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These words are in direct opposition to the belief and the assertion of the Christians, that the law of Moses has been superseded by the coming of Jesus.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.

Why Pray For Someone Else's Salvation?

One challenge that Calvinists issue to others is that only a Calvinist can consistently believe that prayer for the conversion of unbelievers is effective. As James White has argued when debating Michael Brown, non-Calvinists believe that God is work as hard as he possibly can in order to save as many souls as possible. If this is the case, why pray for someone else's salvation?

At first glance, this might look like a challenge. The problem is that ironically, it is Calvinism that cannot provide an answer to this question, while non-Calvinists have at least one way out.

Remember that one of the five pillars of Calvinism's TULIP is Unconditional Election. Monergism.com explains:

The doctrine of election refers to “that eternal act of God whereby He, in His sovereign good pleasure, and on account of no foreseen merit in them, chooses a certain number of men to be the recipients of special grace and of eternal salvation.” In order to emphasize the fact that God’s election or choice of certain sinners to be saved is not based upon anything that the sinner himself does, Reformed theologians refer to election to eternal life as unconditional election. 

Virtually all modern evangelicals and fundamentalists emphatically reject the biblical doctrine of unconditional election. They teach that election is based not solely upon God’s choice or good pleasure but upon God’s foreknowledge of man’s exercise of faith.

The key here is that unconditional election is a much stronger doctrine than many people realize. It is not only the case that people are divided into two categories (saved and damned) before the foundation of the world. This in itself is not problematic. The problem arises when we realize that this election is not in any way dependent upon the things that we will do or would do. If it was, then election would be conditional.

On this view, it makes no sense to pray for the salvation of anyone else. If the election of others is dependent upon whether or not you pray for their salvation, then election is conditional (conditional upon whether or not you pray for them). If election is unconditional, then your prayers are not a factor in it.

How might a Calvinist respond? An easy way out is to go for theistic determinism. This is to say that God determines each of our acts and choices. This would restore the compatibility between unconditional election and the effectiveness of prayer. God determines that your friend will be saved, and then determines that because of this, you will pray for your friend's salvation. So long as God's decree of election is logically prior to the means he ordains, then it is unconditional.

The problem is that this solution works too well. Under this definition, any system of salvation is compatible with unconditional election. God could ordain that we are saved by means of the Roman Catholic sacramental system, and it would still qualify as unconditional election (assuming theistic determinism). We can do even better. Rabbi Akiva taught that we are saved by works. If our good deeds outweigh our bad deeds, then we can go to heaven. Even this system can qualify as unconditional election, so long as God determines that your friend will be saved, and then determines that because of this, he will commit more good acts than bad acts.

What's even more ironic is that the non-Calvinist has ways out of this. If election is conditional, then God's knowledge of your prayers may have an influence on God's decree of election. The Calvinist may retort "Isn't God already working at 100% effort in order to save as many as possible?" The non-Calvinist can bite the bullet and say that this is not the case. However, the non-Calvinist has another solution as well.

God does all he can do without undue intrusion. When we pray, we affect what counts as an undue intrusion. Perhaps it would be unacceptably heavy-handed if God messed with an atheist's brain chemistry to make him more open to theism. However, if enough people prayed, such an act might no longer be heavy-handed.

Think of police involvement in civilian affairs. There are cases when police involvement is unacceptably intrusive if the police take the initiative, but not intrusive if they are called. Domestic disputes and noise complaints fall into this category.

What Christians Can Learn From Skeptics: Editing Wikipedia

This is a video that every Christian or Messianic Jewish apologist needs to see. Susan Gerbic is one of skepticism's greatest geniuses for developing this method. The lecture itself is only 27 minutes long, and is absolutely worth viewing multiple times. This is a lecture by Susan Gerbic, who is a skeptic and anti-paranormalist. She leads a group of Wikipedia editors in order to infuse her ideology into Wikipedia. From Gerbic:

We use Wikipedia to shape the public's view of paranormal topics. We already know that shouting and belittling believers is not the way to go about changing minds. Guerilla skepticism is the act of inserting well-documented well-cited information into Wikipedia. We still follow all of Wikipedia's guidelines. We are also trying to improve the history of the scientific skeptical movement and document it. It allows editors to edit from home without being confrontational with people.

From a fan: "I am amazed at what great ideas you and your team have with Wikipedia. It is the opposite of harm reduction. I'll bet that 99% of hits on Wikipedia pages you update come from non-skeptics. The best part is the sure fact that they are going to Wikipedia means that they are in the moment in that ever-so-elusive information gathering phase of thought. For typical laypeople, that phase is shockingly short, and once it's over, it's over for most true believers."

Gerbic is absolutely right. People generally trust Wikipedia, and do not view it with the same degree of scrutiny with which someone would view an atheist website.

If you are a rising Christian apologist, but don't have the time, money, or experience to publish in professional journals or debate atheists on stage, that's fine. The Internet is a great place to conduct apologetics. Instead of wasting your time arguing on message boards or social media (like Facebook), why not learn to edit Wikipedia? It costs nothing but time, and it reaches an audience far more open-minded than anyone you will debate online. Remember that people trust Wikipedia as a reliable source of information, something not lost on Gerbic.

Gerbic's tactics have worked due to organization. Wikipedia has mobs of tens of thousands of editors. Gerbic's group is a small, but highly focused army of 90 editors, and it has changed the face of Wikipedia's paranormal pages, as well as its pages on famous skeptics, creationism, and evolution. As far as I know, there is not one single Christian apologetics organization that focuses on Wikipedia. Not one. Zilch. Zip. Zero. This needs to be fixed.

Gerbic's Tactics

Working Backwards: Instead of starting with a Wikipedia article, look for an article in a well-documented source, such as a book by Lee Strobel or Josh McDowell, and find a home for the information on Wikipedia. You're not creating a page for the topic, but finding apologetics and research material related to the topic, and then finding an article or several articles in which to insert the information. Gerbic says that one issue of Skeptic magazine can give you 100 edits on Wikipedia. I assume that Craig Keener's book on Miracles can give you far more.

Inserting Links: Find ways of getting those nifty blue links to your favorite apologists on to different pages. An example is mentioning J.P. Moreland or Richard Swinburne on the Dualism (philosophy of mind) page, and making sure that the name is linked, so that someone who is browsing philosophy of mind may decide to visit the apologist's page. Wikipedia articles are like potato chips, you cannot read just one.

We've Got Your Wiki-Back: Improving the Wikipedia pages of Christian apologists, so that when people visit their pages, they will have easy access to their works and materials. We want the Wikipedia pages for apologists like J.P. Moreland, Frank Turek, Lee Strobel, and Sean McDowell to be as full, updated, and rich with information as the pages for James Randi and Richard Dawkins. We are not doing this project for us. We are doing this project for the world, and especially for people who are on the fence about these issues. If we don't respect our spokespeople, who is going to respect them?

Relevant Topics: Topics and people that are relevant to apologetics. We want to add information from apologetics sources to Wikipedia topics such as creationism, intelligent design, pseudoscience, philosophy of science, dualism-interactionism, historical Jesus, eyewitness testimony, the minimal facts argument, and various arguments in natural theology. We need to add links to criticism of opponents of apologists, especially the ones that are in the news. People who are in the news get a lot of Wikipedia hits.

Specialists: Gerbic's World Wikipedia Project recruits people from all over the world who speak different languages, so that she can insert skepticism into pages in Dutch, German, Portuguese, Spanish, and other languages. We need people who can translate, and closed caption apologetics lectures so we can get them into other languages, which can then be imported into foreign language Wikipedia entries. We need photographers who can take and upload better photos of apologists and apologetics events, which can then create better pages for apologists and their events. Some people specialize as researchers. Others track and post pages that need updates and expansion. Some even monitor Wikipedia pages to make sure that the right edits go on them.

Working as a Team: Gerbic's team coordinates their projects. They train new Wikipedians on how to edit Wikipedia so that the edits stay. They proofread each other's work, and make sure that all material cites its relevant sources properly. They share tactics, discussing what does and does not work.

Bonus: And for anyone who doubts how effective her team has been, check out the results of their major projects.

Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 1

In this section, Troki writes 100 chapters aimed at attacking the New Testament. Most of them are short enough to be quoted in their entirety.

Matthew 1 contains an account of the genealogy of Jesus, and traces back the descent of Joseph, the husband of Mary, to Solomon son of David. The enumeration of his ancestors terminates thus (ver. 15, 16, 17), "And Eliud begat Eleazar, and Eleazar begat Matthan, and Matthan begat Jacob, and Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations, and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations."

In Luke 3:23, 24, however, the genealogy of Jesus differs from that given by Matthew; for he assigns the descent of Joseph, the husband of Mary, to Nathan the son of David. The parentage of Jesus is there described as follows: "And Jesus was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, etc., etc. Thus while, according to Matthew, there are forty-two generations, reckoning back to Abraham, there are twenty-six according to the names mentioned in Luke. Besides this, the list of names given in Matthew is not calculated to afford a correct knowledge of the descendants of David, for three generations, Ahaziah, Jaos, and Amaziah, are omitted, and Uzziah is represented to be the son of Joram. See the correct genealogy in 1 Chronicles 3, and in the historical part of the Second Book of Chronicles beginning at chapter 22 etc.

It appears that the omission of three generations of kings was done advisedly, in order to make out Matthew's three series of fourteen generations. However, after all it must be owned, that contradictory accounts of the generations have no reference to Jesus, but only to Joseph. For, as Mary is stated to have remained a virgin, even after her marriage with Joseph, we do not see the use of putting forth a long string of names which had no relation to the founder of the Christian religion. 

So here are the genealogies laid out in an easier fashion:

 

 Luke's gospel was about Mary, and therefore the most likely solution is to say that Matthew was about Joseph (legal line) while Luke was about Mary (biological line). Troki's quote at the end seems bizarre. Mary is the biological ancestor of Jesus, so why would she have no relation to the founder of the Christian religion?

Michael Brown takes a slightly different stance, stating that Shealtiel and Zerubbabel were two fairly common names of their time. This is confirmed by Babylonian inscriptions during the Persian period. They have different parents. They have different children. They are descended from different sons of David. Their chronological placements are off by as much as a century. There simply is no reason to think that the Zerubbabel and Shealtiel of Luke's genealogy is the same as those in Matthew's.

Note also that Matthew's list contains three sets of 14. What is so important about 14? Hebrew letters also have numerical values, one can add the numerical values in a name to get a sum. This is called gematria. What is the gematria value of David's name? 14. Matthew is skipping generations, which is fine since the terms for "father" and "son" can also mean ancestor and descendant. The purpose of Matthew's genealogy is to show the royal lineage while encoding the gematria value of Israel's greatest king.

This objection seems strange coming from someone who believes in the Tanakh. The same genealogical issue for which Troki faults the New Testament occurs when one compares the genealogies in 1 Chronicles. For example, 1 Chronicles 2 states that Judah had five sons named Er, Onan, Shelah, Perez, and Zerah. In 1 Chronicles 4, the sons of Judah are Perez, Hezron, Carmi, Hur, and Shobal. Of five sons, only one has the same name. In 1 Chronicles 2, Perez has Hezron and Hamul. In 1 Chronicles 9, Perez has Bani as his son. In Nehemiah, the son of Perez is Mahalalel.

There are many more difficulties in 1 Chronicles alone. Those of you who have studied 1 Chronicles know that there are ways of harmonizing these accounts. All I am asking for is a little consistency.

Michael Brown concludes with this insight. "Common sense would also tell you that the followers of Jesus, who were totally dedicated to demonstrating to both Jews and Gentiles that he was truly Messiah and Savior, would not preserve and pass on two impossibly contradictory genealogies. In fact, this very suggestion directly contradicts the common objection that the New Testament authors rewrote the accounts of the Gospels in order to make Jesus look like he was the Messiah. The reality is that they accurately reported the story of his life and were careful to include two important genealogies in presenting the account of his ancestry and birth."

Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 50

In this chapter, Troki challenges Christians for taking the New Testament as a substitute for the Mosaic Law. It largely repeats accusations that have been answered in other chapters. As a result, this article of response will be short.

Remember that monotheism is belief that there is one God. Unitarianism is the belief that God is one person. The Tanakh teaches monotheism, but is silent regarding unitarianism. We do learn that Jesus taught himself to be God, using divine prerogatives such as the forgiveness of sins. He freely accepted worship. He attributed deity to himself in numerous instances, such as John 8:58.

Troki objects to Christian worship of images, but this shows Troki's invincible ignorance. No denomination of Christianity worships images. Even the Catholic and Orthodox denominations merely pay homage to images, just as Jews payed homage to their king, and to the holy sites.

Troki is right in saying that Christians should not vilify the Jews for the death of Jesus. All instances of New Testament hatred toward the Jews are not an attack on the Jews as a people, but an attack on unbelief in general. If the New Testament had been antisemitic, then Jewish believers in Jesus would have been vilified as well, which did not happen.

Some of the things that Jesus taught were hyperbole, as was the custom among wisdom teachers in the first century. Followers of Jesus are not called to tear their eyes out, although some believers such as Origen took these teachings a bit too literally.

Finally, the New Testament does not abolish the law, but follows exactly the same doctrine to which the Talmud holds. The Torah is forever, but the mitzvot are temporary. Most of them are not binding in the Messianic age, as stated in Tractate Niddah 61a. Since Troki is a Karaite and does not hold to the Talmud, this is forgivable. For rabbis who use his material uncritically, it is not.

End of Chizuk Emunah Part 1.

חזק חזק ונתחזק
Chazzak, chazzak, v'nitchazek!

Be strong! Be strong! And may we be strengthened!

Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 49

Again, this chapter is short enough to quote in its entirety:

An extraordinary degree of inconsistency presents itself in numerous points, when we compare the doctrine of the Christians with the teachings of Jesus and his Apostles.
In the first place, we find that Jesus does not, in any part of the New Testament, call himself "God" but continually calls himself "Man" or "the Son of Man." The title of Divinity attributed to Jesus is consequently conferred upon him without the sanction of that Book, the authority of which can alone be of value to the Christians. 

If Jesus had openly called himself God, that would have only confused the crowds. They believed that God is immaterial and in heaven. And in a sense, that is true. The Hasidic sects have noted that God is both a fountain of unity and of diversity. They see God's being like a branching tree. It is unified, and yet complex in its unity. I have answered this objection a previous post, so I will only go over a few points.

The earliest generation of the followers of Jesus considered him to be God (Philippians 2:9).
Jesus freely received worship.
Jesus freely took on divine prerogatives such as the forgiveness of sins.
Jesus applied Tanakh passages that describe the God of Israel and applied them to himself.
Jesus' teaching is the best explanation for why Paul, the other apostles, and the entire early church worshiped him as God in the flesh.

Again, Troki writes:

In the second place, we notice that Jesus expresses himself, in various places, that he did not come to abolish the law of Moses, but to uphold it. Thus we read in Matthew 5:17, 18, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil: for verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle, shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." In a similar manner, we find in Luke 16:17, "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail." Nevertheless, the Christians persist in believing that the Mosaic dispensation is no longer in force, but; has been superseded by that of Jesus. 

This is a misunderstanding of what Jesus meant when he said that the law would not pass away. As N.T. Wright noted repeatedly in his material, the Tanakh does not answer the question "how do I go to heaven after I die?" All of the blessings and curses regarding the law were linked to rewards and punishments on this earth. It is only later, by people like Rabbi Akiva, when the teaching that obedience to the law is how you get to heaven. Being a Jew was no guarantee of salvation, nor was being a non-Jew any guarantee of damnation. Non-Jews like Job and Melchizedek were righteous in the eyes of God, while many of the kings were wicked and damned.

The purpose of the law was as a treaty between God and Israel as a collective whole. The nation as a single unit was rewarded and punished. Paul, Timothy, and other Jews who followed Jesus kept the law. The book of Acts is very clear about this. They knew that the law was not abolished. Why then do most Christians not follow the Mosaic law?

First, most Christians are not Jews, and hence would not be bound by the Mosaic law in the first place. For the majority of Christians, this objection is irrelevant. For the Jewish Christians, there was no need to follow the law once Israel was destroyed and scattered in the year 135. To follow the law today is something like trying to follow the United States tax law after the nation is obliterated.

The rabbis acknowledge this. 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.

Troki again:

In the third place, we observe, from the words of Jesus, that he thought everlasting bliss depended on the obedience to the holy laws of Moses, for when asked by the rich man, what he was to do in order to earn beatitude in life everlasting, Jesus answered (Matthew 19:17, 18, 19, "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. The rich man said unto him, Which commandment? Jesus answered, Thou shalt do no murder; thou shalt not commit adultery; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not bear false witness; honour thy father and thy mother; and thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." The Christian of our day adds, that the sole condition on which life eternal depends, is the belief in Jesus as the Saviour of the soul. Jesus moreover taught the young man (Matt 19:21) "If thou be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor." This precept we have never yet seen performed by any Christian.

 Troki makes a good point. If we manage to keep God's commands perfectly, we can inherit eternal life. This means that we do not inherit sin from Adam. We are not born guilty of sin. Instead, we commit sins, and are damned for it. This was still beside the point for the conversation in Matthew 19. In this story, Jesus was approached by a rich young ruler who thought he had it all together. The man thought he was righteous, and Jesus had to ask him a series of questions so that he might listen. Jesus then directly challenged the man's illusion of piety. If he was so perfectly righteous, he would value God more than any material possession. Of course, the ruler was unwilling to do this, and so his illusion of piety was dissolved in front of the whole crowd.

Jesus then makes his point in the next paragraph. It is very difficult for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God, since people who make a lot of money tend to make wealth the focus of their lives. Peter then asked Jesus "who can be saved?" Jesus replied "with men this is impossible, but with God, all things are possible." The rich young ruler represented the height of Jewish piety, the rich man that Tevye wanted to be. Jesus was making a point that even someone like that cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. Humanity has too many weaknesses. Everyone has sinned, and continues to sin. No one can be perfect, and thus we need God's grace in order to have any hope of obtaining salvation.

Troki's fourth point:

In the fourth place, we do not anywhere find the Christian who submits to the humiliation enjoined by Jesus on his disciples, when he said (Luke 6:29) "And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek, offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak, forbid not to take thy coat also," etc.

 Apparently, Troki has not read Foxe's Book of Martyrs, or all the other stories of Christians doing just that. The Amish are pacifists and do take this advice literally, although the intent of Jesus was to teach through rabbinic hyperbole. This is similar to saying "tear out your eye and cut off your foot." The point of the passage is to love your enemies, and to be better than the surrounding world. Another way of summarizing this passage is "be proactive, not reactive."

Troki's fifth point

In the fifth place, we have to point out that, while the Christians believe that Mary, after having given birth to Jesus, still remained a virgin, Jesus himself was not of that opinion; for, according to John 2:4, he said, "Woman what have I to do with thee"?

Troki is right, although John 2:4 is not the best passage for this. Matthew 1:25 states that Joseph had no relations with her until she had a son. This implies that he did have relations with her afterward, otherwise the passage simply should have said "he had no relations with her."

And when Jesus had finished these parables, he went away from there, and coming to his hometown he taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, “Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household.” And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief. (Matthew 13:53-58)

Even Josephus notes this, mentioning in book 20 of his Antiquities about the death of James, the brother of Jesus, the so-called Messiah. Even if, somehow, the church used the term "brother" in this non-literal way, Josephus did not.

Then his mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not reach him because of the crowd. And he was told, “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see you.” But he answered them, “My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it.” (Luke 8:19-21)

Luke 8 seals the deal. Here, he is comparing his figurative use of mother and brothers to a literal use. If he was not told about his literal biological mother and brothers in the first part of this passage, then it would break the parallel and render it meaningless.

Troki's sixth point:

In the sixth place, we find the Christians at variance, not only differing from the Mosaic, or rather Noachic prohibition of eating blood, but even from the injunction we read in Acts 15:20, "But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood." See also ibid. 15:29 and 21:25.

Michael Horudmann answers this question quite well. "These four commands from Jerusalem to Antioch all dealt with pagan practices associated with idolatry. Most, if not all, of the Gentile converts in Antioch were saved out of paganism. The church leaders were exhorting the new Gentile believers to make a clean break from their old lifestyles and not offend their Jewish brothers and sisters in the church. The instructions were not intended to guarantee salvation but to promote peace within the early church." 

Paul writes in Colossians 2 that "Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath." The laws given to Noah were for his protection. He was for the first time allowed to eat meat, but God warned against eating it raw. Peter and Paul both recognized (in their letters and in Acts) that we have been set free from dietary restrictions, but must make sure that our actions do not cause others to stumble.

The Quest For Certainty

Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 48

Chapter 48 is short enough that I will quote it in its entirety.

          We would submit to discussion the question whether the Christians have any foundation for the belief that Jesus wrought his beneficial works for the salvation of the souls of his believers, and through his sufferings and his blood, he saved the followers of his creed from everlasting perdition in hell? If that were the case, the Christians would be dispensed from doing good actions, and be irresponsible for evil deeds. A passage occurring in St. Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians (chap. 6:9,) will moreover show that the fall of Jesus was only of advantage to the upright, but not to sinners. "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God." Of this we find a detailed explanation in the subsequent verses. Now, if sinners devoid of merit cannot be saved, why should the righteous who have merits require any intercession in order to obtain the Divine favour? It would appear then that the death of Jesus serves neither for the salvation of the sinner, nor for the salvation of the righteous.
          Should the Christians argue that the death of Jesus was intended only to rescue from hell the souls of those who were involved in the sin of Adam, then we would refer back to the pages wherein we have fully proved that the prophets and the pious could not reasonably, and according to Scriptural evidence, incur damnation on account of the fall of Adam. 

Troki refers to 1 Corinthians 6

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
(1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

 As you can see, the passage says the exact opposite of what Troki intends. Many people are slaves to sin, and it is their salvation and regeneration in Jesus that frees them from this sin. Troki implies that we first have to be righteous in order to receive salvation. The New Testament says the exact opposite.

For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. (Romans 5:6-11)

 Troki is right in one sense: our salvation is not dependent upon our good and evil deeds. Instead, our salvation frees us from our addiction to wickedness. Those who grow in him find sin less and less appealing, until the day that we receive full restoration, and sin loses its appeal entirely.

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 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. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. (Ephesians 2:1-10)

 Paul also mentions this issue in Romans 6.

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. (Romans 6:1-4)

 As to what the Rabbi says about original sin, the early church before Augustine, and Eastern Orthodoxy to this day, agrees with him. We are not guilty of Adam's sin. We do not have a sin nature. Instead, sin is something we do. I will leave the reader to my other article for the rest of the story.

Materialism, Dualism, and the Incarnation

Skeptics ask whether Jesus could be both omniscient and ignorant. How is it that God could retain his property of being all-knowing while also experiencing fear, doubt, and not knowing when he would return. The answer, surprisingly, comes from the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

In the Kalam argument, the proponent argues that the past cannot be infinite because an infinite number of things cannot exist in the real world (and to say that distances are composed of an infinite number of points is begging the question). When David Hilbert evaluated the role of infinite quantities such as . These quantities are used in abstract thought, so that we can make generalized statements that apply to all numbers. The problem is that as soon as you start performing operations with these numbers, you run into paradoxes like Hilbert's hotel.

Worse, operations like - or / are undefined. You cannot perform inverse operations on actual infinites, but if actual infinites existed in the real world, there would be nothing stopping you from performing these operations.

The question then arises: how is God omniscient? If God knows an infinite number of propositions, wouldn't that contradict these mathematical laws? It seems they would.

Therefore, we need to think of omniscience not as knowledge of distinct propositions, but as some kind of non-propositional super-thought, from which he can derive propositions.

Another question relates to the biblical teaching about the soul and how it relates to neuroscience. The Bible repeatedly teaches that the body and the immaterial soul are two distinct things. This view, called dualism-interactionism, has come under fire from philosophers. If our soul is different, then why do we lose consciousness when we are hit over the head? Why do things that damage the brain also affect memory, and why is it when you are knocked unconscious for surgery, that you have no recollection of the passage of time? There are also numerous instances of people able to obtain information and have conscious experiences at times when their are brain dead.

All of these problems are answered by a single solution. When the soul is left on its own, the soul has its own mental faculties, such as reason and memory. That is why people can know about conversations across the street even when they are brain dead. When the soul is connected to a brain, it relies on the brain's faculties, even if they are damaged. The soul will not rely on its own faculties until it is completely severed from the brain.

Think about how this applies to the incarnation. Jesus had the super-thought from which he was able to derive propositions, until he became incarnate, at which point he relied on the faculties of his human brain. Since the human brain does not have the ability to derive propositions from the divine super-thought, that is how he could be both omniscient and ignorant.

Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 47

Troki presents us with a fun dilemma that you do not hear very often from anti-missionaries today. Was Jesus crucified with is will or against his will? If he was crucified against his will, then how could he be designated a God while he was incapable of resisting the power of those who brought him to the cross, and how could he be held as Savior of all mankind who had his will taken away from him?

For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.” 
(John 10:17-18)

If Jesus was crucified in agreement with his will, as the New Testament teaches, then how can the Jewish crowds be vilified for what they did? And also, why then did Jesus make the following statements?

And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.” 

(Matthew 26:39)

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46)

The answer is obvious: Jesus was crucified in agreement with his will. A. Lukyn Williams poses the following dilemma to Troki.

I will answer his dilemma fully when he will answer this, this very old one: Is the sin of any man committed with the will of God or against it? If he answers "with the will of God," then every sinner ought to find favor with God; if he says "against the will of God," then God is not supreme. In other words the dilemma proposed by the Rabbi is precisely the same as that of the existence of evil, and the commission of any act of sin. 

Of course, the dilemma is a little different as it relates to Jesus, who did not merely allow himself to be crucified, but had planned on it. These passages also stress the importance of two doctrines: the incarnation and the trinity. God is one being with multiple centers of self-consciousness, and this is the difference between unitarian monotheism and trinitarian monotheism. This passage is not compatible with the former, but it is with the latter. 

This passage also shows that Jesus felt the human emotions of panic and fear that we all feel, although he did not allow them to bring him to sin and disobedience.

The second problem is: how can the Jews of the time be blamed if Jesus was willing to be crucified, and that his crucifixion brought about the greatest good? The answer is that Troki is assuming a view of ethics called consequentialism, which states that the rightness or wrongness of a decision is based on the consequences it produces. Here is the problem: consequentialism is the moral system of a comic book supervillain. Every supervillain thinks that they can create a better world if only they could take it through a painful reshaping process. "If you want to make an omlette, you have to break some eggs" they will say. That seems well and good until you realize that your eggs get broken.

Furthermore, Judas's betrayal also brought about the greatest good for the world, yet Judas was still the villain. The New Testament teaches strongly against consequentialist morality.

Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 46

In this chapter, Troki writes that there has never been a persecutor of the Jews who has been spared the wrath of God. Pharaoh, Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar, Haman, and other persecutors have faced retribution for their persecution. He quotes from Leviticus, Isaiah, Deuteronomy, Joel, Zechariah, and the Psalms to show that every group that has tried to destroy the Jews has failed. This did not merely take place in ancient times, but also in later times. Even Rome was overthrown. Nations like England, France, and Spain faced political and economic disaster when they tried to expel the Jews.

Israel was holy to the Lord,

the firstfruits of his harvest.

All who ate of it incurred guilt;

disaster came upon them,

declares the Lord.” (Jeremiah 2:3)

I agree with A. Lukyn Williams that we can do nothing but agree with Troki on this one. God's promise to the Jews has been made good to this day.

As a minor gripe, Troki's argument regarding the enemies of Israel is a weak one. Of course the empires that oppressed Israel fell. Every empire that was around at that time has fallen, regardless of whether they oppressed Israel. Troki may be right, but his argument is trivial.

The Jewish people have not been eliminated despite being one of the most hated groups in the world. Covenantal theologies, which state that the church is the New Israel, have a hard time explaining why this is the case. Tens of thousands of tribal groups have come and gone, but the Jews have stayed. How could this be the case without divine intervention? And why would God preserve the Jews, allowing the creation of a secular Israeli state, if they are not still the people of the original covenant?

Yet I will leave seven thousand in Israel, all the knees that have not bowed to Baal, and every mouth that has not kissed him.” (1 Kings 19:18)

And Joab gave the sum of the numbering of the people to the king: in Israel there were 800,000 valiant men who drew the sword, and the men of Judah were 500,000. 
(2 Samuel 24:9)

 Out of close to a half million people, only 7,000 were loyal to God. Yet God did not remove his covenant with them, even though they were apostate. Again, the apostasy of most Jews is no reason to think that they are not still part of Israel. Not all who are part of Israel will go to heaven when they die. Instead, we should think of "the saved" as one group and "the people of Israel" as another. It was this way during the times of the Tanakh, so why shouldn't it be this way today?

Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 45

Even the Jewish scholars at Bar Ilan University and the Hebrew University at Jerusalem mention that the New Testament legitimately interprets the Tanakh. They believe that the New Testament uses pesher interpretation. The writers of pesharim believe that scripture is written in two levels: the surface for ordinary readers with limited knowledge, the concealed one for specialists with higher knowledge. Pesher interpretation was a common form during the era when the Dead Sea Scrolls were written. In modern contexts, this interpretation is sometimes called a sensus plenior, or a fuller sense.

Troki spends chapter 45 going through New Testament interpretations of prophecies, but I will leave my analysis of this for the second section of Troki's book. The key point here is because of sensus plenior or pesher interpretations, and the fact that Second Temple Jews considered these to be legitimate uses of the Scriptures, Troki cannot demonstrate that the New Testament is false by showing that it does not quote the literal or pashat meaning of the original text.

Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 44

In this chapter, Troki argues that in the days of Messiah, there will be one faith and one religion throughout the world. This is prooftexted in the following verses:

By myself I have sworn;

from my mouth has gone out in righteousness

a word that shall not return:

‘To me every knee shall bow,

every tongue shall swear allegiance.’(Isaiah 45:23)

Isaiah 45 is right in the middle of what scholars call Deutero-Isaiah, which comprises chapter 40-55. This section features Isaiah's written works, as opposed to his spoken oracles. In this section, he states that God alone exists, and that there are no other gods. Yahweh will triumph over his rivals until he alone is worshiped.

“For at that time I will change the speech of the peoples

to a pure speech,

that all of them may call upon the name of the Lord

and serve him with one accord.
(Zephaniah 3:9)

Awake, awake,

put on your strength, O Zion;

put on your beautiful garments,

O Jerusalem, the holy city;

for there shall no more come into you

the uncircumcised and the unclean.(Isaiah 52:1)

Also in Deutero-Isaiah.

“So you shall know that I am the Lord your God,

who dwells in Zion, my holy mountain.

And Jerusalem shall be holy,

and strangers shall never again pass through it.(Joel 3:17)

“Those who sanctify and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following one in the midst, eating pig's flesh and the abomination and mice, shall come to an end together, declares the Lord.

“For I know their works and their thoughts, and the time is coming to gather all nations and tongues. And they shall come and shall see my glory, and I will set a sign among them. And from them I will send survivors to the nations, to Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, who draw the bow, to Tubal and Javan, to the coastlands far away, that have not heard my fame or seen my glory. And they shall declare my glory among the nations. And they shall bring all your brothers from all the nations as an offering to the Lord, on horses and in chariots and in litters and on mules and on dromedaries, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, says the Lord, just as the Israelites bring their grain offering in a clean vessel to the house of the Lord. And some of them also I will take for priests and for Levites, says the Lord.

“For as the new heavens and the new earth

that I make

shall remain before me, says the Lord,

so shall your offspring and your name remain.

From new moon to new moon,

and from Sabbath to Sabbath,

all flesh shall come to worship before me,

declares the Lord.(Isaiah 66:17-23)

And the Lord will be king over all the earth. On that day the Lord will be one and his name one.
(Zechariah 14:9)

As I have written in earlier posts, this is happening right now. Belief in the God of Israel has been growing for 2,000 years, to the point that over a tenth of the world worships him. This is contrasted with the time of ancient Israel, where a very tiny fraction of the population even knew who Yahweh was. Today, most of the world's population has some idea of the God of Israel, and this is directly due to the influence of his church.