Happy New Year???

I received this from an Orthodox Jewish newsletter. Antisemitic people often accuse Jews of being enemies of Western society, and who seek its downfall. Generally, I tend to ignore these accusations, since they come from unreliable sources. However, this story seems to confirm that there are Orthodox Jewish sources out there that seek to turn Jews against Western civilization.

There is a disturbing similarity I have found between Orthodox Judaism and Islam. Both are more than just religious systems of personal improvement and worship of the divine. They are also political systems which discourage patriotism toward any secular state (in some cases, this includes modern Israel). It makes sense that Muslims would refuse to fight to defend American borders. Technically, all Islamic territory is supposed to be theocratic. Islam is in many ways more like Bolshevism than it is like Christianity. It is a political system that recognizes no true authority outside of itself.

Some types of Orthodox Judaism are similar. They recognize and support no system that is not under the authority of Halacha, just as Islam recognizes no legitimate system that its outside of Sharia. What Islam wants for the world, Judaism wants for all who are considered Jewish. This includes Jewish Christians. Outreach organizations such as Aish HaTorah argue that Judaism is tolerant of other religions and does not require that anyone become a Jew in order to go to heaven. This is misleading because the world to come is not the same idea as the Christian concept of heaven, and because Rabbinic Judaism does require that anyone born a Jew must adhere to the Orthodox Rabbinic law and the authority of the rabbis. Belief in Jesus is forbidden under Orthodox Rabbinic law, and punishable by death.

Rabbinic Judaism is not tolerant of Jews who do not follow the party line.

The Tenth of Tevet and the origins of Sylvester Day

This year, January 1st coincides with the Tenth of Tevet, a day of fasting, mourning and introspection. On the 10th day of the Jewish month of Tevet, in the year 3336 from Creation, the armies of the Babylonian emperor Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Jerusalem. Thirty months later—on 9 Tammuz 3338—the city walls were breached, and on 9 Av of that year the Holy Temple was destroyed. This morning in Synagogue, I mentioned that the Shulchan Aruch and the Tur suggest that if possible, a person should really fast three days, the 8th, 9th and 10th of Tevet. This fast is so strict that when it falls on Friday, while every other fast is pushed off, we must fast on Friday. Some even suggest that if the Tenth of Tevet fell on Shabbat (it’s not possible using our current calendar) we would be required to fast on Shabbat. Given that this day falls on the day when our neighbors are out celebrating we decided to replace our class this morning with a discussion of New Year’s day and how a Jew should treat that day.

In 46 B.C.E. the Roman emperor Julius Caesar first established January 1 as New Year's Day. Janus was the Roman god of doors and gates, and had two faces, one looking forward and one back. Caesar felt that the month named after this god ("January") would be the appropriate "door" to the year. Caesar celebrated the first January 1 New Year by ordering the violent routing of revolutionary Jewish forces in the Galilee. Eyewitnesses say blood flowed in the streets. In later years, Roman pagans observed the New Year by engaging in drunken orgies -- a ritual they believed constituted a personal re-enacting of the chaotic world that existed before the cosmos was ordered by the gods. Do we really want to celebrate a pagan holiday?

Early Catholics did not accept this pagan date as the New Year at first. When the calendar system of Anno Domini was first introduced by Dionysius Exiguus in 525 of the common era, he assigned the beginning of the new year to March 25. This date is called Annunciation day in the church because it is they claim, the day of the announcement by the angel Gabriel to Mary that she would conceive and become the mother of Yeshu.

So while the pagans celebrated January 1 as the beginning of the year, Christians celebrated March 25 as their beginning of the year. After William the Conqueror was crowned at Westminster Abbey on December 25th in 1066, he announced that the New Year would take place on January 1st after the Roman custom and to forever commemorate his monarchy. The Christians weren’t very pleased and about a century later, the year 1154 ended on the 31st of December, but the start of 1155 was delayed to 25-March. And things continued this way for the next 500 years. The Julian calendar as set up by Julius Caesar counted 365 ¼ days per year and the rule was to add one extra day every four years to allow for that extra quarter. But the year is actually 365 days, 5 hours 48 minutes and 46 seconds as the Rabbis knew more than a thousand years prior. And those missing 12 minutes year after year add up. In 1582, Pope Gregory XIII ( one of the greatest anti-Semites of all time) abandoned the traditional Julian calendar and established the Gregorian calendar which differs from the Julian in three ways: (1) No century year is a leap year unless it is exactly divisible by 400 (e.g., 1600, 2000, etc.); (2) Years divisible by 4000 are common (not leap) years; and (3) once again the New Year would begin with the date set by the early pagans, the first day of the month of Janus - January 1. The Pagan New Year would become the Christian New Year. And how should one celebrate a Christian New Year? On New Year’s Day, Pope Gregory XIII decreed that all Roman Jews, under pain of death, must listen attentively to the compulsory Catholic conversion sermon given in Roman synagogues after Friday night services. On Year Years Day 1578 Gregory signed into law a tax forcing Jews to pay for the support of a "House of Conversion" to convert Jews to Christianity. On New Year’s 1581 Gregory ordered his troops to confiscate all sacred literature from the Roman Jewish community. This included copies of the Talmud, Jewish law books and Torah scrolls. Thousands of Jews were murdered in the campaign. New Year’s sounds more like a day of mourning as it is this year than a day of celebration.

Throughout the medieval and post-medieval periods, January 1 - supposedly the day on which Jesus' circumcision initiated the reign of Christianity and the death of Judaism - was reserved for anti-Jewish activities: synagogue and book burnings, public tortures, and simple murder. As such Israelis felt they shouldn’t celebrate New Year’s day, but still needed an excuse to party on New Year’s eve. So in Israel, these celebrations are called “Sylvester.” Tis was the name of the “Saint” and Roman Pope who reigned during the Council of Nicaea (325 C.E.). The year before the Council of Nicaea convened, Sylvester convinced Constantine to prohibit Jews from living in Jerusalem. At the Council of Nicaea, Sylvester arranged for the passage of a host of viciously anti-Semitic legislation. All Catholic “Saints” are awarded a day on which Christians celebrate and pay tribute to that Saint’s memory. December 31 is Saint Sylvester Day - hence celebrations on the night of December 31 are dedicated to Sylvester’s memory. Amazing, Israeli’s celebrating the day of an Anti-Semite and the one who prohibited Jews from Jerusalem. For Jews, The day is more an anniversary of mourning then one where we could possibly engage in reckless and drunken merriment.

Paraphrasing Rabbi Kelemen, many who are excitedly preparing for their New Year celebrations would prefer not knowing about the holiday’s real significance (and most never even heard of the Tenth of Tevet.) If they do know the history, they often object that their celebration has nothing to do with the holiday’s monstrous history and meaning. “We are just having fun.” He tells us to imagine that between 1933-45, the Nazi regime celebrated Adolf Hitler’s birthday – April 20 – as a holiday. Imagine that they named the day, “Hitlerday,” and observed the day with feasting, drunkenness, gift-giving, and various pagan practices. Imagine that on that day, Jews were historically subject to perverse tortures and abuse, and that this continued for centuries.

Now, imagine that your great-great-great-grandchildren were about to celebrate Hitlerday. April 20th arrived. They had long forgotten about Auschwitz and Bergen Belsen. They had never heard of gas chambers or death marches. They had purchased champagne and caviar, and were about to begin the party, when someone reminded them of the day’s real history and their ancestors’ agony. Imagine that they initially objected, “We aren’t celebrating the Holocaust; we’re just having a little Hitlerday party.” If you could travel forward in time and meet them; if you could say a few words to them, what would you advise them to do on Hitlerday?

When I wrote this way back when I concluded ….. So now that I have completely ruined your New Year’s eve plans let me end with a thought from my club going days. (I guess all of life’s experiences have lessons). Those of us who would party in Studio and Xenon every night would know that on New Year’s Eve, one takes the night off. New Year’s Eve was known as the night 'the regular people' came out and we considered ourselves anything but regular. As Jews, we should remember that we are special, so this year before you run out to party, consider the origins of the day especially for us. The first Jewish New Year’s day was the day that G-d created man. The first January 1st was the day Caesar ordered the murdering of Jews. And this year it coincides with a real Jewish day of mourning. As Jews we celebrate Rosh Hashana with family and in prayer. We have our New Years day! Maybe we can leave January 1st to everyone else. Why not leave it to the regular people? And remind yourself that you really are more than just regular. You are very special!

Not a Mitzvah to Wear a Yarmulke

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/oh-that-i-could-take-off-my-kippah/
http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%204%20Rabinowitz.pdf

Nathan Lopes Cardozo is one of the intellectual heavyweights of the Modern Orthodox movement. He is a shining example of Torah-u-Madda (Torah combined with secular studies), and teaches comparative religion to non-Jews. He is also a famous Modern Orthodox rabbi.

He writes: "There are enough opinions to allow me to walk around bareheaded without ever needing to put on a kippah."

He continues "True, the great Rabbi Yosef Karo (1488-1575) rules in his famous Shulchan Aruch (1) that one should not walk more than four amot (2) with his head uncovered. But none other than the Gaon of Vilna (1720-1797) takes issue with this ruling (3), basing his view on the fact that the only reference in the Talmud for covering one’s head is the personal pious practice of Rav Huna (4), who never walked more than dalet amot (four amot) with his head uncovered. The implication is, therefore, that this was never legislated as a universal halachic obligation (5). It should be one’s personal spontaneous expression, out of reverence for God."

The practice of wearing a yarmulke is never mentioned in the Bible, nor anywhere in Second Temple Judaism, nor in the Mishnah. Only the priests are required to have their heads covered. In fact, 2 Maccabees speaks of Hellenized Jews wearing Greek hats as a sign of assimilation.

The Talmud has a few passages regarding covering one's head. Tractate Shabbat 118b has Rabbi Huna declaring that he may never walk 4 paces with an uncovered head. However, as Tractate Nedarim 30b states, men sometimes pray with their heads covered and sometimes not.

The practice of wearing a yarmulke was not adopted by the massed until the fifteenth century, where Rabbi Israel Bruna issued a statement that wearing a skullcap is mandatory. Bruna issued this edict in order to turn laws persecuting Jews (similar to the star of David on holocaust victims) into a mandate by Jewish law.

Still, this was only one rabbi's opinion, and the practice was not considered mandatory until Joseph Karo wrote the Shulchan Aruch, which is a summary of Jewish law. This did not mean that wearing a yarmulke was considered Jewish law, but that some sort of headcovering had to be mandated.

The yarmulke was not commonly worn by Jews before the modern era, as pictoral evidence shows. The yarmulke itself became popular first as an Orthodox reaction to Reform Judaism. Rabbi Shlomo Kruger ordered Ukranian Jews to wear a yarmulke at all times for this reason. Some of his more devout followers actually altered paintings of Orthodox clergy in order to rewrite history.

As Rabinowitz writes, the effort to promote the rabbinic opinions that one must wear a head covering has resulted in both the censorship of legitimate rabbinic sources as well as outright forgery of other sources.

Such censored sources include the Gaon of Vilna, R. Yehuda ben Asher, the Gra, and R. Moshe Hefez Gentili, who all argued that one is never required to wear a headcovering at all.

The Mishnah in the tractate Yoma indicates that priests would hold a lottery to see which priests had which duties. During this ritual, priests would take off their headcoverings to indicate who had already been counted. In fact, if a priest were to wear a yarmulke under his hat, he would be adding to the priestly garments and guilty of a capital crime!

Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 99

Revelation 7:5-8. In enumerating the Twelve Tribes of Israel, the tribe of Dan is omitted, and that of Manasseh mentioned in its stead, although the tribe of Joseph might have naturally included that of Manasseh. This shows that the author of the Revelation was imperfectly acquainted with the very rudiments of Biblical history. If the instructor himself be uninstructed, what can his disciple profit by the knowledge emanating from such a source?

Chizuk Emunah is kind of anti-climactic near the end. One need not even venture into rabbinic literature to show that this objection cuts both ways, and should never be used by a religious Jew as some sort of polemic against Christianity.

We find lists of the 12 tribes in Genesis 49, Exodus 1, Numbers 1, Numbers 26, Deuteronomy 33, 1 Chronicles 2, 1 Chronicles 27, Ezekiel 48, and Revelation 7. There might be more lists, but that is all my Bible search tools could find.

One can find the same "problems" in other passages as there are in Revelation 7.

First, we should understand that Revelation 7 is not some exhaustive list of tribes, but a list of who is sealed. Dan is cut off because repeately, the tribe of Dan has committed sins against God. Ted Montgomery gives a list of Dan's sins:

Now, in answer to your questions, Dan seems to have been replaced in the list by Manasseh. I do not know if we can be certain why Dan was left out, but I can think of some possibilities. Maybe it was because of any or all of these things that the people of the tribe of Dan did or failed to do:

• had difficulty taking possession of their territory (Joshua 19:47; Judges 18:1),
• took an "ephod, other household gods, a carved image, and a cast idol" (Judges 18:14,17,18),
• attacked and overcame "a peaceful and unsuspecting people" (18:27), and
• set up the idols and their own priests in their new city (18:30,31).

The tribe of Ephraim is included in the tribe of Joseph, since Ephraim had inherited his father's portion. One could argue that Ephraim was not included due to the tribe's sins, such as in Hosea 5. This seems unlikely, since Hosea has criticized other tribes as well.

Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 98

Hebrews 10:5. Referring to Psalm 40, Paul states. "Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not, but a body thou hast prepared me." The quotation is erroneous. The Psalmist says, "Sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not, mine ears thou hast opened; burnt offering and sin offering thou didst not desire." The Psalmist expressed by this, that obedience to God is the chief duty of man, and that listening to Him is better than an offering, and hearkening to Him "is more acceptable than the fat of rams."

That pious feelings, and not mere ceremonials, were the essential requisites, we have already demonstrated in the First Part of this work. 

 Nobody disputes that righteousness is more important to God than ritual observance, except for the rabbis, of course! Rabbinic Judaism has perverted this, by stating (for example) that if you are in a situation where you have to either eat a bug or cheat on your taxes, it is the lesser evil to cheat on your taxes. This ruling, supported by all major authorities on Orthodox Jewish Law, is a perversion of God's intent.

From the Septuagint passage:
θυσίαν καὶ προσφορὰν οὐκ ἠθέλησας ὠτία δὲ κατηρτίσω μοι

From Hebrews:
θυσίαν καὶ προσφορὰν οὐκ ἠθέλησας σῶμα δὲ κατηρτίσω μοι

So clearly, the author is not quoting the Septuagint, although the quote is only different in one word. The word "ears" has been replaced with "body." So what is going on here? 

According to A. Lukyn Williams, the author of Hebrews is using the Alexandrian reading of the text, which uses "body" instead of "ears."

But the Jews of Alexandria did not translate "Mine ears hast Thou opened," but paraphrased, "A body didst Thou prepare for me." Why they did so is not clear, but in all probability they were moved by the desire to make the meaning of the Psalmist plainer than ever, and to leave no loophole for the reader to escape from the clear duty of consecrating himself to God wholly and entirely. They wished him to understand that God formed not his ears only, but all his body, with every one of its members, that he might hear, see, think, and perform the will of God with all his powers. If so, we must say that this old Jewish rendering is certainly interesting, and is only so far wrong that it ceases to be a literal translation, and becomes a paraphrase. But this is very common elsewhere, both in the Septuagint and in the Targums. No blame can be attached to the Alexandrian translators on this score.

The author of Hebrews is using the Alexandrian understanding of the text and making an object lesson out of it. Hebrews 10:1 connects this idea with Plato's Allegory of the Cave.

In Plato's allegory, people are strapped to a wall, only able to see shadows of things on the wall. To them, the shadows are all of reality. One day, a man is freed from his bonds and sees what objects are making the shadows, and the fire that gives them their light. The man exits the cave and sees the world for what it is. This is both the plot of the Matrix, and also a lesson from Plato.

People think that the material world we experience is the ultimate reality, but it is only a shadow of the ideal forms, which constitute the true reality. The author of Hebrews is arguing that the Mosaic Law is like the shadows on the wall. They are real, but only constitute an image of the world perfected by Messiah. In a sense, rabbinic tradition agrees with this, so long as you do not believe that Messiah is Jesus, because that is unacceptable, because the rabbis decreed it so!

Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 97

Hebrews 8:8. The following quotation is made from Jeremiah 31:31, "Behold the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel."

A refutation of the interpretation given by the Christians to this verse, has been offered in the First Part of this work, Chapter 29. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in verse 13 of the same chapter, says, "In that he saith a new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." The writer was not aware that spiritual matters are worn out like old garments. He might have found a correct opinion in Psalms 111:7, 8, "The works of His hands are truth and judgment; faithful are all His ordinances; well supported for ever and made with truth and integrity."

Equally decided are the words of Isaiah on this subject. He says, chapter 40:8, "Grass drieth up, the flower withereth, but the word of our God shall stand for ever." 

 Hebrews 8 is the chapter where the author argues for the superiority of the Messianic covenant over the Mosaic covenant. I gave arguments about the passage in Jeremiah in my sermon on the subject.

There is a bit of irony here. The author of Hebrews is not saying that God's commands to Israel are fading away. He is pointing out that the days of the temple system are numbered. Indeed, not long afterward, the war against Rome brought about the total destruction of the temple. Not one stone was laid upon another, but the entire structure was obliterated by General Titus's army.

The Old Covenant was fully dependent upon the land and the sacrificial system in the temple. Without the land and without the temple, there was no true Judaism. This is why most of Judaism's denominations disappeared after the temple was destroyed.

What did the rabbis do? They contrived a system where the synagogue replaced the temple, minyan prayer replaced sacrifice, and the Oral Law became moulded to justify all these changes. The rabbis contrived prooftexts based on laughably implausible interpretations, such as translating the end of Hosea 14:2 as justification that our words are a legitimate substitute for sacrifice. The verse says nothing of the sort, since the temple itself was in service and needed no substitute for its sacrifice. The verse is about the people of Israel fulfilling their promise to thank God if they were to be delivered. Even if we translate the word as "bulls" rather than "fruit," the passage is still a metaphor that our words are an offering to God, but not that they can legitimately replace sacrifice.

As a bonus, the difference between "bulls our lips" (פרים שפתינו) and "fruit from our lips" (פְּרִי משפתינו) is where the mem is located. Is it on the end of the first word or the beginning of the second? The second makes more grammatical sense, fits better with the historical context, and better fits ancient translations.

Why Orthodox Judaism is a Cult - Part 5

Rex Lex
Lately, I have been watching videos of Asher Meza explaining what he calls Rambamism, and his discussions as to why the Shulchan Aruch by Joseph Karo and not the Mishneh Torah by Maimonides is the normative book on Jewish Law.

Before I get into the discussion, let's get up to speed on the idea of rule of law and the distinction between Lex Rex and Rex Lex.

Rule of Law
One of the gifts brought to us by the Enlightenment is the idea that the king does not have the divine right to rule his nation as an absolute autocrat. Instead, true justice requires that the law applies equally to everyone. This is Rule of Law, or Lex Rex (the Law is the king). This is different than an autocracy, where the rulers can decide people's fate based on arbitrary stipulation (Rex Lex, or the King is the law).

Many nations are run by Rule of Law in theory but not in practice. The Soviet Union flooded the nation with so many laws that it became impossible for anyone to know how to keep them all. In fact, most people would commit multiple felonies per day without realizing it, just going about their daily lives.

The other half of the Soviet procedure was constant surveillance of all people at all times. The government kept meticulous details on what everyone was doing. Privacy was only between the people, not between the people and the state.

This combination of an overwhelming number of laws and constant surveillance meant that government officials could arbitrarily enforce the laws on anyone they wanted. If someone honked off a government official, that official could simply look through the person's records until that official inevitably found a series of felonies, and then press charges against the poor individual.

This practice undermined Rule of Law by making everyone a criminal, and then enforcing criminal law at the arbitrary pleasure of the people at the top. Ayn Rand mentions this repeatedly in Atlas Shrugged.

“Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.”

The Talmud is Like the X-Files
In theory, Rabbinic Judaism is supposed to be based on Rule of Law. The rabbis are just as bound to the mitzvot as everyone else. In one sense, this is true. The Law is supposed to be absolute and laid down from Sinai. It is clear and covers all matters and all people equally.

In practice, this is anything but the case. Halacha (Rabbinic Jewish Law) is derived from the Pentateuch, the Mishnah, and then the Talmud which records discussions surrounding the Mishnah. The plain meaning of the Bible is often quite contrary to the Halacha, so ordinary Jews cannot simply look in their Bibles to get a ruling on practical matters.

They also cannot simply go to the Mishnah or the Talmud for their rulings. The Mishnah is written in a vague legal shorthand, and the Talmud is written in a dialect of Aramaic, filled with obscure legal terminology, and loads of conflicting commentary. Much of the task of a yeshiva is to teach Talmudic students how to figure out what the discussions in the Talmud were even about. It takes years of focused study just to reach this level, and the discussions in the Talmud often end like an X-Files episode -- with no resolution.

Solving the Confusion
Joseph Karo attempted to resolve this difficulty by creating the Shulchan Aruch (set table). The Shulchan Aruch is supposed to give definitive rulings on practical legal matters, but it was also written in an obscure legal-eze and required a great deal of commentary, often with conflicting opinions, to figure out what is meant by the assertions of the Shulchan Aruch. The Shulchan Aruch does not cover the whole of Jewish Law, so there are areas where Halacha has to be drawn from sources other than the Shulchan Aruch.

Moses Maimonides wanted to put an end to this confusion as well, and tried to do so long before Karo was ever born. Maimonides wanted his people to stop having to grind through Talmudic learning, just to discover the Halacha. His life's work was the Mishneh Torah, which stated in the plainest language possible, what the rulings were for all practical matters. Instead of having to ask a local orthodox rabbi, any Jew could simply grab a copy of the Mishneh Torah and find out for himself what the Halacha was. The Halacha, under this system, would be absolute. There would not be different, conflicting rulings for different groups of Jews (Askenazic, Sephardic, Mizrachi), each of which is legally obligated to follow a different minhag (a minhag is a local custom which one is legally obligated to follow). There would be one absolute way the law holds.

The Rabbis Do Not Share Power
There was one problem: the rabbis liked it when the people where dependent upon them to decide what the law says. They didn't want the people to be able to look up the law in a textbook. The rabbis are extremely powerful because they have so much leeway in how to enforce the law, just as the Soviet Union officials had in interpreting and enforcing their own law.

Halacha is filled with areas where the law brings down conflicting considerations, and it is up to the rabbi to decide which considerations trump which other considerations. The issue of Kol Ishah (voice of a woman) is one consideration. Under Kol Ishah, a man is not allowed to hear a woman singing. Is one allowed to watch a video of a woman singing, such as watching Barbara Streisand sing HaTikvah to Gola Meir? On some opinions, Kol Ishah only applies to live performances, and so music videos and television are perfectly valid. On others, one cannot even watch a televised performance.

Imagine if you are an Orthodox rabbi and a congregant asks you whether he can watch the movie Yentl with Barbara Streisand. As an Orthodox rabbi, you can give your ruling based on any of these opinions, meaning that the question as to whether he can or cannot, is entirely up to your arbitrary decision-making power. What's even worse is that you can give different rulings to different congregants.  Since different congregants have different needs, you can give different rulings under that pretense, even if the real reason is otherwise. Let's say that you like Reuven because he gives generously but not Shimon because he does not. You can tell Reuven that he is allowed to watch Yentl but tell Shimon that he does not.

This applies to other areas, such as non-observant Jews. Technically, Jews who do not keep the Sabbath according to Orthodox Jewish Law are to be considered ineligible for Jewish privileges such as being counted in a minyan, being allowed to touch non-cooked wine, or to be given an aliyah. However, outreach synagogues such as those affiliated with Aish Hatorah, often give these privileges to people who drive to the synagoge on the Sabbath in total violation of Orthodox Jewish Law.

The reason they can do this is because someone considered a child raised in captivity is not considered responsible for his or her actions. Those not raised Orthodox are in some sense, children of captivity. It is up to the rabbis to decide whether this exemption should take effect, and it is up to their arbitrary decision. And once they make a decision, you are not allowed to go to another rabbi for a second opinion.

In fact, you can take it one step farther. I personally met a rabbi who discovered my belief in Jesus. At first, his ruling was that I was a child of captivity and could have all privileges. After learning my affiliation with certain Christian apologetics groups, he reversed his decision, and this was all in the span of a week. How can anyone think that these rulings aren't arbitrary?

It's understandable why the rabbis do not simply follow the Mishneh Torah. It undermines their power. The Talmud Bavli describes the rabbis as kings, and Rabbi Akiva said "You should fear the LORD your God, but even more, the students of wise men." A student of a yeshiva is to honor his rabbi more than his father.

Do you like lording yourself over other people? Does the taste of power give you an insatiable thirst for more? Do you love micromanaging the lives of others? Do you want to make your followers dance for you like puppets on strings, placing all their decisions before your arbitrary whim? Then maybe a career as an Orthodox rabbi is the career for you!

Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 96

Hebrews 2:7, "Thou madest him a little lower than the angels, thou crownedst him with glory and honour." In verse 9, it is said, "Jesus who was made a little lower than the angels."

It is remarkable that Jesus, as the inferior being, should have been destined to be worshiped by the angels, who were his superiors. On referring to the eighth Psalm, verses 3-6, we find that the author of the Epistle, in quoting some words, has perverted their real purport. The Psalmist in using the ejaculation, "When I behold the heavens, the works of thy fingers, and the moon and the stars which thou hast fixed," must be understood as if he had expressed himself in the following words:—I am so struck with awe and wonder, that I feel the utter nothingness of human creatures; and I say to myself, "What is mortal man, that thou rememberest him, and the son of man, that thou takest note of him." The frailty and mortality of man, suggested to the Psalmist the sense of a deep humility; on the other hand, man is rendered conscious of his noble state, as the possessor of an immortal spirit, which makes him almost an equal to the ministering angels on high. It is with respect to this supreme endowment that the Psalmist exclaims, "Thou hast made him but little less than the angels and hast crowned him with glory and honour." Blessed with intelligence, he rules the inferior creatures of the field and the forest, of the air and the sea.

This Psalm has, consequently, no allusion to any non-Jewish doctrine, but is a sublime amplification of the divine resolve, as contained in Genesis 1:26, "We will make man in our image, according to our likeness, and they shall rule over the fish of the sea, and the birds of the heaven, and the beasts, and over the whole earth." Taking this plain view of the several portions of Scripture, the candid reader will agree with us, that the inflexible truth of our revealed writings does not allow the shade of a proof in favour of the rank given to Jesus in the mystical theology of the Christians. 

The reference in Hebrews parallels that of Philippians 2:

Though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 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 the Messiah is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:6-11)

Jesus was pre-existing in the form of God, and yet humbled himself by taking on the form of a servant. Just like other humans, Jesus made himself lower than the angels, but as God, was the subject of angelic worship. This passage, called the Carmen Christi, is considered by scholars such as E.P. Sanders to be a pre-Pauline oral tradition. Paul did not write the Carmen Christi, but received it from the followers of Jesus.

The Carmen Christi tells us the following:

1. Jesus is God, since he was in the form of God
2. Jesus is different than The Father
3. Therefore, God is multi-personal (unitarian monotheism is false)
4. The word "God" is sometimes used to distinguish The Father from Jesus
5. Jesus, although he was still God, took on flesh and as a result held a postion without honor and glory. Jesus as God never lost the highest glory. Jesus as God and man had no glory yet
6. As a result of his work, Jesus as God and man received the highest level of glory and exaltation.

The passage affirms the basics of both the incarnation and the trinitarian doctrines, and it predates Paul!

John, in the opening of his book, gives us something very similar, which teaches that within God is an I-Thou distinction, and that Jesus was both God and man.

 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. 

 

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light. 

 

The true light, which gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. 

 

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”) For from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known. (John 1:1-18)

Williams has a different take on this chapter:

The explanation of the Psalm given us by R. Isaac is that it speaks of man in general, who is less than angels* because he has a body,** and yet receives such honour from God, by virtue of the soul, that God has made him rule over the animal world. But is not this a bathos? Does not the Psalm in reality suggest to us something more?

Had not the Psalmist in mind the moral greatness of men, whose very children are the means of God's power being recognized (Psalm 8)? Man indeed is a little less than angels, yet he is given honour and glory; and the phrase points to a wide vista of influence and power, in which the dominion over the beasts and birds and fishes is but a foretaste of that supremacy over "all things" which is verbally stated by the Psalmist.

* Whether Elohim here should be translated "angels" is of no immediate importance. R. Isaac accepts the rendering of the New Testament and Jewish writers generally, and I think rightly. But most moderns translate it by "God." ** Yet why is the possession of a body necessarily a mark of inferiority? Does not such a suggestion smack of Manichaeism?

If so, it will be observed that the writer to the Hebrews is not so far wrong. Man is to be exalted, and his argument is that we see One Man exalted already. He was made lower than the angels, but, because He suffered death, He has been raised far above them, crowned with glory and honour. He is, therefore, in such a position that angels must worship Him, as the author already wrote in the first chapter. Thus R. Isaac's further difficulty that here Christ is said to be less than the angels, whereas there He had been described as superior to them, falls to the ground.

But it may be objected that if we thus explain the passage as a tribute to the hope of the eighth Psalm by its fulfilment in the case of one Person already, how is it a proof of Christ's divinity? But who ever said it was a proof of this? Certainly not the writer of the Epistle. For he does not adduce the Psalm as a proof of Christ's divinity, or indeed as a proof of anything in the modern sense of the word "proof." He was, quite evidently, a Jewish- Christian, accustomed to turn to the sacred Scriptures to illustrate, and thus to confirm, everything he wrote (for they were permeated, as he believed, through and through with the power of God), and, convinced as he was that Jesus was the Messiah, passage after passage of Scripture came into his mind, bearing upon the subject from every possible point of view.

He was a Jew, and he wrote like a Jew, for whom Scripture was like Moses' bush, all on fire with the presence of God, and if he was writing about the character of Messiah, or His nature, or His position and work, and recalled words of Scripture which suited his thought, he (like every other Jew quoted in Talmudic writings) would not hesitate to use them for his purpose. Scripture for Jews of old had such wide and manifold applications as to suit every truth.

Let the Jews, then, judge the writer of the Epistle by Jewish standards. In all probability he never supposed that the author of the Psalm consciously referred to Messiah (whatever he thought the Divine Author who inspired him might Himself have intended), but he did see that it held out the promise of a greatness for Man which is yet to be, and also that already One Man, the Lord Jesus Christ, has attained to that greatness. You may deny the fact that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah—that is another matter altogether—but you cannot blame the writer of the Epistle for the way in which he quotes Scripture, if only you deal out to him the same measure of justice that you allow to other Jews.

Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 95

Hebrews 1:5-9, "For unto which of the angels said he, in former times, Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee? And, again, I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he says, Let all the angels of God worship him. And of the angels, he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire? But to the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever. A sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows."

The errors of the author of this epistle are as many as the quotations with which he strives to confirm his views. The connexion established between Jesus and the seventh verse of Psalm 2, "Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee," we have already presented in a proper light in our remarks on Acts 8:33. We have there fully proved that David applied those elevated words to himself. Hence Christians are not justified in deducing from it doctrinal points. The promise made in 2 Samuel 7:14, "I shall be unto him as a father, and he shall be to me as a son," was made regarding Solomon, the son of David. The Christians themselves would not like to refer these words to Jesus, since the prophecy contains the prediction, "Whom, if he commit iniquity, I shall chastise him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men." As to Jesus, it is well known that his worshippers are impressed with the conviction that he never committed any sin.

The author of the Epistle pretends to discover in our Scripture, that the angels of God were bound to worship Jesus. We find, in Psalm 97:7, "All ye gods worship him," viz., that God who is spoken of as the Lord of the whole earth. The words, "Thy throne, God, is for ever and ever," are wrongly quoted from Psalm 45:6. We read there Kis-au-hau Elohim, which means, "Thy throne (is) of God, "and not "Thy throne, O God." Thus we find, in 1 Chronicles 29:23, "And Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord." The Lord being the acknowledged king of Israel, the throne occupied by David and his posterity was described as the throne of the Lord. This throne is to be occupied by the descendants of David for time everlasting. Thus Daniel prophesies, in chapter 2:44, "The God of heaven will establish a throne which shall not be destroyed throughout eternity."

To be convinced that our interpretation is correct, let the reader merely refer to the continuation of the words of Psalm 45:7, "Thou lovest righteousness and hatest iniquity; therefore hath God, even thy God, anointed thee." If Jesus is God, could the Psalmist address him with such words as thy God?

To answer Troki's last question, yes. Every time you argue from the assumption that God cannot have an I-Thou relationship within himself, you beg the question. Remember, one mind with multiple centers of self-consciousness. It makes the verse easy to understand. I cannot see how to interpret it on unitarian monotheism without simply stretching the text to fit a preconceived belief.

Troki's translation is also more of an interpretation. There is no motivation to translate the Hebrew (אֱלֹהִים אֱלֹהֶיךָ) as anything other than God, your God. The Greek also read as (ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός σου) God, your God.

Regarding Psalm 2, it is a coronation psalm, addressed not just to David, but to every future king of Israel. The rabbis have accepted this and often applied it to King Messiah, including Ibn Ezra, Maimonides, Midrash Tehillim, and the Babylonian Talmud among others. Troki also misunderstands 2 Samuel 7:14. It is also a coronation psalm, aimed at all the kings of Israel, as David Kimchi notes. It doesn't follow that every king is going to be disobedient and need to be chastised. It means that if the king should go astray, God's wrath will be laid upon him. Trypho the Jew, in his dialogue against Justin Martyr, mentions this passage as a proof that Messiah will be a descendant of David.

Besides, the statement "if Jesus sins, the Father will chastise him" holds true, as does any if-then statement with a false or impossible "if" statement. If Maimonides was a Christian, then I am the Pope.

For Psalm, 45:6 it reads (כִּסְאֲךָ אֱלֹהִים) meaning "Your throne God." There is no construct chain, so the text does not mean "the throne of God." In fact, the ךָ ending means that it's "YOUR throne." 1 Chronicles uses the term (כִּסֵּא יְהוָה) which is just "throne God." Obviously it is going to be translated as "throne of God" since God is not being addressed in the passage. The narrator is simply telling the reader what is going on. The Septuagint translator translated it as (ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεός) meaning the throne of you the God. The term "God" is not in the genitive, meaning that the Septuagint translator did not translate it as it as "throne of God" (ὁ θρόνος θεου).

The rabbis, of course, translate it as "your throne is of God" because they know that the king is being addressed, and refuse to believe that the king can be God in the flesh. Their motivation for such a translation is theological, not philological.

Messianic Jews: the Dark Templar of Yiddishkeit

Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 94

This Epistle (Hebrews) is the production of an anonymous writer. Some have ascribed it to Luke, others to Paul. In the early days of Christianity it was rejected as Apocryphal.

Hebrews is an oddity in the New Testament. While New Testament tradition is able to name the authors of all the other books, Hebrews eludes us. While the Church Fathers argued for Pauline authorship, the compiler of the New Testament clearly did not think the letter was Pauline. The Pauline epistles are not arranged by date of authorship or by topic, but by length. Romans is the longest, and as we read through the epistles, they get shorter and shorter, ending in the very short letter to Philemon (although some early compilations like Sinaiticus have a different order). After Philemon, this much longer letter to the Hebrews appears, again, indicating that it was written by a different author.

The most likely dating of the book is around the year 65. The book mentions sacrifices in the present tense, and makes no reference to the temple's destruction. The main argument of Hebrews is that it only appears that the Jews who rejected Jesus won the culture war against Jews who follow Jesus. The temple's destruction would have been a knockdown argument that times have changed and the temple sacrifices are no longer adequate. That's another good reason to believe that the book was written before 70.

Hebrews was also quoted by early Church Fathers. Clement of Rome, one of the earliest known sources, quotes from the book of Hebrews. At the very least, this shows that the book had some level of acceptance and that it was written decades before the Second Century.

Troki also charges that the book was rejected as apocryphal. This is not accurate. There is a core of undisputed New Testament documents among the early Church Fathers, and a set of books considered "disputed." The term only means that the book was missing from lists of the Canon of Scripture, not that anyone argued against these books being in the Canon.

The books are:
Hebrews
James 
2 Peter
2 John
3 John
Jude
Revelation

Hebrews is missing from the Muratorian Fragment. This is not very good evidence that it is missing, since the Muratorian Fragment itself is only partially complete. Hebrews might be in there, but in a part of it that we do not have. The Fragment is better for helping us find out what was included, but not what was excluded.

A Chester Beatty papyrus known as P46 (dated around 200) includes Hebrews in the Canon.

In the early 4th Century, Eusebius was commissioned to look at both the history of Christianity and of Jesus, and to separate fact from fiction. This was the original work on trying to get behind the legends and get a glimpse of the Historical Jesus. Eusebius concludes that the book of Hebrews, unlike the later books which did not make it into the New Testament, received universal attestation from the early church.

A. Lukyn Williams notes that similar problems exist in the Tanakh regarding who wrote Joshua, Judges, Kings, Job, Ecclesiastes, Chronicles, and most of the Psalms. While the rabbis might have attestation in the tradition, the church attributed Hebrews to Paul. One might argue that scholarship, even conservative scholarship, has rejected Pauline authorship. However, the same thing goes for the books in Tanakh as well.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 93

James 2:14, to the end of the chapter. The author of this Epistle recommends good works as superior to mere faith, and then he continues, "Was not Abraham, our father, justified by works, when he had offered Isaac, his son, upon the altar? Likewise also, was not Rahab, the harlot, justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also."

The opinion here cited meets with the contradiction of Paul, who writes in his Epistle to the Romans, chapter 3:20, "Therefore, by deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified." Again, he says, in the same chapter, verse 28, "Therefore, we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." In his Epistle to the Galatians, chapter 2:16, Paul repeats the assertion, that faith in Jesus is of greater avail than the observance of the law, by saying, "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ." At the end of that chapter, he maintains, "If righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain." The like doctrine is enforced in chapter 3 from the beginning to the end. Also throughout the Epistle to the Hebrews, chapter 11, it is maintained that faith is preferable to works. See again ibid. verse 17, where it is said, "Abraham, tried by faith, offered up Isaac." Again, ibid. verse 31, "By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies in peace." We, Jews, are not anxious to reconcile the discrepancies occurring in the New Testament, and to decide whether more truth is to be found in one than in the other of those opinions. All our aspirations lead us to adopt a mode of life in exact conformity with the Holy Law, which tells us, (Deut 6:25) "And it shall be accounted to us as righteousness if we keep and fulfil all these commands.

Troki hits upon a classic point of contention between the Catholic and Orthodox traditions and Protestantism. What do Paul and James mean by "saved" and what does it mean to be saved by faith or works?

Paul's doctrine of being saved is quite clear. In Romans, he writes "Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God." (Romans 5:9)

"you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord" (1 Corinthians 5:5)

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. (Romans 9:3)

The question of "how do I get to heaven?" is prominent in Paul's writing.

because, 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. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (Romans 10:9-13)

Again, in what sense can Paul be talking other than in terms of heaven and hell? Early believers in Jesus were not saved from anything else. They suffered worse than anyone else. They were cut off from their own people group. They faced exile and excision, torture, loss of livelihood, loss of family, and loss of everything that matters in this world.

James, on the other hand, never brings up the topic of how one goes to heaven. His letter reads more like Mussar, which are rabbinic texts on ethics, culture, and self-improvement. Famous Mussar texts include Duties of the Heart, Ways of the Tzaddikim, The Guide to Serving God, Path of the Just, and The Gates of Repentance.

As an interesting aside, rabbis often argue that Christianity is about renouncing the world for heaven, while Judaism focuses on the here and now. The more I read Mussar, the more obvious it is that such a notion is false. The Ramchal in Path of the Just repeatedly emphasizes that our focus should be on obtaining our eternal reward in heaven, not on worldly outcomes. The Maharal also says that the purpose of pain and suffering is to remind us that our real home is heaven, not earth. We are but wayfaring strangers in this world.


Back to James. Take an outline of the book, or even look at the topics, and the context will become obvious.

Testing of your Faith
Hearing and Doing
Do Not Show Partiality
Faith Without Works is Dead
Taming the Tongue
Wisdom From Above
Do Not Be Wordly
Boasting About Tomorrow
Warning to the Rich
Patience in Suffering
Prayer for Faith

All of these are sections on practical living. It is just as wrong to press James for theological precision as it is for me to do the same to the Mussar authors. Their texts are practical guides. As Morpheus states in The Matrix, "there is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path."

In James, your faith alone still saves you, but no faith adequate to bring about salvation will be alone. Imagine walking up to an old locomotive which was powered by coal. You walk up to the locomotive and are greeted by the engineer, who tells you that there is a raging coal fire in the engine. You look up and see no smoke. What would you say about the engineer? I think you would be right to say that he is a liar. If there was a coal fire in the engine, you would see billows of smoke in the air. The smoke is in no way necessary to bring about the fire or to power the train, but it is a necessary byproduct of the process.

Martin Luther had a different take on the issue. He said that we are saved (go to heaven) by faith alone, but not by the faith that is alone!

Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 92

1 Thessalonians 2:10, Paul says, "Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily, and justly, and unblameably, we behaved ourselves among you that believe."

In a teacher of men, whose object it was to establish a new faith, it appears unbecoming to mention first, men, as witnesses, and secondly, God. A candid perusal of the writings of Paul accounts for this peculiarity of arranging his ideas. He impresses on the reader the suspicion that he was guided by expediency, more than by true religious feeling, and that his mind was not influenced by the elevated sentiments of piety. 

1 Thessalonians 2 is the section of Paul's letter where he reminds the Thessalonians about his own activity among them. Paul asks the people of Thessaloniki to remember how he greeted them and how he worked so that he would not be a financial burden to them. Paul did not  just share his message with them, but helped them in their worldly needs as well. He tells them that they are witnesses to this, and adds God's witness as an after thought.

Troki's argument here is pedantic. I need not even quote rabbinic literature to show how silly he is. Isaiah writes "your iniquities have med a separation between you and your God." Is Isaiah wrong to mention the people first and then God later?

Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 91

Ephesians 4:8, "Wherefore, he saith, when he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men."

The quotation seems to be made from memory. The psalmist (68:18) who addresses the Almighty, says, "Thou hast taken gifts from men," and not thou hast given gifts.

There is a difference in the Greek as well. Psalm 68 in the Greek states:
ἔλαβες δόματα ἐν ἀνθρώπῳ

While Ephesians states it as:
ἔδωκεν δόματα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις

The Septuagint translates it as "received gifts from men" while Ephesians translates it as "given gifts to men." So it's a question of whether Ephesians is problematic for not quoting the verse directly.

Paul is likely doing a midrash, or a homiletical application of the passage. One only need go to the targum to see much freer interpretations.

Sefaria has commentary on this, although much has not yet been translated.

A. Lukyn Williams responds by quoting rabbinic traditions:

Rashi is equally clear in expounding the passage of Moses: "Thou hast gone up. The leader of his people, Moses the son of Amram, came on high. Thou hast led captivity captive, i.e. the Law. And thou didst receive gifts, i.e. from those above, even to give them to the sons of man."

The Babylonian Talmud, too, refers to the verse in much the same manner. See Sabbath, 88b, 89a. Moses goes up to heaven to receive the Law, but the angels object, that, after God has hidden it for nine hundred and seventy-four generations before the creation of the world, He should now seek to give it to flesh and blood. Eventually there is said to Moses, "Thou hast gone up on high, thou hast led captivity captive, thou hast received gifts b'adam, i.e. as a reward because they called thee Adam." The Apostle's exposition is grave compared with this!

The Metzudoth David, on the other hand, interprets it of Israel. "Thou hast gone up on high. And with all this, thou Israel hast gone up on high! He means, thy hand is raised on high to prevail against them, to receive the Law. And thou didst bring it captive out of the hand of the angels, and thou didst receive it for gifts, that it should be found among the sons of man, and not among the angels above."

The rabbis also take huge creative liberties with the Bible in other places, too. The parsha Vayeshev begins with Joseph and his amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat (my translation of כְּתֹנֶת פַּסִּֽים)

His brothers hated him for his ego and for being the favorite of their father. When Joseph went out, to check on his brothers at Dothan, they threw him into a pit.

"And they took him and threw him into a pit. The pit was empty; there was no water in it."
 (Genesis 37:24)

The ancient rabbinic interpreters known as Chazal say that there were snakes and scorpions in the pit. Why? Because the text said that the pit was empty, and also that there was no water in it. Why did the text say that there was no water in it? Because there were other things in it!

If you are scratching your head, then you are not alone. If the text wanted to just imply that there were other things in the pit, then it would say that they threw him into a pit, and that there was no water in it. If the pit was not empty, the text would not say that.

If Paul took such liberties with the text, the anti-missionaries would be up in arms about it. But they hold a double standard, so they don't find it a problem as long as it's their own people who do it.

Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 90

Galatians 3:16, "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made: He saith not, and to seeds as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ."

Want of acquaintance with the genius of the Hebrew language, has led the author of the epistle to a wrong conclusion. When seed signifies posterity, it is never put in the plural number. See Genesis 13:15, "For all the land which thou seest, I will give to thee, and to thy seed for evermore." Immediately after this promise, we read, "And thy seed shall be like the dust of the earth." This relates to the numbers of individuals, and not to a single individual. Again, we find in Genesis 15:5, "And He caused him to go out (of the house) and He spake. Look now up to heaven, and count the stars, if thou canst count them; and He said unto him Thus shall be thy seed."

Ibid. verse 13, "And He spake unto Abraham, Thou shalt surely know that thy seed shall be strangers in a land which is not their's." These examples may suffice, but similar ones may be found in various parts of Scripture. These annotations afford abundant proof that the term seed, in the promise given to Abraham, refers to an entire nation. 

 Galatians is written to a Gentile audience. The term "we ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners" is an exclusive use of the word "we." Paul does not bring the Galatians directly into the conversation until chapter 3.

In the Greek translation of Genesis 13:15, the word is σπέρματί, which is a singular use of the word. The translators of the Septuagint could easily have used a plural, but they did not. One might argue that the plain meaning of the text is revealed in 13:16, where God will make Abraham's seed innumerable. This is true, but not an example of an error on Paul's end.

Tovia Singer likes to make a mountain out of this molehill, stating that the term "seed" in Hebrew is like the word "sheep" in English. The same word is used for singular and plural. It is true that the same word can be used for both singular and plural usage, even though the first tractate of the Mishnah is literally translated "seeds."

A. Lukyn Williams responds to this charge by noting that Rabbinic literature has exactly the same issues as Troki brings up here.

Suppose a friend asked you to consider the full force of the word דמי (literally "bloods") in Genesis 4:10, saying that the plural certainly had a special meaning, either Abel's own blood and that of his descendants, or Abel's blood dashed on the trees and on the stones. Would you tell him that דמי ("bloods") is regularly used in Hebrew to express blood shed by violence, and that his argument of a special meaning in Genesis 4:10 is absurd, and only due to ignorance of the Hebrew language and of Jewish learning? He would reply that it was not his own argument at all, but that of the Mishna in Sanhedrin 4.5 (=T. B. Sanhedrin 37a), and that the author of the Mishna might be credited with a knowledge of Hebrew, and with the ability to quote the Old Testament in a Jewish way. Or again, your friend might turn to Deuteronomy 25:2 and argue that certain lessons were to be learned from רשעה ("wickedness") standing there in the singular and not in the plural. Would you reply with a sneer that this word is always found in the singular, and that therefore it is unscholarly, and the mark only of an ignoramus, to argue that it has a special meaning there? Most assuredly you would not, for, if you had any spark of Hebrew learning, you would know that such an argument derived from the use of the singular is thoroughly Jewish, and that this example is taken from T. B. Kethuboth 37a. No one supposes that the scholars of the Mishna or the Gemara thought that these were the literal and simple meanings of דמי ("blood") or רשעה ("wickedness") in those passages. They only saw in the use of these terms further meanings, not altogether unintentional on God's part. So also with St. Paul. He knew as well as any of us what was the literal and simple meaning of Genesis 22:18, but he wished to call attention to the fact that God has not caused a plural word to be recorded, as for example בנים ("children"), but זרע ("seed"). He means that there is something in the selection of a word used only in the singular (i.e., of human progeny) which, speaking midrashically, not only excludes Ishmael but even suggests that all Abraham's descendants may be summed up in one Person, even the Messiah, in whom all are to be blessed.

Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 89

Galatians 3:13, Paul says, "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every man that hangeth on a tree." It is a most extraordinary conclusion, that an ignominious death, suffered by Jesus, should have become the means of releasing his followers from their adherence to the ancient law of God, in order not to be subjected to the curse of the law. Surely submission to, and not abandonment of the law, should have been recommended.

 As Paul writes elsewhere:

The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus the Messiah. (1 Corinthians 15:56-57)

That's the quick answer. The punishment for failing to obey the law is death. Jesus overcame death and brought resurrection to all to repent and trust him.

"See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil." (Deuteronomy 30:15)

This is the requirement of the law. The error comes when one interprets "curse of the law" to mean that the law is a curse. It is not a curse, but it can curse people for disobedience. This is acknowledged in popular Jewish culture. As Tevye says in Fiddler on the Roof "Couldn't you have chosen somebody else?" meaning that to be part of God's chosen people means to undergo an exceptional level of suffering. It can be a blessing, and can be a curse as well.

But what if the bad half could be removed? What if Deuteronomy 28 were changed so that you would receive the blessings for obedience, but would be shielded from the curses for disobedience? This is what Paul is saying.

As N.T. Wright says in Paul and the Faithfulness of God, the people of Second Temple Judaism were in a predicament. The Torah was supposed to be a good thing. It was a gift from God to the Jewish people alone. Yet, for the majority of Jewish history, Israel had been experiencing far more of the curses than the blessings. It is as though the Jews were saying "this Torah is supposed to be good, but all it seems to do is curse us for unrighteousness."

Messiah came to end the curse. As A. Lukyn Williams writes: Exodus gives us numerous examples of redepmtion, such as the redemption of the firstborn animal, or of the firstborn son. This does not make the redeemed person exempt from following the Law. It does not make the person exempt.

It is also popular to say that Paul misquoted Deuteronomy by quoting Rashi's interpretation. Waht they fail to realize is that while Rashi states that anyone hanged on a tree is an insult to God, the Ramban disagrees and states that anyone hanged on a tree is cursed by God.

As an aside, this is another reason why the disciples of Jesus would not have tried to steal the body or fake their master's resurrection. A crucifixion is close enough to the Jewish punishment of being hanged on a tree that any observant Jew would have drawn a connection between the two. In their minds, and in the mind of James, and in Paul's mind before his conversion, Jesus was a failed preacher, and his crucifixion was the proof that he did not have God's approval. It took a miracle of biblical proportions to change their beliefs.

Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 88

Galatians 1:18, "Then, after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James, the Lord's brother." Paul represents here, James, the brother of Jesus, as an apostle of Jesus, and he contradicts thereby the statement made by John, chapter 7:5, "For neither did his [viz., Jesus'] brethren believe in Him." We have enlarged on these contradictions in our discussions on Luke 2 and Mark 3.

Galatians 1 and 2 are essential reading for any Christian apologist. Galatians is considered by secular scholarship to be one of Paul's earliest letter, dated in the 40's. In this letter, Paul describes his conversion experience. He says, "I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers."

So that is a quote from a book in the undisputed Pauline corpus, one of the 7 books which even the Mordechai Kaplans of New Testament scholarship believe was genuinely written by Paul. If Paul was not advancing in Judaism and if he was not a persecutor of the church, he would have known it. Therefore, skeptics of Paul are left either having to accept that Paul was a persecutor of the church who then converted or they have to bite the bullet and call Paul a liar.

Laymen often misinterpret Paul's quote that he got his gospel from no one but learned it directly from God. This is not to say that Paul learned nothing about the life of Jesus or the movement which followed him from the followers of Jesus. Paul's mission in persecuting the church would have put him in contact with many members of the early church, and Paul would have needed to understand what the early followers of Jesus believed in order to find out who they were.

Instead, Paul's claim that he received his gospel from no man is better interpreted that God taught him the deeper theological implications of what it means that Jesus died, was buried, and was raised. It means that the execution of Jesus as a criminal was not proof of his failure as Messiah. It means that his death was part of God's eternal plan. It means that God eternally elects and predestines events and people from before the foundation of the world. This is what Paul learned from no man.

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother. (Galatians 1:18-19)

After three years of isolation, Paul visited Jerusalem with Peter and James. Then fourteen years later, this happens:

When James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. (Galatians 2:9)

In both cases, the closest followers of Jesus welcome Paul and accept him. This is not something that the closest followers of Jesus would do if Paul was preaching anything contrary to what Jesus taught. Again, Paul would have known it if this was not the case. Paul could not have been honestly mistaken about this situation. Again, I say to the anti-missionaries, either accept this as historical fact, or call Paul a liar.

And if Paul is a liar, then what about this passage, also from the undisputed Pauline corpus:

Five times I received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers; in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. (2 Corinthians 11:24-27)

Who would undergo this kind of hardship for something he knew firsthand to be a lie? Paul was not gaining any personal benefit from this, and would be insane to continue this kind of painful mission for decades if he was lying.

But back to the question at hand: is it a contradiction to say that James the brother of Jesus was not a follower, but in Paul's time, was a follower. Not at all. Remember the appearances in 1 Corinthians 15:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received:
that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
that he was buried,
that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,
and that he appeared to Cephas,
then to the twelve.
Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time,
most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.
Then he appeared to James,
then to all the apostles.
Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. (1 Corinthians 15:3-8)

So we have our answer here. Jesus appeared to his brother as the risen Lord. Just as Paul went from being an enemy and a skeptic, James, too, went from being an unbeliever to someone who worshiped his own brother as God in the flesh.

What kind of evidence would it take for you to believe that your own brother is God in the flesh? That is the kind of evidence that James experienced.

Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 87

1 Corinthians 15:54, 55, "So, when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory; O Death, where is thy sting! grave, where is thy victory"! This passage is not a true quotation from our Scripture, being a mixture of two unconnected verses. Isaiah, chapter 25:8, says only, "He has swallowed up Death to perpetuity"; and Hosea, chapter 13:14, says, "Where are thy pestilences, O Death? Where are thy destructions, O grave? 

 1 Corinthians 15 is the height of the letter. Paul addresses to his congregation regarding the resurrection of the dead. Will there be a resurrection? Paul begins his case by relaying a piece of oral tradition that Paul received from the early followers of Jesus.

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received:
that Messiah died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,
that he was buried,
that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,
and that he appeared to Cephas,
then to the twelve.
Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time,
most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.
Then he appeared to James,
 then to all the apostles.
Last of all, as to one untimely born,
 he appeared also to me. (1 Corinthians 15:3-8)

Paul uses this tradition to argue that if the dead are not raised, then Messiah has not been raised. If Messiah has not been raised, then this whole movement is in vain.

It's trivial at this point to mention that rabbinic literature uses partial quotes as well, as we to to this day. The Talmud repeatedly makes brief references to Scriptural passages by quoting the first few words, and most people need the help of the might Artscroll to find the reference. People who live in glass houses can't see the forest and all that.

I have read articles about how 1 Corinthians 15 gives an accurate rendering of Isaiah 25 and Hosea 13, but I am just not convinced that this is literally a quote from Scripture. Let's look at the possible sources.

He will swallow up death forever;
and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from all faces,
and the reproach of his people he will take away from all the earth,
 for the LORD has spoken. (Isaiah 25:8)

And from Hosea:

Shall I ransom them from the power of Sheol?
Shall I redeem them from Death?
O Death, where are your plagues?
O Sheol, where is your sting?
Compassion is hidden from my eyes. (Hosea 13:14) 

The biblical imagery is there, but it doesn't follow that Paul is quoting Scripture directly, but a saying from his time. In English, many of our expressions come from the King James Bible, but the fact that we use such expressions does not mean that we are consciously quoting Scripture, nor does it mean that we are in error when we modify the expressions for our own use.

If you have ever had a broken heart, bit the dust, had a drop in the bucket, went the extra mile, been nothing but skin and bones, saw eye to eye, or been at your wit's end, then you have lived out an expression brought into English by the King James Bible.