Mr. Stalheim:
A friend has forwarded your letter to me, so I shall now make a reply to it. For clarity, I will add your initials before quoting from your letter, and I will put my initials before my responses. Quotes from your letter will also be in red type.
[CS]
From: Carl Stalheim [mailto:laerdal12@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 12:27 AM
Subject:
Sir,
While googling for other material, I incidentally came across Rabbi Chaim Richman’s internet posting of “A Jewish View of the Messiah” and your responses.
I have never responded to an internet posting but your responses offered me an opportunity to test my ability to respond to these issues. You are in affect my first victim, so to speak.
I don’t have the time or research ability to comment an every point in your response to Richman, so I will respond to the few that are obvious to me.
General Comment: Your responses weakly or incorrectly counter some Richman’s points and leaves others wanting.
Please understand that there is a fundamental difference in the acceptance processes between Christian and Jews.
[CA] Wrong. There is no “acceptance process” at all when God converts a soul:
Deu 30: (6): And Jehovah your God will circumcise your heart, and the heart of your seed, to love Jehovah your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, that you may live.
Eze 36: (25): Then I will sprinkle clean waters on you, and you shall be clean. I will cleanse you from all your defilement and from all your idols. (26) And I will also give you a new heart, and I will put a new spirit within you. And I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give to you a heart of flesh. (27) And I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you shall keep My judgments and do them.
Jer 31:(33): But this shall be the covenant that I will cut with the house of Israel: After those days, declares Jehovah, I will put My Law in their inward parts, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
When God chooses to “circumcise the heart” of one of his people, it happens instantly. The so-called “acceptance process” never happens, because the people of God do not circumcise their own hearts — it is God who circumcises their hearts, sprinkles clean water on them, gives them a new spirit and a new heart of flesh, writes his law on their minds and inward parts, causing them to love him with all their heart and soul, walk in his statutes, keep his judgments, and do them.
So any talk of “acceptance processes” is meaningless. Either God is powerful to convert the hearts of his people or he isn’t. Which do you believe?
[CS] Historically, the Christian background is pagan with subsequent conversions to Christianity. The Christian’s history is with the precepts of the New Testament only – the Old Testament being generally relegated to a historical “proof” document. Christians start with the belief that Jesus and the NT are true and use the OT to find targets to prove the NT. Jews, on the other hand, come from a historical OT background with the precepts of the Old Testament practiced for a thousand years prior to and for 2000 years after Jesus’ advent. Therefore, for a Jew in any historical era to believe that the OT that he was raised with has been transplanted by a new one requires more than just a leap of faith or new passages that can be interpreted in endless ways. It requires incontrovertible proofs and absolute consistency.
[CA] All of which I provided in the article. Really, Mr. Stalheim, did you even bother to read the article before responding to it? If you had, you wouldn’t have needed to explain all of this to me.
And as for “passages that can be interpreted in endless ways”, please explain to me how many different ways this verse can be interpreted:
Joh 14: (6): Jesus said to him, I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
Not many possible interpretations of that one, now, are there?
[CS] To the new reader of the NT, the contradictions start with the first book, Matthew, and the contradictions are endless – between the OT the NT and between the NT and the NT. Yes, believing Christians rationalize many of them, but what you rationalize in one direction can also be rationalized in endless other directions. Rationalization is not proof – it’s meaningless. It’s meaningless to the non believer because it’s not proof and meaningless to the believer because the believer will believe – regardless; the believer simply cannot accept the consequence of the alternative.
[CA] Oh, there are contradictions in the NT, eh? “Endless” ones, no less. Care to point any of them out? Of course not. You would rather hide behind the excuse that I will just rationalize them away.
But if my rationalizations are so obvious and stupid, then exposing them for what they are ought to be child’s play, right? Well, here’s your chance. Go ahead and bring out your strong arguments. Expose me for the fraud you think I am. Here is a golden opportunity to PROVE (rather than just ASSERT) that there are contradictions in the NT. All it would take is just ONE of those supposedly “endless” contradictions. Go for it.
[CS] Richman irrefutably argues that many basic missions that the messiah needs to fulfill haven’t been fulfilled by Jesus.
[CA] Now its obvious you didn’t read my article. If you had, you would have read this:
There is, in fact, a very good reason why someone might not believe that the Messiah has come. It is the simple fact that God does not see the world as man sees it. When the Syrian army surrounded Dothan, did it not seem that Dothan was doomed (2 Kings 6:15)? When Daniel was thrown in the lion’s den, did it not seem that Daniel was doomed (Daniel 6:16-17)? Yet Elisha in Dothan and Daniel in the lion’s den enjoyed better safety than either the Syrian commander or the king of Persia. It was not the state of the world that proved they were safe; it was the will of God, which he revealed in the Scriptures.
So it is with the Messiah. His mission was not one which man would have chosen. Man would have chosen a Messiah who comes to Palestine and liberates the land from the tyranny of the Roman empire. But such a deliverance would have been worthless in God’s eyes. Suppose that the Messiah had liberated Palestine from Roman rule – then what? Who would have saved Palestine from the Byzantines or the Crusaders or the Ottomans? A Messiah who merely saved Israel from the Romans would look pretty insignificant today.
But the Messiah had a far more important mission than merely saving Palestine from foreign invasion. His real mission was to save the people of God from their sins (Isaiah 53:11; Matthew 1:21). By living a perfect, sinless life, and dying the death of a criminal, Jesus established a righteousness that answers the demands of God’s perfect Law and inflexible Justice. This is the very heart of the Gospel. At his death, the sins of the people of God were imputed to Jesus, and he suffered an ignominious death to atone for them (Isaiah 53:8; 2 Peter 2:24). The righteousness which he established is then imputed to the people of God (Psalm 85:10-13; 2 Corinthians 5:21). Thus, he accomplished not merely temporal salvation but eternal salvation – not merely salvation from the wrath of man but from the wrath of God. No matter what the state of this present world, the salvation which Jesus accomplished far outweighs any measly temporal salvation. The righteousness which Jesus established saves the people of God from the just penalty that sin deserves. …
Let me state clearly that I believe Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled every one of the above-mentioned prophecies, but in a spiritual sense, not a physical sense.
[CS] Also not refuted is his logical argument that with the lack of these fulfillments, a convenient “second coming” concept was established to explain the failures. His argument that the OT doesn’t have a second coming has also not been refuted.
[CA] I really wish you had bothered to read the article before objecting to it. If you had, you would have read this:
Now apparently, the tract which the professing Christian sent to Richman gave the impression that since Jesus did not physically fulfill these prophecies at his first coming, he will fulfill them physically upon his return. Richman recognizes the inconsistency here and writes: “The notion that the messiah does not accomplish these things upon his appearance, and therefore must return a second time, does not exist in the Old Testament. Wherever these things are foretold in the Old Testament, we are told that the messiah comes and does these things — once. Where in the Old Testament is there even the faintest allusion to such a concept, that the messiah does not complete the job, and therefore returns a second time? Every prophecy about the messiah makes it clear that he comes once and does the job.” Richman actually sees what most professing Christians do not.
The shameful truth is that most people who call themselves Christians do not understand what the mission of the Messiah really was. They do not understand the need for an infinite righteousness, the shedding of blood, the remission of sins. They do not understand how God can be both a just God and a Savior (Isaiah 45:21). They might superficially understand how he could be just, or how he could be a Savior, but not both. They do not understand how the crucifixion of Jesus brings in a righteousness which alone answers the demands of God’s holy Law and inflexible Justice and which alone demands and ensures the salvation of everyone whom he represented. They want a Messiah who brings in the political system of ancient Israel and reestablishes the Temple, along with all its rituals and sacrifices. In short, they have more in common with Judaism than with Christianity, since they try to interpret the Messiah’s mission physically, not spiritually.
Note that I AGREE with Richman’s assessment of the tract he was sent. It is inconsistent to believe that Jesus was supposed to fulfill the prophecies of the OT physically, but FAILED to do so, and must now return a second time, this time to REALLY fulfill those prophecies. In reality, Jesus fulfilled all of those OT prophecies about the Messiah at his first coming, just not in a way that either Richman or the author of the tract would prefer.
[CS] To that I add, that from my reading of the NT, it is clear from many passages that these messianic fulfillments were supposed to be imminent. In one passage (don;t hae the time to review), Jesus indicated that the spoke he speaks to still be alive when this will happened. This by itsels is a strong reason not to believe the NT.
[CA] You didn’t even bother to read my article, and I’m supposed to believe you read the entire New Testament? Please.
Once again, if you had bothered to actually read the article, you would have seen this:
Let me state clearly that I believe Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled every one of the above-mentioned prophecies, but in a spiritual sense, not a physical sense.
So your “strong reason” to disbelieve the New Testament is entirely without foundation.
[CS] I will add a few of my own that weren’t fulfilled:
He will gather all of he Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
He will bring world peace and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. “Nation shall not lift up sword against nation; neither shall man learn war anymore.” (Isaiah 2:4)
He will spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel and unite all of humanity as one. “God will be King over ALL the world; on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One” (Zechariah 14:9) Note the term “all”, from the Hebrew “kol”, meaning all incliusive.
[CA] Again, I quote from my own article:
Just as not all descendants of Abraham were Israelites (i.e., those descended from Ishmael and Esau), but only those whom God chose, so it is with the nations. Not every single individual is chosen by God, not even among those who call themselves Christians. Jesus has brought some from every tribe, nation, and language, to reconciliation with God.
…
While the Scriptures speak of God gathering his people (Deuteronomy 30:4-5; Isaiah 43:5-6), I again insist that not all the descendants of Abraham are the people of God. Ishmael and Esau are two examples. Conversely, there were also those who were undoubtedly children of God who were not children of Abraham (e.g., Melchizedek, Rahab, and Ruth). The children of God, the ones whom he gathers, are only those who are children of the promise (e.g., Isaac), not merely children of the flesh (e.g., Ishmael)
[CS] Many of your refutations are based on New Testament verses, but to those that don’t accept the new testament as gospel, that, sir, is circular logic: To believe in Jesus one needs to believe in the new testament and to believe in the new testament one needs to believe in the sayings of Jesus and the writings of the apostles, which themselves are taken from the same new testament. Hence the circular logic.
[CA] If you had bothered reading the article, you would know that it doesn’t contain circular reasoning. While I did present some New Testament verses in support of my arguments, they are almost always paired with Old Testament references, with two exceptions. The first exception is this:
But God wants a Messiah who brings in righteousness, trains his people in righteousness, and teaches them to judge righteous judgment, even if they do not have the slightest authority in this world (John 7:24;1 Corinthians 6:2-3).
This was an oversight. I should have paired these verses with Psa 130:7-8 and Isa 45:22-25:
Psa 130: (7) Israel, hope in Yahweh, for with Yahweh there is loving kindness. With him is abundant redemption. (8) He will redeem Israel from all their sins.
Isa 45: (22) “Look to me, and be saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other. (23) I have sworn by myself. The word has gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and will not be revoked, that to me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall take an oath. (24) They will say of me, ‘There is righteousness and strength only in Yahweh.’” Even to him shall men come; and all those who raged against him shall be disappointed. (25) All the offspring of Israel will be justified in Yahweh, and will rejoice!
The second exception was this:
In any event, how does Richman know that Jesus “did not claim the role which was given him by the early church fathers”? To which of Jesus’ writings does he point as proof of this assertion? For that matter, to which of the contemporary rabbinical writings does he point? If Jesus did claim not to be God in the flesh, doesn’t it seem likely that some of his immediate followers would have written about that? In contrast, the disciple John, who was one of the foremost disciples, wrote more about the subject than any other disciple (John 1:1; 8:58; 17:5; 1 John 4:5; Revelation 1:17-18).
The set of references at the end of this quote refer exclusively to the New Testament because Richman made reference to “the early church fathers“. I couldn’t very well talk about “the early church fathers” by referring to the Old Testament, now, could I?
[CS] To give you a clearer prospective of how Jews view the New Testament, think of the Book of Mormon. To you the Mormon book is probably meaningless; just because Joseph Smith said that it’s divine doesn’t make it so. I think that we both agree with this one. Likewise, to us, the New Testament is meaningless; just because a group of bishops got together at a synod and after much disagreement decided which books are and which aren’t divine doesn’t make it so.
[CA] Believe it or not, Mr. Stalheim, I am smart enough to know whether Jews believe in the New Testament. I didn’t include New Testament references in my article because I thought it would somehow be authoritative to Jews, but to show where the New Testament makes its own arguments and references to the Old Testament.
Since you didn’t read the article, I’ll include an example here:
Yet Richman does not deal with a Messianic prophecy that Jesus himself offered to his critics: “The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool” (Psalm 110:1). In the Gospel of Matthew 22:41-45, Jesus asks his enemies how David can speak of the Messiah as his Lord if the Messiah is also his son. They had no answer, and Richman has no answer.
You should take the time to consider Jesus’ argument in context, not because you would think of the New Testament as infallible, but because that is where the argument is recorded.
[CS] Allow me, an educated (I think) layman to respond to some of your refutations. I will consider your Old Testament citations and ignore New Testament citations because as I indicated, they are circular logic to me.
[CA] Interesting. So now you admit that I made reference to the Old Testament. Even you yourself are forced to admit that my supposed “circular reasoning” doesn’t exist. Thank-you.
[CS] You state: But if God himself came to earth in human form, would he not teach us the very truth of God? Would he not attribute to God all the glorious characteristics that he does possess? And would he not refuse to attribute characteristics to him that he does not possess? Of course. So the idea of the Incarnation is not idolatry after all. If it is God himself who is teaching us, then we are not in idolatry.
My Comments: Your logic is flawed. On the contrary; God did a very good job handing down the Old Testament in pure spiritual form without coming in human form. Coming in a supposed human form will, and did, cause people to doubt and disbelieve, and the facts prove it. The human god concept is one of the fundamental reasons why we cannot believe. It contradicts many OT passages of a singular God and reeks of paganism.
[CA] It’s fascinating how you can QUOTE from my article without actually READING it. Where did I say, or even imply, that the Old Testament was anything less than pure and spiritual? My argument had nothing whatsoever to do with the nature of the Old Testament text, but with the subject of the Incarnation. And the doctrine of the Incarnation takes nothing away from the pure, spiritual form of the Old Testament text.
You are absolutely correct when you say that the Incarnation “cause[d] people to doubt and disbelieve”. In fact, Jesus himself made this very point in Matthew 13:10-15. And, no, this is not circular reasoning because in the verse I just referenced, Jesus is quoting Isaiah 6:9-10:
Isa 6: (9) And He said, Go and say to this people, Hearing you hear, but do not understand; and seeing you see, but do not know. (10) Make the heart of this people fat, and make his ears heavy, and shut his eyes, that he not see with his eyes, and hear with his ears, and understand with his heart, and turn back, and one heals him.
God WANTED certain people to doubt and disbelieve the Gospel. That is because (as I pointed out above, and as Paul argues in chapters 9 and 11 of his letter to the Romans) not all the descendants of Abraham are children of God.
Furthermore, you should know that the Christian doctrine of God is that he is one God, existing in three persons. This is not polytheism, but Trinitarianism. You may not agree with Trinitarianism, but that doesn’t mean it contradicts the doctrine of a singular God.
Lastly, I notice that you haven’t answered any of the questions I asked in the article. They are:
- But if God himself came to earth in human form, would he not teach us the very truth of God?
- Would he not attribute to God all the glorious characteristics that he does possess?
- And would he not refuse to attribute characteristics to him that he does not possess?
Please answer these questions.
[CS] You state: So the next question is, was Jesus really God in the flesh? There can be no doubt that he claimed to be (John 8:58). So the next step should be to examine the biblical prophecies about the Messiah to see if Jesus fulfilled them. If so, then his claim to be God incarnate should be accepted. On the other hand, if he did not fulfill them, then his claim to be Messiah can be safely rejected. But the supreme standard should be the biblical prophecies.
My Comments: You go into great side detail, but your target is Isaiah 53:11. The proof in Isaiah 53 is sorely lacking Without the NT there is no indication from this chapter that it refers to Jesus.
[CA] My “target” is ALL the biblical prophecies, including Isa 53:11. Discussing other biblical prophecies is hardly going into side detail, especially when Richman himself also discussed those same prophecies. Would you have accused Richman of going into side detail, when he should have just been focusing on Isa 53:11? Of course not.
So let’s look at Isa 53:11. Here it is in several different versions:
Isa 53: (11) Of the travail of his soul he shall see to the full, even My servant, who by his knowledge did justify the Righteous One to the many, and their iniquities he did bear. (JPS)
Isa 53: (11) He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. (KJV)
Isa 53: (11) He shall see the fruit of the travail of His soul; He shall be fully satisfied. By His knowledge the righteous One, My Servant, shall justify for many, and He shall bear their iniquities. (LITV)
Isa 53: (11) Of the labour of his soul he seeth–he is satisfied, Through his knowledge give righteousness Doth the righteous one, My servant, to many, And their iniquities he doth bear. (YLT)
- Who is it that is “travailing”? It is of no value to say, Oh, it could be anyone. Does this verse refer to Isaiah himself? Does it refer to King Hezekiah? Does it refer to some other king? Or does it refer to the Messiah? Who is the subject here?
- I asked Mr.Richman this question: <<But if Richman believes that Isaiah 53 does refer to the Messiah, then how does this view of a “Man of Sorrows” who was “cut off out of the land of the living” square with Richman’s view of the Messiah as one who restores the Temple, the sacrifices, and the political system of ancient Israel?>>
- The JPS version says that the “suffering servant” justifies God to many. Why would God need to be justified to anyone?
- All 4 versions say that the suffering servant “bore” the sins of many. If this verse refers to the Messiah, and if the Messiah’s mission is to restore the Temple, the sacrifices, and the political system of ancient Israel, as Richman believes, then how does the Messiah “bear” the sins of anyone? In that case it would be the sacrificed sheep, goats, and bulls, that would bear the sins of Israel (Lev 17:11). In order to bear the sins of anyone the Messiah himself would need to be sacrificed. How could the Messiah BOTH restore the Temple, the sacrifices, and the political system of ancient Israel, AND bear the sins of anyone?
[CS] In fact, it tends to prove Jesus as the least likely candidate to be the suffering person. The suffering person is clearly not named and it could be any suffering Jew, any time in history, including those tortured in the name of Jesus, the Christian god and prince of peace, or anyone else for that matter. (Sorry for going off on a tangent but the 2000 years of Christian history does leave me with a bitter taste)
[CA] No need to apologize. Believe it or not, it leaves me with a bitter taste also. What those professing Christians did to the Jewish people was inexcusable. I do not even count them as my brothers in Christ, because they are murderers, and no murderer will inherit the kingdom of heaven (1Cor 6:9-11, if you’ll pardon this reference to the NT).
[CS] Furthermore, in this chapter, Jesus is the least likely candidate. Please see verse 10: “and God desired to hit him with illness to see if his soul would offer itself in restitution, he will see seed (children, “zera” in Hebrew) and will long live, and the will of God will in his hand succeed”. Jesus was not afflicted with illness, did not have any children, and died right after his supposed affliction. So there is no proof from this chapter that it refers to Jesus and whatever proof there is, is that it is specifically not Jesus. So therefore, your own logic now understands why we don’t accept Jesus from this passage and as you so well indicated his claim can be safely rejected.
[CA] Jesus did die in his affliction, and was buried. He then rose from the dead to everlasting life, inspiring his disciples (God’s spiritual children) to go out preaching about his death and resurrection to the whole world. Yes, I realize you don’t believe any of that. But that is how this prophecy was fulfilled. And since it was fulfilled, you have a responsibility before God to believe it.
[CS] You state: There is, in fact, a very good reason why someone might not believe that the Messiah has come. It is the simple fact that God does not see the world as man sees it. When the Syrian army surrounded Dothan, did it not seem that Dothan was doomed (2 Kings 6:15)? When Daniel was thrown in the lion’s den, did it not seem that Daniel was doomed (Daniel 6:16-17)? Yet Elisha in Dothan and Daniel in the lion’s den enjoyed better safety than either the Syrian commander or the king of Persia. It was not the state of the world that proved they were safe; it was the will of God, which he revealed in the Scriptures.
My comment: Your logic is flawed. True, God doesn’t see the world as we se it, but when God wants us to believe something he does it in way that we humans can understand and relate to. Yes, Dothan was doomed, and it was clear to everyone, but God created an open miracle through Elisha which defeated Syria and the multitude involved saw the miracle. It wasn’t a miracle because the bible says so, it was a miracle that everyone who was involved saw and the bible only reports it as such for posterity. Same with Daniel in the lion’s den.
[CA] I’m still amazed at your ability to quote an article without reading it.
Richman’s argument was: “The reason why Jews like myself do not accept Jesus as the messiah is a very basic one – we do not see that he fulfilled any of the requirements for the job.“
My response is: “God does not see the world as man sees it.” You even admitted I was right about that! So Richman’s reasoning for rejecting Jesus as the Messiah is exposed as mere sophistry.
And where do you get the idea that “everyone involved” saw the miracle? The Syrian army sure didn’t! Even Elisha’s servant didn’t see it until God opened his eyes.
[CS] Unlike the miracles of Jesus which are needed to have fundamental belief of his Divinity, the reportings of the Elisha and Daniel miracles are of little consequence to the fundamental beliefs in Judaism. Neither Elisha nor Daniel considered themselves divine and in need of these miracles as some proof of their divinity. God made those miracles to glorify his name and put fear into the Syrians and Persians.
[CA] The miracles of the prophets showed that they had God’s favor, and that they were true prophets of God. Jesus’ miracles also showed that he was (and is) a true prophet of God.
[CS] You state: By living a perfect, sinless life, and dying the death of a criminal, Jesus established a righteousness that answers the demands of God’s perfect Law and inflexible Justice. This is the very heart of the Gospel.
My Comments: There is no proof that this happened to Jesus. Again, just because it’s stated in the New Testament doesn’t mean that it’s so.
[CA] How do you know that the miracles of Daniel and Elisha happened? If you reject the New Testament out of hand, what reason do you have for believing the Old Testament?
[CS] You state: Only a sacrifice of infinite value could accomplish all that. Not all the rivers of blood that poured from the Tabernacle and two Temples could accomplish that (Psalm 51:16; Hebrews 10:4). Therefore, we see that the doctrine of the Incarnation is an absolute necessity to the Gospel and the remission of sins, because only the infinite God could be a sacrifice of infinite value.
My comment: Absolute nonsense. We see nothing of the sort from psalms 51. We see just the opposite. In Psalms 51 David prayed for forgiveness for the sin of living with someone else’s wife – a capital crime. Look at verse 16 and continue through verse 18: “Deliver me from blood guilt (capital crime), the Lord God is my salvation. My Lord, open my lips and let my mouth declare your praise” For you do not desire sacrifice else I would give it, a burn offering you do not desire”
Nowhere does it say as you indicate that a sacrifice is necessary.
[CA] First, you show me that you haven’t read my article, then you show me that you haven’t read the New Testament. Now you show me by your very words that you haven’t even read the Old Testament. Look more closely at Psalm 51, specifically verse 7:
Psa 51: (7) Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
The mention of hyssop in Psalm 51 refers to the Mosaic ceremonies recorded in Exodus and Leviticus:
Exo 12: (22) And take a bunch of hyssop and dip in the blood in the basin. And touch some of the blood in the basin to the lintel and on the two doorposts. And you shall not go out, anyone from the door of his house until morning.
Lev 14: (6) he shall take the living bird, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip them and the living bird in the blood of the slain bird, over the running water. (7) And he shall sprinkle on him who is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean. And he shall send out the living bird into the open field.
David is asking God to do something specific with the hyssop; namely, to dip the hyssop in the BLOOD of the SACRIFICED animal, usually a goat or sheep. David knew he could not be washed or cleansed without the SHEDDING of BLOOD.
And how did David know this? He LEARNED it from seeing, and reading about, the sacrifices made in the Tabernacle. So the Tabernacle was used by God to TEACH David in the ways of God.
[CS] On the contrary, the psalmist (King David) clearly states that praises to God is superior to sacrifice which the Lord doesn’t desire.
[CA] Notice that David doesn’t say that “praises” are an acceptable SUBSTITUTE for sacrifice. God is infinitely holy (Isa 6:4), so not all the blood of all beasts in the whole world could atone for even one sin. Any atonement for sin must be an INFINITE atonement. God’s very nature demands nothing less. And the only way that an INFINITE sacrifice could be made is if God himself were sacrificed. Thus the importance of the doctrine of the Incarnation for the Gospel.
Does any of this sound familiar? It would, if you had read my article:
Only a sacrifice of infinite value could accomplish all that. Not all the rivers of blood that poured from the Tabernacle and two Temples could accomplish that (Psalm 51:16; Hebrews 10:4). Therefore, we see that the doctrine of the Incarnation is an absolute necessity to the Gospel and the remission of sins, because only the infinite God could be a sacrifice of infinite value.
[CS] By the way, a sacrifice offering doesn’t atone for intentional sin – all sin offerings are for unintentional sins.
[CA] If that was true, then David was in a lot of trouble, because he DEFINITELY intended to fornicate with Bathsheba, and murder Uriah. David absolutely knew what he was doing.
[CS] You state: …And since Jesus was a descendant of David (apparently both on his father’s side [Matthew 1] and on his mother’s side [Luke 3]), and since he was resurrected to eternal life, David will never lack a man to sit on his throne (Isaiah 9:7).
My comments: Jesus couldn’t be a descendant of David because he didn’t have a father. An adopted son is not a real son; it’s is a jurisprudence concept adopted (pardon the pun) by the Romans for their legate benefit. As for being a descendant of David from his mother’s side, Luke also lists it as being from his Father’s side and contradicts Matthew.
I know the rationalization that the Luke genealogy is really from the mother’s side (without proof) and that the mother wasn’t listed because mother’s names were not listed due to modesty. However, the text speaks for itself and there is not proof to the contrary. Anyone can rationalize anything. By the way, almost every king of the Davidic dynasty listed in Kings II has his mother’s name also listed.
[CA] This quote from John Gill’s Commentary on the Bible is very telling. Note:
- Gill shows that even the Rabbis admit that an adopted son is considered a member of his adopted family, not his biological family. Therefore, Jesus would naturally be considered Joseph’s heir, even though he was not Joseph’s biological son.
- Gill shows that even the Rabbis admit that Mary was the daughter of Eli, thus making Luke’s genealogy applicable to her, rather than Joseph. There is therefore no contradiction between Luke and Matthew.
Luk 3: (23) And Jesus Himself was beginning to be about thirty years old, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Heli,
Gill (Commentary on the Bible, Luke 3:23, in loc)
<<being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph; who had espoused Mary before she was with child of the Holy Ghost, and afterwards took her to wife, and brought up her son; so that it was not known but that he was the son of Joseph. Whether or no the Jewish notion of the Messiah, the son of Joseph (y) may not take its rise from hence, may be considered: however, Joseph might very rightly be called, as he was supposed to be, the father of Jesus, by a rule which obtains with the Jews (z) that he
“that brings up, and not he that begets, is called the father,”
or parent; of which they give various instances (a) in Joseph, in Michal, and in Pharaoh’s daughter.
Which was the son of Eli
; meaning, not that Joseph was the son of Eli; for he was the son of Jacob, according to Mat_1:16, but Jesus was the son of Eli; and which must be understood, and carried through the whole genealogy, as thus; Jesus the son of Matthat, Jesus the son of Levi, Jesus the son of Melchi, &c. till you come to Jesus the son of Adam, and Jesus the Son of God; though it is true indeed that Joseph was the son of Eli, having married his daughter; Mary was the daughter of Eli: and so the Jews speak of one Mary, the daughter of Eli, by whom they seem to design the mother of our Lord: for they tell (b) us of one,
“that saw, מרים בת עלי, “Mary the daughter of Eli” in the shades, hanging by the fibres of her breasts; and there are that say, the gate, or, as elsewhere (c), the bar of the gate of hell is fixed to her ear.”
By the horrible malice, in the words, you may know who is meant: however, this we gain by it, that by their own confession, Mary is the daughter of Eli; which accords with this genealogy of the evangelist, who traces it from Mary, under her husband Joseph; though she is not mentioned, because of a rule with the Jews (d), that
“the family of the mother is not called a family.”
(y) T. Bab. Succa, fol. 52. 1. Jarchi & Aben Ezra in Zech. xii 10. & xiii. 7. (z) Shemot Rabba, sect. 46. fol. 143. 1. (a) T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 19. 2. Vid. T. Bab. Megilla, fol. 13. 1. (b) T. Hieros. Sanhedrin, fol. 25. 3. (c) Ib. Chagiga, fol. 77. 4. (d) Juchasin, fol. 55. 2.>>
[CA] Incidentally, this is not meant as an endorsement of John Gill; but I do think his reasoning on this point is excellent, and his references to the Talmud and other Judaic writings are telling.
By the way, I do have to admit that you have made one good point here. It is definitely true that one can rationalize almost anything, and you are doing an excellent job of rationalizing away all the evidence placed before you.
[CS] You state: 3. “… to oversee the rebuilding of Jerusalem, including the Temple, in the event that it has not yet been rebuilt …” I believe that Jesus fulfilled this condition spiritually.
My comments: You can’t prove something to me with a belief.. It also strengthens my point that Christians first believe and then interpret everything to fit in with the beliefs. See Ezekiel 41 through 44 and it will be very obvious that it’s a physical rebuilding – with much physical details.
[CA] Alright, you’ve got me there. I should have written “Jesus DEFINITELY fulfilled this condition spiritually.” Is that better?
As for the Temple that Ezekiel describes, if you really want to take that prophecy literally, then take it literally. Nowhere does that prophecy indicate that it would be fulfilled at any time other than the return from Babylon. If that prophecy was going to be fulfilled literally, then Ezra and Nehemiah should have been the ones to do it. Yet they didn’t. Why not?
[CS] You state: The mission of the Messiah was to establish righteousness in Israel (Isaiah 46:13; Jeremiah 33:16), while the Temple merely served to educate the people of God in the fundamentals of the Gospel: the need for righteousness, the need for the shedding of blood, and the remission of sin. Once the Messiah had established that infinite righteousness, there was no more need for the education that the Temple provided. The role of the Temple was fulfilled by the coming of the Messiah.. Therefore, God caused that Temple to be desecrated and destroyed.
Where did this idea come from? It’s definitely not in the bible (OT). The temple is the abode of God not a house of education. See King Solomon’s prayers to God at the opening of the Temple, in Chronicles II, chapter 6. Verse 2 “And I have built You a house of habitation and a place for You to dwell in, forever”. It is also a house of prayer where peoples prayers are answered by God, to both Jew and gentile”. Verse 21: “And hearken to the supplications of your servant (Solomon) and of the people of Israel when they pray towards this place. Yea, hear from your dwelling place, even from heaven, and when You hearest, forgive”. Imagine, forgiveness by prayer alone – without sacrifice. The temple is also needed for oaths given before the altar; forgiveness by repenting by prayer; prayers when smitten by an enemy; prayers for rain, in time of trouble, by gentiles, and for appeals for heavenly mercy. See verses 22 though 42.
[CA] Can you walk and chew gum at the same time? I sure hope so. But if you can do multiple things at once, what prevents God from doing the same? He could use his Temple as a dwelling place, a place to meet with his people, AND a place for instructing his people in righteousness:
Deu 6: (1) And this is the commandment, the statute and the judgments which Jehovah your God commanded to teach you, to do them in the land to which you are crossing over, to possess it, (2) that you might fear Jehovah your God, to keep all His statutes and His commandments which I command you; you, and your son, and your son’s son, all the days of your life; and that your days may be prolonged. (3) Hear, then, O Israel, and take heed to do it, that it may be well with you, that you may increase greatly, as Jehovah the God of your fathers has promised you, in the land flowing with milk and honey.
Jos 1: (8) This book of the Law shall not depart out of your mouth, and you shall meditate on it by day and by night, so that you shall be on guard to do according to all that is written in it. For then you shall prosper your way, and then you shall act wisely.
Psa 19: (7) The Law of Jehovah is perfect, converting the soul. The Testimony of Jehovah is sure, making the simple wise.
As I wrote above, concerning Psa 51: David is asking God to do something specific with the hyssop; namely, to dip the hyssop in the BLOOD of the SACRIFICED animal, usually a goat or sheep. David knew he could not be washed or cleansed without the SHEDDING of BLOOD.
And how did David know this? He LEARNED it from seeing, and reading about, the sacrifices made in the Tabernacle. So the Tabernacle was used by God to TEACH David in the ways of God.
For more on this subject, see Psalm 50.
[CS] You state: I readily admit that Jesus’ claim to be Messiah cannot be tested on a physical level. But I challenge the assumption that the Bible only emphasizes the physical level of reality. Again, I point to the examples of Elisha and Daniel. And furthermore, when Esau and his men sought to kill Jacob, which one appeared to have the blessing of God? When Pharaoh sought to kill Moses, which one appeared to have the blessing of God? When Saul sought to kill David, which one appeared to have the blessing of God? When Jezebel sought to kill Elijah, which one appeared to have the blessing of God? In every case, the person with the wealth, power, and worldly influence was the one without the blessing of God. But this was certainly not obvious on a visible level; it could only be seen spiritually.
My Comments: Yes, the bible does emphasize the physical level of reality. It was give to humans in language to be understood by humans. If it were given in a metaphysical form then only the angels would understand it.
[CA] I challenged “the assumption that the Bible only emphasizes the physical level of reality”. How in the world did you go from that, to charging me with believing that the Bible was “given in a metaphysical form”? That’s a total non-sequitur. Again, I really wish you had read my article before trying to answer it.
Obviously the Bible was given to Man in a physical form. That’s not the point at all. The point is that God is perfectly capable of communicating spiritual truths in a Bible that is written physically (or digitally, for that matter).
What I was really challenging was the assumption that the Bible ONLY emphasizes the physical level of reality. (That really should have been clear from the way I said “I challenge the assumption that the Bible only emphasizes the physical level of reality.”)
[CS] Along the same lines, if the concept of the dual nature of Jesus defies human logic (it is really not a paradox because a paradox can be proven) then logically it wasn’t meant for humans. It’s a fundamental Christian dogma and can only be accepted by faith, and faith is not proof. If one has faith, then proof is not needed. On the other hand, if we believe because we have faith, then Mormons, Moslems, Jews and various other believers also have faith and if faith is the criteria then who is to say that your faith is better than their faith.
[CA] The doctrine that Jesus is divine, as well as human, is neither paradoxical, nor in defiance of logic. Our Confession of Faith has this to say about it:
Jesus of Nazareth is really and truly God as well as really and truly human. He is the only descendant of Adam with two natures, human and divine. These two natures are continually without confusion, without change, without division, and without separation. Scripture rejects the lie that Jesus Christ was merely human and not fully divine. It likewise rejects the lie that Jesus Christ was a supernatural being but not fully human.
Since most of the verse references were taken from the New Testament, I won’t bother you with them. However, there is one verse we referred to here that you really ought to address, since I also referred to it in my article (again, you would have known that, if you had actually read the article). It is Psa 110:1. Here, again, is what I wrote about it:
Yet Richman does not deal with a Messianic prophecy that Jesus himself offered to his critics: “The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool” (Psalm 110:1). In the Gospel of Matthew 22:41-45, Jesus asks his enemies how David can speak of the Messiah as his Lord if the Messiah is also his son. They had no answer, and Richman has no answer.
[CS] I don’t understand the comparison between Jesus and the other examples that you cite regarding the blessings of God. I am not sure how to connect them as examples to Jesus as the messiah.
[CA] I really can’t stress enough the need to READ an article before responding to it. Here is what I said about the blessings you refer to, with three words emphasized:
In every case, the person with the wealth, power, and worldly influence was the one WITHOUT the blessing of God. But this was certainly not obvious on a VISIBLE level; it could only be seen SPIRITUALLY.
This is what I meant about the Bible not just emphasizing physical reality. Pharaoh LOOKED like he had the blessing of God, if the blessing of God is measured physically. Pharaoh had “the wealth, power, and worldly influence” that Moses did not have. But what Pharaoh did NOT have was the blessing of God. That was what Moses had, but it was the ONLY thing Moses had. Moses must have looked defeated, running for his life (Exo 2:15).
Daniel must also have looked defeated being thrown into the lion’s den. His life hung by a thread, while Darius slept safe and sound in his palace bedroom. If the blessing of God is measured physically, Darius had it all over Daniel. But Daniel had the blessing of God, while Darius did not.
The same goes for Elisha when his city was surrounded by the Syrians, Jacob when he ran from Esau, Elijah when he ran from Jezebel, and many, many more. It was not at all obvious, on a PHYSICAL level, who had the blessing of God, and who did not.
So it was with Jesus. Hanging on the cross, he must have looked pathetic and defeated. Tortured and humiliated by his enemies (Jews and gentiles alike), abandoned by his friends, betrayed by one of his own disciples, he certainly didn’t LOOK like he had the blessing of God. But as I have shown you, the Bible does NOT only emphasize the physical aspect of reality. As I indicated earlier, Jesus’ claim to be Messiah cannot be tested on a physical level. It must be tested on a SPIRITUAL level, just as the Bible commands (Deut 18:18-19, Psa 2:11-12, Isa 8:20).
[CS] Sincerely
Carl Stalheim.
[CA] In conclusion, Mr. Stalheim, I really hope you consider reading my article BEFORE writing again. That way, you will have many of your questions answered preemptively. Failing that, you might consider reading the New Testament, to understand our position. I would especially recommend Paul’s letter to the Romans; Paul discusses Jesus’ nature somewhat in chapter 5, and a little in chapter 8, but to get the full force of Paul’s argument, you really need to read the first eleven chapters together. (And by “read”, I mean ACTUALLY read, not just pretend.) … . Finally, I would be willing to continue correspondence with you, if you are interested. For that matter, I would still be willing to correspond with Mr. Richman, if, as he claimed in his original article, he is still interested in correspondence.
See Also:
A Christian View of the Messiah
What Did the Work of Christ Accomplish?
IV. Christology – The Doctrine of the Person and Work of Jesus Christ
The Gospel & Its Enemies 