age. We would have food in our stomachs from meals we never ate, and memory traces from events that never happened.

This is why one's view about origins is not relevant to one's ability to do economically useful scientific research. All the young earth creation groups that I know of, believe that species change over time. Bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics. You don't need to believe that all life evolved from a single-celled lifeform in order to do research as to how species currently change over time.

Michael Egnor has been particularly vocal about this issue.

I do use many kinds of science related to changes in organisms over time. Genetics is very important, as are population biology and microbiology. But evolutionary biology itself, as distinct from these scientific fields, contributes nothing to modern medicine. 

 The problem with evolution advocates: they argue that fields like population genetics require belief in the Darwinian model of biology. In fact, the dependency relationship is the exact opposite. The evolutionary tree of life depends on fields like population genetics. To argue that the converse is also true is to argue in a circle. The dependency is strictly one-way. Evolution is not the foundation of modern biology, but the metanarrative that they use to turn research into a coherent story.

Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 4

 Troki continues his assault on Matthew:

Matthew 2:14 and 15, "When he [Joseph] arose, he took the young child and his mother by night and departed into Egypt. And was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son."

The misapplication of the evidence taken from Hosea 11:1, is perfectly obvious. He speaks of the chosen people delivered from bondage. He says, "When Israel was young I did love it and out of Egypt I called my son." This allusion to the pristine state of Israel fully agrees with the message Moses gave to Pharaoh. Exodus 4:22 and 23, "Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my first-born son, and I have said unto thee, send away my son that he may serve me."

It is hard to understand why Troki has an issue with Matthew's interpretation. In order to get out of Egypt, you have to first go into Egypt. Fulfillment has a wide variety of biblical meanings. In some cases, it means that God brought into fruition something that he had promised. It does not always mean that. Luke states: "They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled." This use of fulfillment is not referring to a prophecy, but simply to an end of some state. There are other uses of fulfillment that do not indicate prediction:

“Now when forty years had passed [lit. were fulfilled], an angel appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in a flame of fire in a bush. (Acts 7:30) And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem when they had completed [lit. fulfilled] their service, bringing with them John, whose other name was Mark. (Acts 12:25) in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (Romans 8:4) Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. (Romans 13:8) by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God—so that from Jerusalem and all the way around to Illyricum I have fulfilled the ministry of the gospel of Christ; (Romans 15:19) For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Galatians 5:14) Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; 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 2:21-23)  James is especially noteworthy, since it speaks of a fulfillment of a past event. No future prediction was made, yet James said it was fulfilled. Matthew also did not say that Hosea had Jesus in mind when he made that proclamation. He only said that Hosea's statement was made complete in Jesus. A. Lukyn Williams writes: "St. Matthew did not want to prove anything, as, for example, that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah because He went down to Egypt as Hosea said He would, but he desired to illustrate the history of Jesus from the history of the Jews." Most of his audience believed in Jesus. They did not need to have the Messiahship of Jesus proven to them by prooftexting. Instead, Matthew is writing a Greco-Roman biography on the life of Jesus. The main theme of this biography is that Jesus is the embodiment of True Israel.

Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 3

Continuing our analysis of Troki's work.

Matthew 1 concludes with these words concerning Joseph, the husband of Mary; "And [he] knew her not until she had brought forth her first-born son, and he called his name Jesus." The wording of this passage shows, in the first place, that after she had brought forth "her first-born son" Joseph did "know her"; and secondly, the appellation of Jesus the "first-born son," proves that the same mother bore more children than one, otherwise the term first-born could not be applicable. This harmonizes well with Matthew 13:55, where Jesus, "the carpenter's son," is mentioned together with his brothers "James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas." This passage is an incontrovertible contradiction of the opinion of those who consider Mary to have been a virgin before and after she had given birth to Jesus.

The English version of Matthew 1:23, has, "And they shall call his name Emmanuel"; but in the Hebrew original, we have וקראת "and she shall call."

It is also a striking fact that the name Emmanuel was not given to Jesus by the virgin. Nor do we find that the Emmanuel mentioned in Isaiah was ever to be considered the Messiah.

Matthew 1 only states that Mary was a virgin before giving birth to Jesus. It says nothing about whether she remained a virgin afterward.

While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” (Matthew 12:46-50, ESV)

This passage makes no sense unless it was his biological mother and biological brothers standing outside. The passage contrasts his literal mother and brothers with his figurative mother and brothers. Yes, Catholic and Orthodox think tanks have explanations for this; these explanations are forced and run roughshod against the plain meaning of the text.

In ancient Semitic cultures, the word for "name" often meant reputation, and sometimes means monument. Examples abound, and one of them is Isaiah 55:13

Instead of the thorn shall come up the cypress; instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle; and it shall make a name for the LORD, an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off.”

These events are not giving God a new, and previously unknown name. They are establishing his reputation as powerful and in charge. Similarly, this passage in Isaiah is saying that Jesus will be known as God with us among great numbers of people, and that is certainly as true today as ever.

For those who still insist that he has to be called Emmanuel in order to fulfill the prophecy, might I remind you that Jesus is often called Emmanuel in Christian liturgy and in songs.

Troki also objects that Emmanuel is nowhere called "Messiah." This is an easy claim to make, since the word has only two references in the entire Tanakh. Isaiah 7:14, and Isaiah 8:8.

and it will sweep on into Judah, it will overflow and pass on, reaching even to the neck, and its outspread wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel.” (Isaiah 8:8)

Ham on Nye and John H. Walton

Just wanted to post a quick update for everyone. Last week, Ken Ham and Bill Nye debated the young-earth creation model of Answers in Genesis.


As an Old Earth Creationist, I hold to neither debater's view, and was able to give a somewhat neutral review of the debate on the Hebrew Nation Morning Show.

I also wanted to vent about the Old Testament scholar John. H. Walton, who is famous for writing The Lost World of Genesis One, the NIV Application Commentary, and a bunch of books on Ancient Near Eastern culture and its relationship to the Bible. Walton represents the worst that BioLogos has to offer.

Masquerading as a theologically conservative scholar, Walton proceeds to attack the traditional understanding of every important teaching in the Pentateuch. It is one thing to argue that the consensus view of traditionalist Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Karaite, and Rabbinic understanding of certain points in the Pentateuch is wrong in some areas. It is quite another to say that every single major point, such as Adam and Eve literally eating a fruit, the Ten Commandments being a set of real laws, and God literally interacting with the world when he created the things in Genesis 1 and 2, is mistaken. Something smells wrong here.

Here is an example: Walton argues that the word for create, bara, means to declare or to establish, the way that you can declare a store open, without physically interacting with it. He forms light and creates darkness. He also establishes the luminaries to mark the signs and seasons. He is right to say that this word includes this declaration of functionality, but wrong in believing that the meaning is limited to this. Let's take some verses that use bara and substitute "assign function" for "create."

These are the generations
of the heavens and the earth when they were assigned function,
in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.
-Genesis 2:4

So the LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have assigned function from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” -Genesis 6:7 And he said, “Behold, I am making a covenant. Before all your people I will do marvels, such as have not been assigned function in all the earth or in any nation. And all the people among whom you are shall see the work of the LORD, for it is an awesome thing that I will do with you. -Exodus 34:10 Assign function in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. -Psalm 51:10 Let this be recorded for a generation to come, so that a people yet to be created may praise the LORD: -Psalm 102:10

Then the LORD will assign function over the whole site of Mount Zion and over her assemblies a cloud by day, and smoke and the shining of a flaming fire by night; for over all the glory there will be a canopy.
-Isaiah 4:5

But now thus says the LORD,
he who assigned function to you, O Jacob,
he who formed you, O Israel:
“Fear not, for I have redeemed you;
I have called you by name, you are mine.
-Isaiah 43:1

everyone who is called by my name,
whom I assigned function for my glory,
whom I formed and made.”
-Isaiah 43:7

In some cases "assign function" simply breaks down the parallel to God's act of forming, which is more than mere assignment of function. In some cases, it makes absolutely no sense. God produced the cloud and fire. It's hard to imagine that God would simply assign function to already existing fire over Israel at night.

The fallacy is that Walton assumes that if God does not create something out of nothing, then he isn't interacting with the material world, but is instead declaring something functional. In other words, it is a false dilemma. Think of a sculptor. Sculptors do not create the stuff out of which something is made, but do stand in a cause-effect relationship with their material. They interact with existing things. They do not merely declare something to be a sculpture. They physically shape the stuff to make it something different.



 It's the same kind of trickery that people use, even on issues like mathematics. See if you can spot the error in this video:
Looks so official, and so credible, but as professional mathematicians have noted, physicists can be very naive about mathematics.

Too frequently these days smart people are taken in by the "Malcolm Gladwell" effect: a desire to explain something outside of their field of interest with a simple counter-intuitive solution.

For a more detailed criticism of John Walton, see William Lane Craig's lecture.

Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 2

Troki once again goes after Matthew's use of Isaiah's prophecy in chapter 7.

Matthew 1:22 and 23, sets forth that Jesus was born of a virgin, in order that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, "Behold, A virgin shall be with child and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel."

The reader will remember from the First Part of this work that we have had frequent occasion to speak of the method employed in the New Testament and other Christian works, of citing from our Scriptures certain passages, which, on careful examination, have no reference whatever to the immediate subject. Thus they quote also the passage from Isaiah 7:14, "Behold העלמה "(meaning the young woman and not virgin) "is with child, and about to bring forth a son." The prophecy was given to Ahaz, King of Judah, in order to allay his apprehensions regarding the two kings who were to come to carry on war against Jerusalem. What connection could there subsist between a sign necessary to convince the King of Jerusalem, and the event of the birth of Jesus which happened so many centuries after? How could Ahaz receive consolation from prophecy, the fulfillment of which he was not to live to see?

This is the standard argument that Isaiah was referring to a non-virgin, since the word almah is used instead of the standard word for virgin, betulah. Both have implications of virginity. The latter is the technical term used in the Talmud, but the former is used 7 times in the Tanakh. In each case, including the time it is used in Proverbs, it is used for a young woman, and not of one who is married. Unlike modern society, fornication was seen by the Israelites as a major sin, and any woman who fornicated was branded a whore, and hence would not be called an almah. The Syriac Peshitta uses the term for a chaste girl or virgin. The Aramaic targum uses the same root as almah, which Jonathan Ben Uzziel translates as "virgin." Most importantly, the Greek uses a word that either always or almost always means virgin. With no grammatical reason not to translate it "virgin," that's what the Greek means.

The bigger issue is whether this was about the present time or about the future. Justin Martyr noted that a young woman becoming pregnant is no sign from God. That happens all the time. The immediate context of the verse also gives us clues. The context switches quite rapidly without any warning. Ahaz refuses a sign, so the sign of the virgin is not for him.

Ahaz was fearful of the Northern Kingdom of Israel and of Syria. We know that Ahaz died in -710. He ascended to the throne sixteen years earlier in -726. Tiglath-Pileser of Assyria had already invaded the Northern Kingdom and was finished with this invasion in -732. The Northern Kingdom would fall in just a few years after the prophecy in -722. Samaria was smashed as predicted. This may be a fulfillment, but I am skeptical of that. Assyria was in power for quite a while afterward. Assyrian records indicate that in -701 Assyria sacked 46 cities and carried off over 200,000 captives from the kingdom of Judah. Hardly the deliverance promised to Ahaz!

Troki also objects that Jesus was not named Emmanuel, but this is a double-edged sword. No one was literally named Emmanuel. Instead, the Hebrew word for name can also mean reputation. We'll look later at Isaiah 9, which uses the term El Gibbor, which is used of God alone. If Isaiah 7 and Isaiah 9 are talking about the same person, then we should interpret the word "Immanuel" as an indication of divinity.