There are many times when angels are mentioned
in scripture. However, there are also occasions when a special angel appears;
this angel is called by a specific name, 'The Angel of the L-rd', and he
is shown to be manifestly different from ordinary angels.
For example, when Abraham is directed to sacrifice
his son on Mt. Moriah, before he can complete his work the Angel of the
L-rd calls to him out of heaven (Gen. 22:12). '. . . I know now that you
fear G-d,' he says, 'because you have not witheld from me your son, your
only son.' Here it would appear that the Angel is identified as identical
with G-d, himself. Isaac was not being offered in sacrifice to the
Angel, but to the L-rd, and yet the Angel says, 'you have not witheld from
me. . . '
In Genesis 28:13, the L-rd appears to Jacob,
and he names the place 'Bethel' ('House of G-d), because of this. Later,
the Angel of the L-rd appears (Gen. 31:11,13), and says to him, 'I
am the G-d of Bethel. . . '.
In Exodus, this same Angel goes before the
people during their escape from Egypt (Exodus 23:21). 'Pay attention to
him. . . he will not forgive your rebellion, since My Name is in him.'
The very Name of G-d is in him, and he has the power to forgive sins, which
is usually accorded to G-d alone. (Compare this with, 'But
that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive
sins. . . ' Mark 2:10; Luke 5:24).
This Angel appears to the parents of Samson
(Judges 13). They ask his name. He replies, that it is 'wonderful', that
is, full of wonder, or awe, or beyond understanding. This is the same Hebrew
word that is used in Isaiah 9, where the child to be born is called 'Wonderful,
Counselor, Mighty G-d, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace'.
The Angel appears to Joshua (Josh 5:14,15),
and Joshua bows down before him, and is told to remove his shoes, as the
place where he is holy ground. This is the same gesture Moses made before
the burning bush, because he was in the presence of G-d.
42. So are you saying that the
Angel of the L-rd is the same as G-d?
Yes and no; because
there are places where the
two of them are
also distinctly separate. For example, in Zechariah 1:12, the Angel
of the L-rd appeals to G-d, and intercedes for Israel. And in Isaiah 63:8,9,
it says, ' . . . So He was their Savior. In all their affliction He
was afflicted, and the Angel of His Presence saved them. . . '
From these and the preceding passages
there developed in Judaism a concept of a specific Angel, the Angel of
the Presence, or the Angel of the Face, or the Angel of the L-rd, or Metatron,
whose task was to represent G-d to men, and intercede with God for them.
Metatron was sometimes even described in more exalted terms than this.
For example, Elisha b. Avuyah claimed to have seen Metatron seated
in the heavenly kingdom, and therefore speculated that 'there might be
two powers'; though he was refuted (and he later apostatized altogether).
Other authorities, Karaites, thought the Talmud had originally contained
the phrase, 'the lesser (Divine Name)', who was identified as Metatron.
(see Encyclopedia Judaica entry for 'Metatron'). Metatron was speculated
to have been created with the creation of the world, or even before
it, and to have assumed most of the highest functions of the heavenly kingdom.
In the Kabbalah and the Talmud he is also sometimes identified with Enoch,
or the Adam Qadmon, the archetypal man. (See also Alfred Edersheim,
'Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah')
Thus this concept
is not very distant from the idea of a 'Son of G-d'--not a physical son,
but one whose likeness to G-d was so great that he was called G-d's
'son', or His image, who existed from before the creation of the world,
and whose task was to represent to men the qualities of G-d; and to intercede
with G-d on behalf of men.
43. How can you claim to be a
Jew and a Christian at the same time? Isn't this deceitful?
Both sides would agree that a Jew is a person
who follows Torah. . .
To reject Torah is to reject Judaism. The sticking point comes when
we consider what it means to follow Torah. To one side, following Torah
means living according to the covenant made at Sinai. For these, accepting
Yeshua is seen to be a rejection of Torah, for a covenant which does not
yet exist. For believers in Yeshua, rejection of messiah is seen to be
the most explicit rejection of Torah possible.
(BF)
Of course, it depends on your definition of Judaism.
(JI)
As you have noticed, there is 'Jew by descent'
and 'Jew by practice'. So in the first instance there is no problem. The
problem occurs with the second, because one groups states that they, and
they alone, practice Judaism as G-d intended it to be; and the other group
makes the exact same claim. One side says, 'Messiah is yet to come'; and
the other says 'Messiah has come'. One side says, 'The Covenant at Sinai
is the current covenant'; the other side says, 'The New Covenant has been
made'. So the answer to the question of 'What is the true Judaism?'
hinges on how these questions are answered. Both sides are vocal, stubborn,
and completely assured that they are right.
(BF)
44. So what is the difference between a 'Jewish-Christian' and an ordinary one?
In Christianity,
the term 'Jewish-Christian' is, in one way, redundant, since Christianity
is New Covenant Judaism. In terms of religion, and of standing before G-d,
there is no difference between a Jewish-Christian and a gentile Christian.
In terms of history and culture, however, there is a large difference between
the two. The Jew
has a a culture and a heritage that should be cherished. As Paul says:
Was a man already circumcised when he was called?
He should not become uncircumcised. Was a
man uncircumcised
when he was called? He should not be circumcised.
Circumcision
is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing.
Keeping G-d's commands
is what counts. Each one should remain in
the situation which he
was in when G-d called him.
(I Corinthians 7:18-20)
(BF)
Exactly the same word, 'haireseis' ('sect') is used in the New Testament to speak of the Sadduccees, the Pharisees, and the followers of Yeshua. (See Acts 15:5, 26:5, Pharisees; Acts 5:17, Sadduccees; Acts 24:5, 28:22, followers of Yeshua). Thus, it is clear that they did not see themselves as some kind of a 'new' faith, but only as a sect or part of Judaism, and with just as much claim to legitimacy as a part of the Jewish faith as the Pharisees and the Sadduccees. Indeed, the biggest problem they seemed to have faced was how, and under what conditions, they were to allow gentiles to convert into Judaism and join them. (See Acts 15:5. 19).
(RP)
45. Why should we believe in the Resurrection when even some of those who were present didn't believe in it?
Why should we believe in the revelation given at Sinai, when even some of those who were present didn't believe in it?
(JE)
What a poor bit of fable the resurrection story
is, if that's all it is. First, none of the PRIME players in the later
church are depicted as present to see it happen. Peter, James, John,
Mary, et. all, are absent. Wouldn't it have been a better fable on their
part to have made themselves a part of it, to have said, 'We witnessed
his rising?' This would have given them greater status in the church.
And then--to whom does Yeshua first appear? To them? To Peter, his supposed
'vicar' and possible head of the new believers? No. Not even to James or
John, but instead, to Mary of Magdala, a minor character in the cast.
Instead, what you have is a straight, simple narrative,
each witness speaking from his own view; they didn't even get together
to coordinate their stories.
Neither do you find the sort of invective you would
have expected from a fable. There is never a word said against Caiaphas,
or Annas, or Pilate--no derogatory adjectives. Again, just straightforward
facts. First this happened, and then that.
(RP)
Again, as Pascal says, human beings are very susceptible to bribery, changes of mind and heart, lying, promises, and fear of torture or death. Only one of the apostles had later to deny this story later, and the jig would have been up. Yet none of them did; instead, they died rather than recant.
(RP)
46. How can you say that Isaiah 7:14 mentions a 'virgin'? The word used there is 'almah'; and everyone knows that this doesn't mean 'virgin' in Hebrew. The word for 'virgin' is 'betulah'.
'Almah' , which is sometimes said to mean simply
'young woman', is used in several places, including Gen. 24:43, Exodus
2:8, Psalm 68:26, Song of Songs 1:3 and 6:8, Prov. 30:19, and so on. In
some of these places it would seem most likely that a virgin is implied,
if not stated. For example, in Gen. 24:16, Rebekah is called a 'betulah',
a 'virgin'. In Gen. 24:43, she is called an 'almah'. And when the Tenach
was translated into Greek (for the Septuagint), the word 'parthenos',
simple Greek for 'virgin', was used in Isaiah 7:14. (And this
was done more than a century before the birth of Yeshua.)
However, to muddy the waters a little bit,
there are, indeed, SOME occassions when 'parthenos' can mean something
other than a virgin (though that is not its usual use). On the other
hand, there also seem to be some occasions when 'betulah' might NOT mean
'virgin'. For example, in Joel 1:8, it might refer to a married woman.
And in the Genesis passage, (Gen. 24:16), it is further qualified by the
phrase, 'a virgin whom no man had known', or, 'a virgin, neither
had any man known her', which might seem an unecessary qualification if
that were to be considered obvious merely from the use of the word 'betulah'.
So, part of our problem is that we are living
2000 years, and in some cases, 3400 years or so (as in the case of Genesis),
from the time when these writers put these words down on paper; and there
is no one living today who can know, with aboslute certaintly, all the
possible shades and nuances of meaning that these words had. 'Almah', for
example, is thought to derive from 'alem', 'to grow up', 'to become marriageable'.
Jerome, the translator of the Vulgate (directly from the Hebrew), thought
that it meant, specifically, 'a young virgin'. This would suit the Jewish
tradition about Rebekah, that she was only a child, perhaps as young as
three years old, when she was betrothed to Isaac. Others have suggested
that it simply means 'an unmarried woman', who, by implication, though,
would still be a virgin. (In the related languages, Arabic and Syriac,
the related word is never used of married women.)
However, all of this must, nevertheless, remain
guesswork.
(RP)
47. But what does this matter, anyway? Isaiah was talking to King Ahaz. What good would a child to be born 700 years in the future be to him?
Certainly there was a cricis in the days of
King Ahaz. The people feared that the nation would be destroyed, and that
nothing would remain. G-d offers Ahaz the chance to choose a sign, any
sign, as a proof to him that this would not occur. Ahaz refuses; but G-d
offers him (and the believing remnant of Israel) a sign anyway. It is capable
of a double meaning--both as to the current situation, and as a hint
of things to come.
Thus, a child will be born. Before the child is
very old, old enough to distinguish between good and evil, the enemy nations
they so feared will have been overthrown. That is, within a period of about
three years, the country will be delivered from its enemies. (This period
would also match the length of Yeshua's ministry.)
However, the people may also be pointed to another,
second child. Isaiah's contemporary, Micah, was declaring about this time,
that 'But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the
clans of Judah, out of you will come for Me one who will be ruler over
Israel, whose origins are from of old, even from the days of eternity'.
(Micah 5:2). The prophet goes on to say, 'Therefore Israel will be abandoned,
until the time comes when she who is in labor gives birth. . . ' (verse
3). Now, this too is capable of a double meaning. It can be a reference
to the notion that exiled Israel will be reborn in a day, as is stated
in Isaiah 66:7. But it can also, in addition, refer back to
the statement just made, that is, meaning
until the specific child of verse 2 is born. So, in other words, the people
are promised a child--both in Micah, and in Isaiah, as a sign of G-d's
promise that the nation will endure.
Isaiah and Micah further intersect when Isaiah,
in chapter 9, goes on to announce, 'For unto us a is born, unto us a son
is given, and the government will be upon his shoulders. And he will be
called, Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty G-d, Everlasting Father, Prince of
Peace. Of the increase of his kingdom there will be no end. He will reign
on David's throne. . . from that time on and forever.' This child
coincides with the one from Bethlehem, 'whose origins are from of
old, even from the days of eternity'.
Thus, the people are to be reassured: the
nation will survive. A child will be born to prove this; and, by way of
double assurance, G-d promises yet another child, far in the future, who
will sit on David's throne and of whose kingdom there will be no end. From
this the people are to take heart and hope.
(RP)
48. But isn't that a mistranslation of Isaiah 9?
Usually, the practice in Hebrew is that if
there is a list of words, all of the words will be of the same type,
unless they are specifically identified otherwise. This is because Hebrew
is so economical in its use of words. Thus, if one word in a list is a
noun, all of the other words in that same list should also be nouns, unless
there is a specific exception. Some of the words in the list of titles
for this child ('Wonderful, Counselor. . . ' etc.) are undeniably nouns;
therefore, the rest of them should be regarded as nouns, as well.
Some modern Jewish translations insert verbs between the nouns, thus obtaining
something like 'Wonderful in counsel is the Mighty G-d, the Everlasting
Father' etc., but there is no linguistic reason for this.
Note that the word for 'Wonderful' here is
the same as that used in the story of the birth of Samson, where the Angel
of the L-rd, asked his name, replies, 'it is wonderful', (Judges 13:18)
meaning, 'full of wonder, ineffable, mysterious, full of awe'. Neither
this nor any of the other names of the list are likely to have been applied
to a human being.
Further, some Jewish thought also derived
hints of the Messiah from this passage. For example, 'R. Yose the
Galilean said: 'The Messiah's name is Peace, because it is said, 'Everlasting
Father, Prince of Peace. . . ' (Perek Shalom). And in the Midrash
Mishle (from the 9th century, perhaps from Babylonia): 'The Messiah
is called by eight names: Yinnon, Tzemah, Miracle, Counselor, Messiah,
El ('G-d'), Hero ('Gibbor'; another possible translation for 'Mighty');
and Everlasting Father of Peace'.
(RP)
49. Look, when the true messiah
comes, everyone will know he is the messiah. We won't have to go around
wondering about it.
How? Merely because he says he is the
messiah? A lot of people have announced this, and some of them (Bar Kochba,
Shabbatai Zvi, etc.) have been believed. No, they will know him if he fulfills
the prophecies about him in the scriptures. That's why the prophecies are
there, to serve as his ID card. For example, he must be of the House of
David, etc. Don't take any false messiahs.
(RP)
So when he begins his mission and calls all
of the Jews to him, are you just going to wait around until he finishes
his mission to be sure of who he is? That is, you're going to wait
until Israel is gathered home before you get up and go home? Sounds
kinda like circular reasoning, to me.
His mission clearly involves that the Jewish
people follow him. If you wait for some number to follow him before all
the rest follow him you still have the old 'Alphonse-Gaston' routine. ('After
you.' 'No, after you.' 'Oh, but I insist! After you. . .')
What will he do that doesn't involve the Jewish
people, that will convince them to follow him? Rise from the dead?
(BF)
50. In any case, there's no proof Yeshua was born at Bethlehem. That's just a preposterous story made up to make him seem to fit the prophecies!
Of course, neither you nor I was there, so
we can't really say of our own knowledge where Yeshua was born. But let's
look at it like this: supposing I were the writer of a gospel, and that
I felt it was necessary, according to my interpretation of the scriptures,
to have my candidate for the messiah be born in Bethlehem. BUT, his parents
lived in Galilee. So, in my account, I would have to get them from Galilee
to Bethelehem in time for the birth. How should I accomplish this?
Wouldn't it be much easier for me simply to
write that his parents had personal business there of some sort, and went
there for a time, and that during this time the child was born, and then
they returned home again? No one would ever be able to check up on this.
WHY would I write that there was an external event, the census, which required
them to go to Bethlehem??? EVERYONE ELSE would know whether there had been
such a census or not--and if it hadn't happened, it could make me look
like a liar straight off. And WORSE, why would I make my account say that
this census was for ALL of the Roman world? Then, for SURE, everyone would
know about it--and nobody would be convinced of the truth of my story.
So, this detail would make it seem less likely that the gospels are
inaccurate here; instead, it would seem more likely that they are telling
the truth about this, and that there really was such a census, which everyone
could remember.
Did they really require everyone to return
to a home city for a census in those days? Again, the same arguments as
above apply: everyone in those days would have known whether this was true
or not. And, we have found a papyrus in Egypt from a different census,
for that of 104 C.E., requiring that everyone in Egypt was required to
return home for that census. ( See A. Deissmann, 'Light from the Ancient
East', 1927, pp. 270-271).
(RP)