Basic
Worldview:
104
Why Christianity?
Rabbinical
Judaism Accepts
Christian Interpretations (Part 1)
Judaism
and Christianity Introduction and History
History
of Judaism Continued
Scholarly
Objections and Historicity of Daniel (P. 1)
Historicity
of Daniel (P. 2) & Judeo-Christian Syncretism
A
Few Words on Gnosticism
Christianity
- A Sect of Judaism (P. 1)
Christianity
- A Sect of Judaism (P. 2) & Prophecy in Judaism
Is
Jesus the Jewish Messiah? (P. 1)
Is
Jesus the Jewish Messiah? (P. 2)
List
of Messianic Qualifications & the Resurrection of Jesus
(P. 1)
The
Resurrection of Jesus (Part 2)
Study
Conclusions and Overall Comparisons
Additional
Material
The
Sufferings of Eyewitnesses
Comparison
of Mystical Religions to Judeo-Christianity
Rabbinical
Judaism Accepts Christian Interpretations (P. 1)
Rabbinical
Judaism Accepts Christian Interpretations (P. 2)
Rabbinical
Judaism Accepts Christian Interpretations (P. 3)
Rabbinical
Judaism Accepts Christian Interpretations (P. 4)
Rabbinical
Judaism Accepts Christian Interpretations (P. 5)
Rabbinical
Judaism Accepts Christian Interpretations (P. 6)
Introduction | Section 1
| Section 2 | Section
3
Introduction
The
second section of our “Why Christianity” series examined how
Islam is not a legitimate successor or continuation of either
New or Old Testament teaching. Instead we saw how Islam and
the Koran fundamentally contradict those teachings and are
a departure from them. By contrast, in the third and final
section of the “Why Christianity” series we demonstrated how
the New Testament beliefs of Christianity are based on, entirely
consistent with, and even wholly anticipated by the Old Testament.
In
that third segment of the series, we demonstrated the veracity
of the New Testament’s claim to be the successor to the Old
Testament through an examination of some historical, but mostly
biblical (Old Testament) material. In this article series
we will take that task further by examining the ancient rabbinical
Jewish traditions themselves. In doing so, we will show that
the New Testament Christian interpretations of the Old Testament
is neither novel nor based on pagan influences, but are instead
agreed to by the rabbinic traditions that underlie modern
Judaism.
A
short illustration will help to demonstrate the issue we will
examine in this study.
An
Illustration
Suppose
there is a court case in which a defendant was accused of
committing some crime. During his opening remarks the prosecutor
lays out that he will prove that the accused is guilty of
committing the crime by presenting a series of incriminating
evidences. In response, the defense attorney for the accused
confidently declares that he can unequivocally demonstrate
that the very evidence, which the prosecution claims incriminate
the accused, instead is proof of his complete innocence. At
this point in the trial, prior to the examination of evidence,
the defense attorney and the prosecuting attorney seem to
be totally at odds with one another. Both sides seem to have
completely contradictory and irreconcilable interpretations
of the very evidence that is at the heart of the case.
After
the opening statements by both sides the trial proceeds to
the next stage, the presentation and examination of the evidence.
As anticipated from his opening statement, the prosecutor’s
office presents many pieces of evidence and convincingly interprets
them as demonstrating the guilt of the defendant.
At
this point, the defendant’s attorney steps forward to present
his case. Based on the defense’s opening comments, it would
be expected that the defendant’s attorney will dispute the
prosecution’s interpretation of the evidence and demonstrate
the exact opposite conclusion from that same evidence, namely
that the defendant is innocent. But, instead, something else
occurs, something remarkable.
Wherever
the prosecutor interpreted a piece of evidence to indicate
that the defendant is guilty, the defense attorney offers
no counter-interpretation of the evidence in favor of his
client’s innocence. Instead, the defense attorney simply agrees
with the interpretation offered by the prosecutor.
The
prosecutor claims that the accused was at the scene of the
crime at the time the crime was committed. The defense concurs.
The prosecutor claims that the accused had the motive to commit
the crime. The defense concurs. The prosecutor claims that
the accused had the materials and expertise necessary to commit
the crime. The defense concurs. The prosecutor claims that
the accused has a history of committing such crimes. The defense
concurs. The prosecution claims that eye-witnesses saw the
accused commit the crime. The defense concurs and even offers
defense witnesses who corroborate the testimony of the prosecution’s
witnesses. The prosecutor’s office claims that the accused
bragged beforehand that he was going to commit the crime.
The defense concurs. And lastly, the prosecutor’s office submits
the sworn confession of the accused that he had, in fact,
committed the crime and the defense does not dispute the confession.
After
the examination of all the evidence concludes, it is time
for the final statements from both sides. As expected, the
prosecution reviews why the evidence demands the interpretation
that the accused is guilty. The defense attorney does not
dispute the prosecution’s interpretation of the evidence itself,
but simply states, without explanation, that the defendant
is not guilty.
In
effect, the defense’s summation is as follows:
Yes,
the accused was at the scene of the crime when the crime was
committed. Yes, the accused had the materials and expertise
necessary to commit the crime. Yes, the accused has a history
of committing such crimes. Yes, eye-witnesses saw the accused
commit the crime. Yes, our defense witnesses corroborate the
testimony of the prosecution’s witnesses. Yes, the accused
bragged beforehand that he was going to commit the crime.
And lastly, yes, the accused gave a sworn confession that
he had, in fact, committed the crime. But, no the accused
is not guilty.
As
a result of these proceedings, over the course of the trial
the perception of the two views would change quite dramatically.
After the opening remarks it would be presumed that the evidence
must be pretty unclear. It might be expected that the defense
attorney would provide strong reason why the evidence, when
interpreted properly, would exonerate rather than incriminate
the accused. But to the contrary, as the trial concludes,
the evidence does not seem unclear at all. And in addition,
the defense didn’t provide any competing interpretation of
the evidence or why it didn’t indicate a guilty verdict. The
only thing that remains baffling is why the defense attorney
wouldn’t admit that the accused was guilty but instead still
insisted upon his innocence.
Though
it may seem odd at first, this illustration is useful as we
examine the explanations offered by rabbinical Judaism for
their rejection of New Testament and its claims about Jesus.
The impression created by opening statements in our trial
illustration above is often very similar to how people view
the theological disputes between Christianity and Judaism
in a modern context.
The
perception is that what we have is a situation in which both
sides dispute how the evidence should be interpreted. On the
one hand, Christians interpret the Old Testament to indicate
that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah. On the other hand,
persons of the rabbinical (or traditional) Jewish faith are
perceived as disputing the Christian interpretation of the
Old Testament, and claiming that the correct interpretation
of the Old Testament, in fact, proves the opposite, that Jesus
isn’t the Messiah.
A
specific and simple example of this trend as it occurs between
modern Judaism and Christianity might be helpful. Christianity
claims that the Old Testament prophesied that the Jewish Messiah
would suffer and die as a sacrifice for man’s sin. The typical
counter-argument by modern (rabbinic) Judaism is that the
Old Testament nowhere prophesies the death of the Messiah
and that Christianity has simply misinterpreted the Old Testament
texts, or worse yet, deliberately twisted them from their
context or even borrowed concepts from pagan myths. This seems
like a solid counter-argument.
But
what would happen if common and influential Jewish rabbinical
scholars throughout the ages were quoted as saying that the
Messiah was to suffer and die as a sacrifice for man’s sin?
What if those rabbinic, Jewish scholars reached this conclusion
based upon the very same Old Testament passages that brought
Christians to that conclusion? What would that do to our assessment
of the clarity of the evidence (the Old Testament) itself?
What would that do to their counter-argument against the Christian
claim? What would that do to our assessment of which position
was correct?
Notes
on Rabbinic Literature and Sources
As
we proceed, the focus of this study will be upon examining
rabbinical sources and traditions themselves to see if the
understanding and interpretation of Old Testament teaching
that they offer truly is contradictory of those offered by
New Testament Christianity. Before we begin our examination
of these quotes it is important to make some brief statements
on the sources of rabbinic literature.
First,
all quotes that appear below are taken from Dr. Michael Brown’s
multi-volume work entitled Answering Jewish Objections
to Jesus. Dr. Brown is a Jewish believer in Jesus. He
as a PhD in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New
York University. He has written over ten books, is the president
of Brownsville Revival School of Ministry, has been a professor
at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and Fuller Theological
Seminary, and is a contributor to the Oxford Dictionary
of Jewish Religion.
The
quotations below follow Dr. Brown’s manner of citations for
rabbinic literature. As is stated on page xiv of the Preface
to Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus:
Rabbinic
literature is cited using standard conventions (e.g., the
letter “m.” before a Rabbinic source means “Mishnah,” “b.”
stands for “Babylonian Talmud,” “y.” stands for “Palestinian
Talmud,” and “t” stands for “Tosephtah”). When there is a
difference in the numbering of biblical verses between some
Christian and Jewish versions, the Jewish numbering is in
brackets (e.g., Isa. 9:6[5]). Bear in mind, however, that
the actual verses are identical; only the numbering is different.
– Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume
1, Preface, p. xiv
For
more information on this subject we recommend reading this
series. Though it is very detailed and thorough in its citations
of original source material, it is quite conversational and
easy to read. However, we wished to present a more concise
summation of the most critical issues.
Dr.
Brown’s volumes sort rabbinic commentary into three categories:
Volume 1: General and Historical Objections, Volume 2: Theological
Objections, and Volume 3: Messianic Prophecy Objections. Our
analysis will not necessarily follow the order he has used
in his books, but the volume and page number of each citation
is included with each quotation. When relevant, especially
to the source of the rabbinic commentary, Dr. Brown’s footnotes
are included. (The numbers before each quote indicate the
order they occur in Dr. Brown’s books and are not significant
otherwise.)
Glossary
of Rabbinic Terminology
To
help those unfamiliar with some of the rabbinic terminology
or figures, we have included the following relevant excerpts
from the Glossary of Dr. Brown’s book series. Reviewing and
becoming familiar with these terms is important to grasping
the significance of the material presented in this study.
(All
glossary notes taken from Brown, Answering Jewish Objections
to Jesus, Volume 1, Glossary, p. 254-256.)
Babylonian
Talmud. The foundational text for Jewish religious study,
it consists of 2,500,000 words of Hebrew and Aramaic commentary
and expansion on the Mishnah. It includes much Halakha as
well as Haggada, and thus it touches on virtually every area
of life, religion, custom, folklore, and law. It reached its
final form between 500 and 600 C.E., and it is mainly the
product of the Babylonian sages.
Haggada.
(Sometimes spelled Aggada) Nonlegal (i.e., nonbinding) Rabbinic
stories, sermons, and commentaries relating to the Tanakh
and Jewish life.
Halakha.
A specific legal ruling (“What is the Halakha in this
case?”) or Rabbinic legal material in general. The word Halakha
is interpreted as meaning “the way to go.”
Ibn
Ezra. Abraham Ibn Ezra (1089-1164). He was one of the
three greatest Jewish medieval biblical commentators, especially
famous for his careful attention to Hebrew grammar.
Jerusalem
Talmud. See Palestinian Talmud.
Kabbalah.
The general term for Jewish mystical writings and traditions.
It literally means “that which has been received.”
Midrash.
Rabbinic commentaries on a verse, chapter, or entire book
of the Tanakh, marked by creativity and interpretive skill.
The best-known collection is called the Midrash Rabba, covering
the Five Books of Moses as well as the Five Scrolls.
Mishnah.
The first written collection of the legal material relating
to the laws of the Torah and the ordinances of the sages.
It provides the starting point for all subsequent Halakha.
It was compiled approximately 200 C.E. by Rabbi Judah HaNasi
(the Prince) and especially emphasizes the traditions of the
rabbis who flourished from 70 to 200 C.E.
Mishneh
Torah. Systematic compilation of all Jewish law by Moses
Maimonides (also called Rambam; 1135-1204). It remains a standard
legal text to this day.
Oral
Torah. All Rabbinic traditions relating to the Written
Torah and various legal aspects of Jewish life. The traditions
were first passed on orally before they were written down.
Palestinian
Talmud. Similar to the Babylonian Talmud but based primarily
on the work of the sages in Israel. It is shorter in scope,
less authoritative, and therefore, studied less than the Babylonian
Talmud. It reached its final form in the Land of Israel approximately
400 C.E.
Radak.
Acronym for Rabbi David Kimchi (pronounced
kim-KHEE; 1160-1235). He wrote important commentaries on much
of the Tanakh.
Rashi.
Acronym for Rabbi Shlomo Yitschaki
(pronounced yits-KHA-ki; 1045-1105), the foremost Jewish commentator
on the Tanakh and Babylonian Talmud. Traditional Jews always
begin their studies in Bible and Talmud with Rashi’s commentaries
as their main guide.
Response
Literature. (Hebrew, she-ey-LOT u-te-shu-VOT, “Questios
and Answers”) A major source of Halakha from 600 C.E. until
today, it consists of the answers to specific legal questions
posed to leading Rabbinic authorities in every generation.
Shulkan
Arukh. The standard and most authoritative Jewish law
code, compiled by Rabbi Joseph Karo (1488-1575).
Targum.
Literally, “translation.” This refers to the expansive
Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Bible that were read in
the synagogues where biblical Hebrew was no longer understood.
They were put in written form between 300 and 1200 C.E. The
most important Targum’s are Targum Onkelos to the Five Books
of Moses, and Targum Jonathan to the Nevi’im (Prophets).
Tosephtah.
An early collection of Rabbinic laws following the division
and order of the Mishnah but containing parallel legal traditions
not found in the Mishnah.
Zohar.
The foundational book of Jewish Mysticism. It was composed
in the thirteenth century, although mystical tradition dates
it to the second century.
Defining
Both Sides – The New Testament Christian and Traditional Jewish
Interpretations of the Old Testament
Having
finished laying out the important technical information about
rabbinical literature we now begin with our comparison of
rabbinical (or traditional) Jewish interpretations of Old
Testament teachings to those offered by New Testament Christianity.
Following below are many quotations of ancient and modern
Jewish sources including the Talmud, the Targums, medieval
rabbis, modern orthodox Jewish organizations, and even occasionally
some Jewish mystical traditions.
As
you read them keep in mind the different interpretations of
Old Testament teaching offered by New Testament Christian
teaching or, alternatively, a typical perception of the traditional
Jewish teaching. Again, it might be helpful to think of both
sides as presenting their case in a trial to determine whether
or not Jesus can be identified as the Messiah prophesied in
the Old Testament.
The
case presented by New Testament Christianity would be as outlined
below.
New
Testament Christian Teaching
In
accordance with Old Testament teaching, the New Testament
holds that:
1.
On the Timing of the Messiah – According to Daniel 9,
the Messiah was to come and be killed and the Second Temple
would be destroyed after the completion of 69 weeks of years.
(The Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D.) Jesus lived, died and
rose again between approximately 4 B.C. and 30 A.D.
2.
On the Way the Messiah Would Come – According to Zechariah
9, The Messiah was to come riding humbly on a donkey and,
according to Daniel 7, will return on the clouds of heaven.
The week before his death, Jesus entered Jerusalem riding
on a donkey.
3.
On No Sacrifices – As indicated in the Old Testament,
God required a sacrifice to atone for man’s sins. As Messiah,
Jesus provided that sacrifice through his death and resurrection
in about 30 A.D. Since then atoning sacrifices are no longer
necessary to reconcile man to God.
4.
On a Suffering and Dying Messiah – According to passages
such as Isaiah 52-53, the Messiah was to suffer and die to
atone for our sin in fulfillment of his role as High Priest,
but would be resurrected from the dead and would return as
an exalted, conquering King. Zechariah 3 indicates that the
Messiah will be High Priest as well as King, identifying Joshua
the High Priest using the term “the Branch” as a symbol of
the Messiah. Zechariah 12 speaks of the Messiah being pierced
and being mourned by the people of Israel because he died
for their sin. Psalm 16 indicates the Messiah will die, but
be resurrected as God will not allow his body to decompose,
nor leave his soul in the place of the dead (Sheol). On the
third day after dying as an atoning sacrifice for sin, our
High Priest, Jesus was resurrected from the grave.
5.
On a Miracle Working Messiah – Jesus worked many miracles
displaying that he was the Messiah.
6.
Descriptions of God – God is one being, yet three co-equal
and co-eternal persons: Father, Word, and Holy Spirit. The
Word of God is the angel (or messenger) of the LORD (YHWH)
in the Old Testament who is identified as God (YHWH) himself.
The Holy Spirit or Spirit of God (YHWH) is a person who is
identified as God in the Old Testament, but who is distinct
from the persons of YHWH known to us as the Father and the
Word. He acts as an advocate, rebukes, and tells of things
to come.
7.
On The Messiah’s Divinity – The Messiah is a descendent
of David and is also the Son of God. He existed eternally
as God and became incarnate as a man in the lineage of David,
and as such is both God and man and he will come again on
the clouds to judge the earth and to rule as its King. The
incarnation of the Messiah is foretold in the prophecy of
Isaiah 7, which states that the virgin will conceive and bear
a son who is called Immanuel (Hebrew for “God with us.”) According
to Micah 5, the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem. Jesus
is the Word of God become flesh and a descendent of David.
8.
On the Death of Man Atoning for Sin – As our sinless High
Priest, Jesus the Messiah’s sacrificial death provides forgiveness
and reconciliation with God. It is only by his blood that
atonement is made for man.
9.
On the Importance of the Messiah – The coming of the
Messiah and belief in him is the central and critical element
of God’s unfolding plan of salvation for mankind.
10.
On the Afterlife and the Age to Come – There is a coming
day in which God will judge the world. All men will be resurrected.
The righteous will go on to eternal life in the kingdom of
God (on earth). The wicked to eternal damnation or hell.
In
contrast, the typical perception of the Traditional (Non-christian)
Jewish view might be as indicated below.
A
Typical Perception of Traditional (Non-Christian) Jewish Teaching:
According to Old Testament teaching, and contrary to New Testament
Christian teaching, the traditional Judaism holds that:
1.
On the Timing of the Messiah – New Testament Christianity
erroneously asserts that Daniel 9 outlines a timeframe for
the Messiah’s coming and the destruction of the Second Temple
that requires both events to take place in the first century
A.D.
2.
On the Way the Messiah Would Come – New Testament Christianity
erroneously interprets Zechariah 9’s reference to a King riding
on a donkey as a reference to the Messiah.
3.
On No Sacrifices – New Testament Christianity erroneously
asserts that God no longer requires sacrifice to atone for
sin.
4.
On a Suffering and Dying Messiah – New Testament Christianity
erroneously interprets Isaiah 53 as a reference to the Messiah.
Isaiah 53 is a reference to the nation of Israel as a whole.
The Messiah will not suffer and die, but will be a conquering
King. Likewise, Isaiah indicates that the Messiah will have
children. Jesus did not have children, so Isaiah cannot be
speaking of him. New Testament Christianity erroneously interprets
Zechariah 12 as a prophecy of the Messiah. It is not. Likewise,
Psalm 16 does not speak of the Messiah or resurrection from
the dead.
5.
On a Miracle Working Messiah – The Messiah will not be
known by working miracles.
6.
Descriptions of God – God (YHWH) is one (in an absolute
sense that rules out any compound or plurality within the
Godhead). He is not three persons.
7.
On The Messiah’s Divinity – God does not have a son and
did not become incarnate. The Messiah will simply be a man.
The New Testament Christian assertion that Isaiah 7 prophesies
a virgin birth is a mistranslation of the passage. Micah 5
is not a Messianic prophecy and, as such, does not indicate
the place of the Messiah’s birth.
8.
On the Death of Man Atoning for Sin – God does not require
or accept human sacrifice. The Messiah is a conquering King,
not a dying priest.
9.
On the Importance of the Messiah – Belief in the coming
of a Messiah is not a central or defined theme in Judaism.
10.
On the Afterlife and the Age to Come – Jewish views do
not include a belief in the afterlife, either in eternal punishment
or reward.
So
far, the interpretations of New Testament Christianity and
Traditional (Non-Christian) Judaism seem quite at odds with
one another. Or at least, this is how the differences are
typically perceived.
The
Interpretation Actually Offered by Talmudic (or Rabbinic)
Judaism
As
we proceed through the quotations from Talmudic and rabbinic
sources we will find that the typical perception of Traditional
(or Non-Christian) Jewish thought outlined above does not
accurately reflect the actual interpretations of the evidence
offered by Rabbinic Judaism. Rather than disagreeing with
or rejecting the New Testament Christian interpretation of
the Old Testament evidence as we would commonly expect, we
find that something remarkable occurs instead. A review of
important Jewish sources including the Talmud, ancient Jewish
translations (the Targums and Septuagint), as well as ancient,
medieval, and modern rabbinic writing, all arrive at the same
or very similar interpretations of the Old Testament as those
offered by the New Testament Christian teaching. The result
is the typical perception of the traditional Jewish position
loses meaningful distinction from the New Testament Christian
position. Rather than being denied or refuted by the rabbinic
interpretation, the New Testament Christian interpretation
is instead validated and affirmed by traditional Jewish sources.
For
clarity the quotations below are categorized in accordance
with the 10-point case outlines provided above. Each quote
is listed under each point that it is related to. (Some redundancy
may occur when a particular quote relates to more than one
issue.)
1.
On the Timing of the Messiah –
Typical
Perception of Traditional Judaism:
New
Testament Christianity erroneously asserts that Daniel 9 outlines
a timeframe for the Messiah’s coming and the destruction of
the Second Temple that requires both events to take place
in the first century A.D.
Actual
Interpretations of Talmudic (or Rabbinic) Judaism:
Daniel
9 outlines that the Messiah was to come and the Second Temple
would be destroyed after a period of 69 weeks of years. As
a result, there was a great expectation among the Jewish people
that the Messiah would come about the second quarter of the
first century C.E. (prior to the Temple’s destruction in 70
A.D.)
1.
Interestingly, the respected Jewish scholar Abba Hillel Silver
pointed out that there was great expectation among our people
that the Messiah would come “about the second quarter of the
first century C.E., because the Millennium was at hand.” 6
Thus, according to Silver, “When Jesus came into Galilee,
‘spreading the gospel of the Kingdom of God and saying the
time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand’
[Mark 1:14-15}, he was voicing the opinion universally held
that the year 5000 in the Creation calendar, which is to usher
in the sixth millennium – the age of the Kingdom of God –
was at hand.” 7 – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to
Jesus, Volume 1, Historical Objections, p. 73
Footnote
6: Abba Hillel Silver, A History of Messianic Speculation
in Israel (New York: Macmillan, 1927), 7.
Footnote
7: Ibid., 6, his emphasis.
131.
To give us a traditional Jewish perspective on the passage
as a whole, let’s listen to Rashi’s opening comments on this
passage. As rendered by A. J. Rosenberg, the preeminent translator
of Rashi today, Rashi explains as follows:
Seventy
weeks [of years] have been decreed on Jerusalem from the
day of the first destruction in the days of Zechariah until
it will be [destroyed] the second time. to terminate the
transgression and to end sin so that Israel should receive
their complete retribution in the exile of Titus and his subjugation,
in order that their transgressions should terminate, their
sins should end, and their iniquities should be expiated,
in order to bring upon them eternal righteousness and to anoint
upon them (sic) the Holy of Holies: the Ark, the altars, and
the holy vessels, which they will bring to them through the
king Messiah. The number of seven weeks is four hundred and
ninety years. The Babylonian exile was seventy [years] and
the Second Temple stood four hundred and twenty [years]. 166
Note
carefully Rashi’s comments that this prophecy involves a time
of restoration brought about “through the king Messiah,” indicating
that it is not only Christians who see clear Messianic overtones
in this prophecy. The difference, however, is that Christians
have a clear basis for their Messianic interpretation of Daniel
9:24-27, namely, that the Messiah died for the sins of the
world during the very times specified by Daniel, whereas Rashi
simply appends a reference to the Messiah to the end of the
passage, without explanation. 167 This becomes more clear
when we focus on Rashi’s comments to Daniel 9:26:
26
And after those weeks, the anointed one will be cut
off Agrippa, the king of Judea, who was ruling at the
time of the destruction, will be slain, and he will be
no more Heb. we’en lo and he will not have. The
meaning is that he will not be. the anointed one Heb.
Mashiah This is purely an expression of a prince and
a dignitary, and the city and the Sanctuary lit. and
the city and the Holy, and the people of the coming
monarch will destroy [The monarch who will come] upon
them. That is Titus and his armies, and his end will come
about by inundation And his end will be damnation and
destruction, for He will inundate the powers of his kingdom
through the Messiah, and until the end of the wars of Gog
the city will exist, cut off into desolation a destruction
of desolation. – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to
Jesus, Volume 3, Messianic Prophecy Objections, p. 88-89
Footnote
166: It should be noted that the traditional Jewish chronology
followed by Rashi contains a significant error, since the
Second Temple actually stood for roughly 600 years rather
than 420 years. See vol. 1, 2.1.
Footnote 167: This is partially confirmed by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer,
Seder Olam: the Rabbinic View of Biblical Chronology
(Northvale, N. J.: Aronson, 1998). See below, n.169.
Footnote
168: Ibid., 248.
Footnote
169: Interestingly, Guggenheimer (ibid., 246) finds Rashi’s
approach to Daniel 8 and 9 to be “somewhat inconsistent in
that in Daniel chapter 8, whose vision is not treated
in Seder ‘Olam (the standard Rabbinic chronology),
he refers that vision to Antiochus and the situation before
the Maccabean revolt.” Guggenheimer also points out (244)
that in Rashi’s comments on Daniel 9:24-27, Rashi “follows
Seder ‘Olam strictly in the interpretation of times
and terms but superimposes references to messianic times that
come from later medieval sources and are inconsistent with
the interpretation of Seder ‘Olam that the end of
the vision is the destruction of the second Temple.” This
last observation is especially significant for our present
discussion.
132.
In the Stone edition, the footnote to the words “the anointed
one” in Daniel 9:26 summarizes Rashi’s view as follows: “I.e.,
Agrippa, the last Jewish king, at the end of the Second Temple
Era. After his death, the prince of this verse, the Roman
Titus, would command the destruction of the Temple, which
will not be rebuilt until after the War of Gog and Magog,
in Messianic times.” So, Rashi taught that the prophecy pinpointed
the death of Agrippa and the destruction of the Temple – but
then simply drifted off to the distant future in terms of
the final fulfillment of the prophecy. – Brown, Answering
Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 3, Messianic Prophecy
Objections, p. 90
133.
All this is underscored by Rashi’s comments on the end of
Daniel 9:27: “and until destruction and extermination befall
the dumb one and the ruling of the abomination will endure
until the day that the destruction and extermination decreed
upon it [will] befall it, in the days of the king Messiah.”
Once again, Rashi sees Daniel’s prophecy as ultimately pointing
to the Messiah and his reign, but in a way that is completely
unrelated to the passage. It is almost like counting down
for the launch of a rocket, with everyone gathered around
the launchpad in great expectation, then the countdown is
completed, liftoff is announced…but the rocket doesn’t take
off for two thousand years. Something is wrong with this picture.
Yet that is exactly what happens with Rashi’s interpretation
of the passage: He explains how all the prophesied events
culminate and unfold in a time period one generation after
Jesus and then says, “And the real end of the story will take
place in the days of the Messiah” – which, according to traditional
Judaism, still have not arrived, now two thousand years later.
– Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume
3, Messianic Prophecy Objections, p. 90
134.
I find it interesting that Rachmiel Frydland, a well-known
Messianic Jewish scholar, became a believer in Yeshua with
the help of Rashi’s commentary on Daniel 9:24-27. Raised as
an ultra-Orthodox Jew in Poland, Frydland narrowly escaped
death in the Holocaust, enduring terrible suffering and deprivation
in his flight from his homeland. 170 During an intensive time
of seeking the truth about the Scriptures as a teenager, he
read Rashi’s commentary and thought to himself – to paraphrase
– “He has the time frame right, but he got the wrong anointed
one!” Soon he realized, “It is not Agrippa who was cut off;
it was Yeshua.” His reasoning makes perfect sense. After all,
the death of Agrippa was of no great significance in terms
of God’s eternal purposes for his people Israel, neither was
it of great consequence in terms of the future of the Jewish
people, the city of Jerusalem, or even the Temple itself.
– Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume
3, Messianic Prophecy Objections, p. 91
Footnote
170: Frydland’s autobiographical story is told in Rachmiel
Frydland, When Being Jewish Was a Crime (repr. Columbus,
Md.: Messianic Publishing, 1998). To read his testimony of
faith in Yeshua, along with the testimonies of other Jews
– some of whom were ordained rabbis before coming to faith
in the Messiah – see
http://www.menorah.org/salv.html.
135.
First, traditional Christian translations are not the only
ones to add the word “the” before “anointed one” in Daniel
9:26. In fact, the oldest Jewish translation, the Septuagint,
translates mashiach as tou christou (“the anointed
one”), while the most recent traditional Jewish translation,
the Stone edition, renders it “the anointed one” rather than
“an anointed one.” 171 This is because the Hebrew language
can sometimes specify a particular person or event without
using the definite article, as recognized in the standard
grammars and, in certain phrases, in virtually all translations.
– Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume
3, Messianic Prophecy Objections, p. 91
Footnote
171: Note also that John J. Collins, a historical-critical
commentator who rejects the Messianic interpretation, also
translates mashiach as “the anointed one.” Daniel:
A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1994), 346.
138.
Notice the opening words of this passage, “In the time of
those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that
will never be destroyed” (2:44a). What does this mean? According
Rashi, “And in the days of these kings in the days
of these kings, when the kingdom of Rome is still in existence.
the God of heaven will set up a kingdom The kingdom
of Holy One, blessed He, which will never be destroyed, is
the kingdom of Messiah. it will crumble and destroy It
will crumble and destroy all these kingdoms.” 195 – Brown,
Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 3, Messianic
Prophecy Objections, p. 99
Footnote
195: Cf. further b. Avodah Zarah 2b.
139.
We noted previously (above 4.18) that Rashi understood the
anointed one mentioned in Daniel 9:26 to refer to Agrippa
and that he interpreted Daniel 9:27 with reference to the
destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E. 196 In other words,
without stating it – or perhaps without even being conscious
of it – Rashi dated some of the key events described in this
prophecy to the generation after Yeshua. Like most modern
Jewish commentators and translators, however, he understood
the text in harmony with the Masoretic accents and divided
the weeks into three periods of time: seven weeks, sixty-two
weeks, and one week. – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections
to Jesus, Volume 3, Messianic Prophecy Objections, p.
100-101
Footnote
196: The Talmud itself cites Daniel 9:26-27 as setting the
time for the destruction of the Second Temple; see b. Nazir
32b.
140.
This interpretation works well even with traditional Jewish
translations, such as the Stone edition:
Then,
after the sixty-two septets, the anointed one will be cut
off and will exist no longer; the people of the prince [who]
will come will destroy the city and the Sanctuary; but the
end will be [to be swept away as] in a flood. Then, until
the end of the war, desolation is decreed. He will forge a
strong covenant with the great ones for one septet; but for
half of that septet he will abolish the sacrifice and meal-offering,
and the mute abominations will be upon the soaring heights,
until extermination as decreed will pour down upon the mute
[abomination].
Daniel
9:26-27 206 – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus,
Volume 3, Messianic Prophecy Objections, p. 108
Footnote
206: The footnote to verse 27a explains that, “The Roman emperor
would make a treaty with the Jewish nation for seven years;
but for the second half of that term the Romans would violate
that covenant and impede the Temple service. The ‘mute abomination’,
i.e., a temple of idolatry, was erected by the emperor Hadrian
on the Temple Mount (Rashi).” I should point out that
the Stone edition’s rendering of the words we’en lo (v.
26a) as stating that the anointed one will be cut “and will
exist no longer” (my emphasis) is not representative of
the majority of translations, Christian or Jewish.
2.
On the Way the Messiah Would Come –
Typical
Perception of Traditional Judaism:
New
Testament Christianity erroneously interprets Zechariah 9’s
reference to a King riding on a donkey as a reference to the
Messiah.
Actual
Interpretations of Talmudic (or Rabbinic) Judaism:
Zechariah
9 prophecies that the Messiah would come riding on a donkey
and Daniel 7 prophesied that the Messiah would come on the
clouds of heaven.
2.
The Talmud states, “If they [i.e., the people of Israel] are
worthy [the Messiah] will come ‘with the clouds of heaven’
[Dan. 7:13]; if they are not worthy, ‘lowly riding upon a
donkey’ [Zech. 9:9]” (b. Sanhedrin 98a). 10 – Brown, Answering
Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 1, Historical Objections,
p. 74
Footnote
10: See also the commentary to Daniel 7:13-14 attributed to
Saadiah Gaon, in which these verses are once again interpreted
messianically, and see Rashi to the verses cited in Daniel
and Zechariah.
162.
- According to Zechariah 9:9-10, the king whose reign will
extend over the entire earth will come meek and lowly, riding
on a donkey. (According to Rashi and b. Sanhedrin 98a, this
is King Messiah).
-
According to Zechariah 12:10, cited once as a Messianic prophecy
in the Talmud, the Messiah will be pierced and killed. Zechariah
13:7 also prophesies that the shepherd – a highly significant
figure – will be smitten, causing the sheep to be scattered
(see above, 4.31). – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections
to Jesus, Volume 3, Messianic Prophecy Objections, p.
168
3.
On No Sacrifices –
Typical
Perception of Traditional Judaism:
New
Testament Christianity erroneously asserts that God no longer
requires sacrifice to atone for sin.
Actual
Interpretations of Talmudic (or Rabbinic) Judaism:
For
forty years before the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.
(starting at about 30 A.D.) atoning sacrifices were not accepted
by God even though they were required by God under the law
to atone for sin. And since 70 A.D. no sacrifices have been
offered due to the fact that the Temple has been destroyed.
However, sacrifices are not required by God since the destruction
of the Temple even though the Law of Moses and the prophets
clearly taught that sacrifice is necessary to atone for sin.
In the Messianic Age atoning sacrifices will not be required.
(NOTE:
An important facet of this particular point requires further
description. Having no Temple at which to offer sacrifices,
some Rabbinic Jews argue that the need for blood sacrifice
as the means of atonement has been set aside. To support this
argument, appeals are made to the Old Testaments prophets
as though the prophets had arrived at a greater understanding
that only repentance – or perhaps only death itself – was
required for atonement, not blood sacrifice. However, such
dismissals of the need of blood atonement only originated
by necessity as a result of the Temple’s destruction. Moreover,
any such appeals to the prophets on this matter are quickly
refuted by other Rabbinic teachings both before the Temple’s
destruction and after, even into modern times. These other
Rabbinic teachings explicitly assert not only the need for
blood sacrifice for atonement but also that the prophets were
merely emphasizing the need for true righteous living along
with blood sacrifice, not the lack of necessity for blood
sacrifice. Quotes 29-42, 46-55 cite these refutations from
Rabbinic Judaism. However, as indicated by the main description
above, the central issue under examination here concerns the
fact that modern Rabbinic Judaism does not disagree with Christianity
regarding the need for ongoing blood sacrifice in the present.
So there are those within Christianity and within Rabbinic
Judaism that agree blood sacrifice is no longer required.
As specifically indicated by quotes 43-45, some Rabbinic teaching
looks forward to the entire cessation of sacrifices as a result
of the Messiah. This again relegates the disagreement over
the need for sacrifices to a question of timing and whether
or not the Messiah has already come. Additionally, although
increasingly rare today, from the earliest times many orthodox
Christians looked forward to the rebuilding of the Temple
and the restoration of sacrifices, particularly as a memorial
after Christ returns and begins his millennial reign. In this
regard, the Christian view differs little from the views expressed
below by certain Rabbinic teachings – see quote 52 in particular.
Both sides view the current lack of sacrifices as a temporary
cessation to be restored later – although each side views
the purpose of the restored sacrifices differently. Consequently,
The chief difference between is the basis for abrogating the
need for ongoing blood sacrifice. Christianity asserts that
blood sacrifices no longer need to continue because a New
Covenant without sacrifices has been established and the ultimate
sacrifice of blood has been made in inauguration of that New
Covenant. As such, atonement is still by means of this blood
sacrifice. On the other hand, some modern Rabbinic Jews assert
without a valid mechanism or explanation that the need for
blood sacrifice simply stopped at some point even while maintaining
that the Mosaic Covenant requiring it is in effect.)
3.
According to b. Yoma 39b, God did not accept the sacrifices
that were offered on the Day of Atonement for the last
forty years before the destruction of the [Second] Temple
(this was known to the people by means of a series of special
signs, all of which turned up negative for those forty years;
see b. Yoma 39a). – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections
to Jesus, Volume 1, Historical Objections, p. 74
29.
Writing in the Encyclopedia Judaica, Anson F. Rainey,
a professor at Tel Aviv University and a foremost biblical
and Semitic scholar, provided these important insights:
The
prophets of the First Temple period often spoke out against
sacrificial ritual (Amos 5:21-27; Hos. 6:6; Micah 6:6-8; Isa.
1:11-17; Jer. 6:20; 7:21-22). Righteous and just behavior
along with obedience to the Lord are contrasted with the conduct
of rituals unaccompanied by proper ethical and more attitudes
(Amos 5:24; Micah 6:8; Isa. 1:16-17; Jer. 7:23). It has thus
been assumed by many scholars that the prophets condemned
all sacrificial rituals. [The Catholic biblical scholar Roland]
De Vaux has shown the absurdity of such a conclusion since
Isaiah 1:15 also condemns prayer. No one holds that the prophets
rejected prayer; it was prayer offered without the proper
moral commitment that was being denounced; the same holds
true for the oracles against formal rituals. Similar allusions
in the Psalms which might be taken as a complete rejection
of sacrifice (e.g., 40:7-8; 50:8-15) actually express the
same concern for inner attitude as the prophets. The wisdom
literature sometimes reflects the same concern for moral and
ethical values over empty sacerdotal acts (Prov. 15:8, 21:3,
27). Certain other statements by Amos (5:25) and Jeremiah
(7:22) have been taken to mean that the prophets knew nothing
of a ritual practice followed in the wilderness experience
of Israel. De Vaux has noted that Jeremiah clearly knew Deuteronomy
12:6-14 and regarded it as the Law of Moses. The prophetic
oracles against sacrifice in the desert are really saying
that the original Israelite sacrificial system was not meant
to be the empty, hypocritical formalism practiced by their
contemporaries. The demand by Hosea for “mercy not sacrifice…knowledge
of God more than burnt offerings” (Hos. 6:6; cf. Matt. 9:13;
12:7) is surely to be taken as relative, a statement of priorities
(cf. also I Sam. 15:22). The inner attitude was prerequisite
to any valid ritual expression (Isa. 29:13). Foreign elements
that had penetrated the Israelite sacrificial system, were
of course, roundly condemned by the prophets. Such was especially
the case with Israel (Amos 4:5; Hos. 2:13-15; 4:11-13; 13:2)
but also in Judah (Jer. 7:17-18; Ezek. 8; et al.). 124
Rainey
correctly rejects two impossible views: First, that the prophets
completely repudiated the sacrificial system; and second that
the prophets knew nothing about a sacrificial system in conjunction
with Israel’s wilderness wanderings. 125 – Brown, Answering
Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections,
p. 84
Footnote
124: Aaron Rothkoff, “Sacrifices,” EJ (CD-ROM), 14:599-615.
Footnote
125: If you read Anson F. Rainey’s remarks carefully, you
would have realized that some liberal scholars believe that
prophets such as Jeremiah and Amos were unaware of the teaching
in the Torah that connected sacrifices and offerings with
the exodus from Egypt and the wilderness wanderings. This
is because these scholars believe that those portions of the
Torah that record such events were written later, after the
days of these prophets. Of course, Orthodox Jews and Evangelical
Christians completely reject this view based on their belief
in the inspiration of the Torah, along with the internal evidence
of the biblical writings themselves.
30.
According to Dr. J. H. Hertz, the late Chief Rabbi of the
British Empire and the author of the English commentary
on the Torah and prophetic readings used in Conservative synagogues
worldwide, “Jeremiah by no means opposed sacrifice brought
in the right spirit. In his picture of the Restoration (Jer.
xxxiii, 18), due place is given to the Temple worship and
priestly sacrifices.” 126 With regard to the “widespread misunderstanding
[that] exists in regard to the attitude of the Prophets to
the sacrificial cult,” Hertz notes:
The
Prophets do not seek to alter or abolish the externals of
religion as such. They are not so unreasonable as to demand
that men should worship without aid of any outward symbolism.
What they protested against was the fatal tendency to make
these outward symbols the whole of religion; the superstitious
over-estimate of sacrifice as compared with justice,
pity and purity; and especially the monstrous wickedness with
which the offering of sacrifices was accompanied. 127 – Brown,
Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological
Objections, p. 85-86
Footnote
126: Dr. J. H. Hertz, the Penteteuch and Haftorahs, 2d
ed. (London: Soncino, 1975), 439.
Footnote
127: Ibid., his emphasis.
31.
In the words of Abraham Joshua Heschel, one of the most respected
Jewish thinkers of the twentieth century:
Sacrifice,
the strength and the measure of piety, acts wherein God and
man meet – all this should be called obnoxious? Of course,
the prophets did not condemn the practice of sacrifice in
itself; otherwise, we should have to conclude that Isaiah
intended to discourage the practice of prayer (Isa. 1:14-15).
They did, however, claim that deeds of injustice vitiate both
sacrifice and prayer. Men may not drown out the cries of the
oppressed with the noise of hymns, nor buy off the Lord with
increased offerings. The prophets disparaged the cult when
it became a substitute for righteousness. It is precisely
the implied recognition of the value of the cult that lends
force to their insistence that there is something far more
precious than sacrifice…What they [i.e., the prophets] attacked
was, I repeat, extremely venerable; a sphere unmistakably
holy; a spirituality that had both form and substance, that
was concrete and inspiring, an atmosphere overwhelming the
believer – pageantry, scenery, mystery, spectacle, fragrance,
song, and exaltation. In the experience of such captivating
sanctity, who could question the presence of God in the shape
of a temple? 128 – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to
Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 86
32.
As Chief Rabbi Hertz summarized, The Prophet’s call is not,
Give up your sacrifices, but Give up your evil-doing.” 137
– Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume
2, Theological Objections, p. 91
Footnote
137: Hertz, Penteteuch and Haftorahs, 561, here commenting
on Isaiah 1:4, 11-17.
33.
In fact, one petition is so important that it forms the last
of the Eighteen Benedictions, called the Amidah or Shemoneh
Esreh: “Be favorable, O LORD our God, toward Your people Israel
and toward their prayer, and restore the service to the Holy
of Holies of Your Temple. The fire offerings of Israel and
their prayer accept with love and favor, and may the service
of Your people Israel always be favorable to you.” 148 – Brown,
Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological
Objections, p. 97
Footnote
148: I have basically followed the rendering of ArtScroll
Siddur, 111, substituting LORD for HASHEM here and
elsewhere. For further discussion of this petition, see below,
3.13.
34.
This petition is also recited every day:
May
it be Your will, O LORD our God, and the God of our forefathers,
that You have mercy on us and pardon us for all our errors,
atone for us all our iniquities, forgive all our willful sins;
and that You rebuild the Holy Temple speedily, in our days,
so that we may offer to You the continual offering that it
may atone for us, as You have prescribed for us in Your Torah
through Moses, Your servant, from Your glorious mouth, as
it is said: [Num. 28:1-8 then follows]. 149 – Brown, Answering
Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections,
p. 97
Footnote
149: Scherman, ArtScroll Siddur, 33. A closely related
petition is, “May it be Your will, O LORD, our God and the
God of our forefathers, that this recital be worthy and acceptable,
and favorable before You as if we had offered the continual
offering in its set time, in its place, and according to its
requirement” (ibid., 35).
35.
Rather than teaching that prayer replaces sacrifice, the rabbis
longed for the day when they could offer sacrifices again.
As the note in the ArtScroll Siddur explains: “We
are about to begin ‘offering’ our communal sacrifices, as
it were. Before doing so, we recite a brief prayer that God
end the exile and make it possible for us to offer the true
offerings, not just the recitations that take their place.
150 Even the Prayerbook recognizes how important the Temple
sacrifices were. – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to
Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 97
Footnote
150: Ibid., 32, my emphasis.
36.
In this connection, there is an interesting tradition found
in Rashi’s commentary to Genesis 15:6 (“Abraham believed the
LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness”). Rashi
explains:
6.
And he believed in the Lord He did not request of Him
a sign regarding this, but regarding the inheritance of the
land, he did request of Him a sign, and he said to Him, “How
will I know? [from b. Nedarim 32a] and He accounted
it to him as righteousness The Holy One, blessed be He,
accounted it to Abram as a merit and as righteousness for
the faith that he believed in Him (Targum Jonathan). Another
explanation for: “How will I know?” He did not ask Him for
a sign but he said before Him, “Let me know with what merit
will they [my descendants] remain therein [in the Land]?”
The Holy One, blessed be He replied, “With the merit of the
sacrifices.” 157
What
a concept! Abraham’s descendants would be able to stay in
the Promised Land through the merit of the sacrifices. How
important then, were the sacrifices, even in the traditional
Jewish thinking? – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to
Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 100
Footnote
157: As rendered by Rabbi Rosenberg. The commentary of Gur
Aryeh to Rashi here is illuminating.
37.
Obviously, this ceremony was of great importance, and it would
be an error to downplay the key role played by the shedding
of blood in the faith of our forefathers. In fact, the Targum
of Onkelos, the most important Aramaic translation of the
Torah read in the synagogues in the early centuries of this
era, added a surprising phrase to Exodus 24:8, which I have
emphasized here: “And Moses took the blood and poured it on
the altar as atonement for the people.” How interesting!
The Rabbinic traditions reflected in the Targum actually went
beyond the text of Scripture by stating that this blood provided
atonement for the people. This indicates that the concepts
of the shedding of blood and atonement were intimately connected
in the minds of the Talmudic rabbis and their predecessors.
163 – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus,
Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 105
Footnote
163: On the dating and origin of the Targum Onkelos, see Philip
S. Alexander, “Targum, Targumim,” in The Anchor Bible
Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday,
1992), 6:320-31 (specifically, 321-22).
38.
As Rashi explained, “for every creature is dependent on blood,
therefore I have given it to you on the altar to atone for
the life of man; let life come and atone for the life.” In
other words, the reason that blood sacrifices played such
a central role in the Torah is because the operated on the
principle of substitution, i.e., on the principle of life
for life. Thus, an ancient midrash on Leviticus 1:2 states:
“When you voluntarily offer a korban olah [i.e., a
burnt offering] and it is slaughtered and its blood sprinkled
upon the altar, I consider it as if you have offered your
very selves.” 170 Similarly, Rabbi J. H. Hertz, commenting
on Leviticus 17:11, observed, “The use of blood, representing
life, in the rites of atonement symbolized the complete yielding
up of the worshipper’s life to God, and conveyed the thought
that the surrender of a man to the will of God carried with
it the assurance of Divine pardon.” 171 – Brown, Answering
Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections,
p. 107
Footnote
170: Midrash Ha-Chafetz to Leviticus 1:2, cited in Torah
Shelemah 25:17 and by Joshua Berman, The Temple: Its
Symbolism and Meaning Then and Now (Northvale, N.J.: Jason
Aronson, 1995), 126.
Footnote
171: Hertz, Pentateuch and Haftorahs, 487.
39.
It is in the context of animal sacrifices – specifically,
the wording of Leviticus 1:4 {“He is to lay his hand on the
head of the burnt offering, and it will be accepted on his
behalf to make atonement for him”) – that the Talmudic rabbis
asked,
Does
the laying on of the hand [on the sacrifice] make atonement
for one? Does not atonement come through the blood, as it
is said: For it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason
of the life! [Lev. 17:11]…Does the waving [of the offering]
make atonement? Is it not the blood which makes atonement
by reason of the life” [again, Lev. 17:11]? B. Yoma 5a, as
translated in the Soncino Talmud; cf. also the virtually
identical wording in b. Zevahim 6a; b. Menahot 93b; Sifra
4:9). 175 – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus,
Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 108
Footnote
175: Jacob Neusner, in his American translation, renders the
key words as “atonement is only through the blood.”
40.
Thus, Oxford professor Geza Vermes, one of the foremost Jewish
scholars of the Dead Sea Scrolls, stated that “according to
Jewish theology, there can be no expiation without the shedding
of blood: ‘en kapparah ‘ella’ bedam.” 176 Similarly,
Professor Baruch Levine, in his commentary on Leviticus for
the Jewish Publication Society wrote, “Expiation by means
of sacrificial blood-rites is a prerequisite for securing
God’s forgiveness. As the rabbis expressed it, ein kapparah
‘ella’ be-dam, ‘There is no ritual expiation except by
means of blood.’” 177 – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections
to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 109
Footnote
176: Geza Vermes, “Redemption and Genesis xxii: The binding
of Isaac and the Sacrifice of Jesus,” in his Scripture
and Tradition in Judaism, Studia Post-biblica 4
(Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1961), 193-227 (here, 205) with reference
to b. Yoma 5a. Interestingly, Vermes adds, “The antiquity
of this Talmudic rule is attested by the Epistle to the Hebrews
ix. 22: xoris haimatekxusias ou ginetai aphesis, ‘without
the shedding of blood there is not remission’” (ibid., 205,
n. 4).
Footnote
177: Hartley, Leviticus, 23, with reference also to
b. Yoma 5a. Although I have assembled these references on
my own, I was interested to see that the Talmudic quotes together
with the citation from Baruch Levine, were also cited in a
Jews for Jesus web site refuting the erroneous position of
Rabbi Tovia Singer. See www.jews-for-jesus .org/CASE/BIBLICAL/Sin.html.
41.
This concept is so ingrained in the Jewish psyche that to
this day many Orthodox Jews around the world still offer a
blood sacrifice on the eve of Yom Kippur (or in some circles,
the eve of Rosh Hashanah), taking a live rooster (for men)
or hen (for women) and waving it around their heads three
times as they say, “This is my substitute, this is my vicarious
offering, this is my atonement [kapparah]. This rooster
(or hen) shall meet death, but I shall find a long and pleasant
life of peace.” 179 – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections
to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 109
Footnote
179: We will make reference to this ceremony again below,
3.13.
42.
To further emphasize the vital connection between blood and
atonement, let me cite the observations made by the two most
important Talmud commentaries (Rashi and Tosafot) to this
Rabbinic dictum that “there is no atonement without blood.”
Rashi states that “the fundamental principle (‘iqqar)
of atonement is in the blood” (b. Yoma 5a). Tosafot, also
discussing the Talmudic statement that there is no atonement
without blood, makes reference to a passage found elsewhere
in the Talmud (b. Pesahim 59b) that indicated that the priests
had to eat certain specified sacrifices if those offering
were to have their atoning effect. 180 Tosafot then concludes,
“But in any case, the fundamental principle [again, ‘iqqar]
of atonement doesn’t exist without blood.” (b. Zevahim 6a).
– Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume
2, Theological Objections, p. 109-110
Footnote
180: See Exodus 29:33, cited above; this verse, however, which
we just cited above, refers only to the sacrifices offered
in the ceremony of the consecration of the priests.
46.
Or as expressed by Baruch Levine, a leading Jewish authority
on atonement and sacrifice:
Chapters
4 and 5 [of Leviticus] contain the laws governing expiatory
sacrifices, the purpose of which is to secure atonement and
forgiveness from God. These offerings are efficacious only
when offenses are inadvertent or unwitting. They do not apply
to defiant acts of premeditated crimes. Whenever an individual
Israelite, a tribal leader, a priest, or even the chief priest,
or the Israelite community at large is guilty of an inadvertent
offense or of failing to do what the law requires, expiation
through sacrifices is required. 223
However,
under certain circumstances, the ‘asham could atone
for intentional sins. As Levine noted:
The
offense outline here [in Lev. 5:20-26, or 6:1-7 in most English
translations] were quite definitely intentional! A person
misappropriated property or funds entrusted to his safekeeping,
or defrauded another, or failed to restore lost property he
had located….If, subsequently, the accused came forth on his
own and admitted to having lied under oath – thus assuming
liability for the unrecovered property – he was given the
opportunity to clear himself by making restitution and by
paying a fine of 20 percent to the aggrieved party. Having
lied under oath, he had also offended God and was obliged
to offer an ‘asham sacrifice in expiation….God accepts
the expiation even of one who swears falsely in His name because
the guilty person is willing to make restitution to the victim
of his crime. 224 – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections
to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 128
Footnote
223: Hartley, Leviticus,18.
Footnote
224: Ibid., 32-33.
47.
With regard to the kinds of sins atoned for by the sacrificial
goats of Yom Kippur, the Talmud is even more explicit than
the biblical text. Here are two different translations of
m. Shevu’ot 1:6, a well known text in traditional Jewish law:
A.
And for a deliberate act of imparting uncleanness to the sanctuary
and its Holy Things, a goat [whose blood is sprinkled] inside
and the Day of Atonement effect atonement.
B.
And for all other transgression which are in the Torah –
C.
the minor or serious, deliberate or inadvertent, those done
knowingly or done unknowingly, violating a positive or a negative
commandment, those punishable by extirpation [karet]
and those punishable by death at the hands of the court,
D.
the goat which is sent away [Lev. 16:21] effects atonement.
227
And
for uncleanness that occurs in the Temple and to its holy
sacrifices through wantonness, [the] goat whose blood is sprinkled
within [the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement] and the
Day of Atonement effect atonement, and for [all] other transgressions
[spoken of] in the Law, light or grace, premeditated or inadvertent,
aware or unaware, transgressions of positive commands
or negative commands, sin whose penalty is excision
or sins punishable by death imposed by the court, the scapegoat
makes atonement. 228 – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections
to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 129-130
Footnote
227: This is the translation of Jacob Neusner, The Midrash
(New Haven: Yale, 1988), 622.
Footnote
228: This is the rendering of Philip Blackman, Mishnayoth
(Gateshead, England: Judaica Press, 1983) 4:340. He explains
“wantonness” to mean “conscious or premeditated sin by an
unclean person who ate of qadosim, holy sacrifices,
or entered the Temple,” the punishment for which would be
“forty stripes after warning” (340, n. 1).
48.
As codified and explained by Maimonides almost one thousand
years later (Laws of Repentance, 1:2):
Since
the goat sent [to Azazeil] 229 atones for all of Israel, the
High Priest confesses on it as the spokesman for all Israel,
as [Lev. 16:21] states: “He shall confess on it all the sins
of the Children of Israel.” The goat sent to Azazeil atones
for all the transgressions in the Torah, the severe and the
lighter [sins]; those violated intentionally and those transgressed
inadvertently; those which [the transgressor] became conscious
of and those which he was not conscious of. All are atoned
for by the goat sent [to Azazeil]. This applies only if one
repents. If one does not repent, the goat only atones for
the light [sins]. Which are light sins and which are severe
ones? Severe sins are those which are punishable by execution
by the court or by premature death [karet]. [The violation
of] the other prohibitions that are not punishable by premature
death are considered light [sins]. 230 – Brown, Answering
Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections,
p. 130
Footnote
230: Touger, Laws of Repentance, 1:2.
49.
The Talmud explains with reference to Leviticus 16:15-16:
He
[i.e., the High Priest] shall then slaughter the goat for
the sin offering for the people and take its blood behind
the curtain and do with it as he did with the bull’s blood:
He shall sprinkle it on the atonement cover and in front of
it. In this way he will make atonement for the Most Holy Place
because of the uncleanness and rebellion of the Israelites,
whatever their sins have been. He is to do the same for the
Tent of Meeting, which is among them in the midst of their
uncleanness.
The
rabbis (see b. Shevu’ot 2b; 6b-14a) comment specifically on
the words rebellion (transgressions in Hebrew) and
sins, explaining that “transgressions” refers to acts
of rebellion – which are certainly intentional – while “sins”
refers to inadvertent acts. 232 And it is the goat whose blood
is sprinkled in the Most Holy Place that effects atonement
for the people, just as the blood of the bull offered up by
the High Priest effects atonement for him (m . Shevu’ot 1:7,
following Lev. 16:11, “Aaron shall bring the bull for his
own sin offering to make atonement for himself and his household,
and he is to slaughter the bull for his own sin offering.”).
– Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume
2, Theological Objections, p. 131
Footnote
232: See the commentary of Bertinoro – the “Rashi” of Mishnah
commentaries – to m. Shevu’ot 1:6.
50.
We can also ask why many Orthodox Jews still practice the
custom of kapparos (or kapparot) on the eve
of Yom Kippur (or Rosh Hashanah) if sacrifices only atoned
for unintentional sins. Why then do they take a live fowl
and wave it around their heads while confessing that the fowl
is their substitute and payment? As described by Rabbi Abraham
Chill:
A
custom that has prevailed in many Jewish communities throughout
the world for centuries and which was the cause of a great
deal of controversy and apologetics is that of Kapparot,
the expiatory offering. This ritual, which takes place during
the night and early morning preceding Yom Kippur, involves
the taking of a live white fowl, swinging it around ones’
head while reciting: “This is my atonement; this is my ransom;
this is my substitute.” As if saying: if on Yom Kippur it
is decreed that I must die, then this fowl which will shortly
be slaughtered should serve as my substitute.” 234 – Brown,
Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological
Objections, p. 132
Footnote
234: Abraham Chill, The Minhagim (New York: Sepher-Hermon,
1979), 200-201.
51.
Dr. Rich Robinson, a research scholar for Jews for Jesus,
has put together some important quotations on this subject.
He observes that “according to the sages, repentance could
turn an intentional sin offering into an unintentional sin
and so be eligible for sacrifice,” offering the following
ancient and modern sources in support:
R.
Simeon b. Lakish said: Great is repentance, which converts
intentional sins into unintentional sins (b. Yoma 86b; this
is the rendering of Milgrom; as rendered in the Soncino edition,
it reads: Great is repentance, for because of it premeditated
sins are counted as errors). This literary image [of the “high
hand”; Num. 15:30-31] is most apposite for the brazen sinner
who commits his acts in open defiance of the Lord (cf. Job.
38:15). The essence of this sin is that it is committed flauntingly.
However, sins performed in secret, even deliberately, can
be commuted to the status of inadvertencies by means of repentance.
239
…I
submit that the repentance of the sinner, through his remorse…and
confession..., reduces his intentional sins to an inadvertence,
thereby rendering it eligible for sacrificial expiation. 240
…The
early rabbis…raise the question of how the high priest’s bull
is capable of atoning for his deliberate sins, and they reply,
“Because he has confessed his brazen and rebellious deeds
it is as if they become as unintentional ones before him”
(Sipra, Ahare par. 2:4,6; cf. t. Yoma 2:1). Thus it is clear
that the Tannaites attribute to repentance – strikingly, in
a sacrificial ritual – the power to transform a presumptuous
sin against God, punishable by death, into an act of inadvertence,
expiable by sacrifice. 241 – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections
to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 135
Footnote
239: Milgrom, Numbers, 125.
Footnote
240: Jacob Milgrom, “the Priestly Doctrine of Repentance,”
Revue Biblique 82 (1975): 186-205.
Footnote:
241: Milgrom, Leviticus, 373.
52.
I should also remind you that the last of the Eighteen Benedictions
(Shemoneh Esreh), recited daily by traditional Jews, is a
prayer for the rebuilding of the Temple. I quoted this earlier
(above, 3.9), but it’s worth quoting again: “Be favorable,
O LORD our God, toward Your people Israel and toward their
prayer, and restore the service to the Holy of Holies of Your
Temple. The fire-offerings of Israel and their prayer accept
with love and favor, and may the service of Your people Israel
be favorable to You.” – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections
to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 143
53.
Interestingly, the commentary of Etz Yoseph explains the petition
for restoration of the Temple service as follows: “As we conclude
Shemoneh Esrei, which is our substitute for the Temple’s
sacrificial service, we ask the true service to be
restored to the Temple.” 250 – Brown, Answering Jewish
Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections,
p. 143-144
Footnote
250: Cited in Scherman, ArtScroll Siddur, 110, their
emphasis.
54.
Let me offer another piece of evidence that Jews around the
world have often felt the need for a blood sacrifice at the
time of Rosh Hashanah or Yom Kippur, wanting to have something
die as a substitute for their sins even though the Temple
was not standing. As we saw above (3.12), there has been a
persistent practice, common to this day, in which Orthodox
Jews perform the ceremony of kapparot on the eve of
either of the holidays just mentioned. To expand our previous
description of this ceremony, let me quote the Encyclopedia
Judaica:
Kapparot:
custom in which the sins of a person are symbolically transferred
to a fowl. The custom is practiced in certain Orthodox circles
on the day before the Day of Atonement (in some congregations
also on the day before Rosh Ha-Shanah or on Hoshana Rabba).
Psalms 107:10, 14, 17-21, and Job 33:23-24 are recited; then
a cock (for a male) or a hen (for a female) is swung around
the head three times while the following is pronounced: “This
is my substitute, my vicarious offering, my atonement; this
cock (or hen) shall meet death, but I shall find a long and
pleasant life of peace.” The fowl is thought to take on any
misfortune which might otherwise befall a person in punishment
of his sins. After the ceremony, it is customary to donate
the fowl to the poor, except for the intestines which are
thrown to the birds. Some rabbis recommended that money, equivalent
to the fowl’s value, be given instead. 256 – Brown, Answering
Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections,
p. 149
Footnote
256: “Kapparot,” EJ (CD-ROM), 10:756-57.
55.
In b. Sukkah 55b (see also Pesikta deRav Kahana, Buber edition,
193b-194a) we read that the seventy bulls that were offered
every year during the Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkot; see Num.
29:12-34) “were for the seventy nations,” which Rashi explains
to mean, “to make atonement for them, so that rain will fall
throughout the world.” 259 In this context – and in light
of the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in 70 C.E.
– the Talmud records the words of Rabbi Yohannan: “Woe to
the nations who destroyed without knowing what they were destroying.
For when the Temple was standing, the altar made atonement
for them. But now, who will make atonement for them?” – Brown,
Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological
Objections, p. 153
Footnote
259: According to ancient Jewish tradition, and based on the
so-called Table of Nations in Genesis 10, there were a total
of seventy (Gentile) nations in the world. See, e.g., Nahum
Sarna, Genesis, The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia:
The Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 67-70. Note that the
sacrifices were offered up for seven days, beginning with
thirteen on the first day, then twelve, then eleven, etc.,
until the last seven were offered on the seventh day. Then,
on the eight and final day of Sukkot, one sacrifice was offered.
According to George Foote Moore in his classic work Judaism:
In the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the
Tannaim (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1997), 2:43, n.
2, “These burnt offerings were made, according to an often
repeated explanation, in behalf of the seventy heathen nations;
the one on the eighth day for the unique people of
Israel. When the heathen destroyed the temple, they destroyed
the atonement that was made for them.”
43.
Thus, Maimonides wrote in his authoritative Law Code, “At
this time, when the Temple is not standing and we do not
have the altar of atonement [my emphasis], there is nothing
but repentance; repentance atones for all transgressions.”
In teaching this, Maimonides was simply restating the teaching
of the Talmud found in b. Berakhoth 55a (among other passages;
cf. b. Sukkah 55b; b. Hagigah 27a): “As long as the Temple
stood, the altar atoned for Israel. Now a man’s table atones
for him.” 181 – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus,
Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 110
Footnote
181: According to Rashi (see b. Hagigah 27a), “a man’s table
atones for him” means, “in the entertaining of guests.” With
due respect to Rashi and the Talmud, it is only fair to point
out that there is absolutely no biblical support for this
concept. The Torah doesn’t even hint at such a thing.
44.
Professor Ephraim E. Urbach, one of the leading scholars of
Rabbinic literature, observed:
The
doctrine of R. Ishmael, R. Judah, and Rabbi that death – even
death without repentance – as the power to atone originated
only after the Destruction, for with regard to the Temple
period it is stated, “And for all other prohibitions ordained
in the Torah, be they light or grave…premature death and execution
by the court, the scapegoat makes atonement” ) M. Shev’out,
I, 6)…At the time when the Temple still stood, it was certainly
unnecessary and inappropriate to regard death as an atonement.
182 – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus,
Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 111
Footnote
182: Urbach, The Sages, 432, 434. For a discussion
of this very important passage cited here from the Mishnah,
see below, 3.12.
45.
This is the consistent position of the Scriptures as well
as the consistent position of the Talmud. To quote Urbach
again:
The
fasts that multiplied after the Destruction also assumed the
character of a surrogate and replacement for the atonement
effected by the sacrifices. This fact found concrete expression
in the prayer attributed to Rav Sheshet: “Sovereign of the
universe, it is known to Thee that when the Temple was in
existence, if a man sinned he would bring a sacrifice, of
which only the fat and the blood were offered up, and he would
be granted atonement. Now I have observed a fast and my own
fat and blood have been diminished. May it be Thy will that
my diminished fat and blood be accounted as though I had offered
them up before Thee on the altar, and do Thou show me a favour”
(b. Berakhoth 17a].183
It
was only after the Temple was destroyed that the Talmudic
rabbis came up with the concept that God had provided other
forms of atonement aside from blood. Once more, we will let
Urbach explain:
The
sacrifices only expiated iniquities between man and God, for
which it was not in the power of an earthly court to impose
punishment. Transgressions that were liable to punishment
by a court were not atoned for by sacrifices, and only the
penalty brought with it atonement for sin…When the court’s
right to impose the death-penalty was abrogated and the Temple
was destroyed, involving the abolition of sacrifices, a sense
of despair and the feeling that Israel had been deprived of
the possibility of atonement prevailed.” It once happened
that Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai was leaving Jerusalem and R.
Joshua was walking behind him, when the latter saw the Temple
in ruins. Said R. Joshua: ‘Woe to us that this is in ruins
– the place where the sins of Israel were expiated!’
Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai replied: ‘My son, be not grieved,
we have a means of atonement that is commensurate with it.
Which is this? It is the performance of lovingkindness, as
it is said, “For I desire lovingkindness and not sacrifice”’”
(Hosea vi 6; Urbah is citing Avot d. R. Nathan, Version I,
iv, 11a). 184– Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus,
Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 111-112
Footnote
183: Urbach, The Sages, 433-34.
Footnote
184: Ibid., 433-34, my emphasis.
72.
In fact, the second prophecy is the proof text that supports
the Rabbinic teaching cited above by Rabbi Hertz, namely,
that in the age to come, all offerings will be abolished except
the thanksgiving offerings.
R.
Phinehas, R. Levi, and R. Johanan, in the name of R. Menahem
of Galilee, said: In the time to come all other sacrifices
will cease, but the sacrifice of thanksgiving will not cease.
All other prayers will cease, but thanksgiving will not cease.
As it is written (Jeremiah 33), “…the voice of joy and the
voice of gladness” (Leviticus Rabbah, 9:7; see also Midrash
Psalms 56:4, with reference to Neh. 12:40). 307 – Brown, Answering
Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections,
p. 185
Footnote
307: Cited in Montefiore and Loewe, Rabbinic Anthology,
350. The rabbis also cite Psalm 56:13 as a proof text.
(Continued...)
