News Letter 5853-036
The 1st Year of the 4th Sabbatical Cycle
The 22nd year of the Jubilee Cycle
The 19th day of the 9th month 5853 years after the creation of Adam
The 9th Month in the First year of the Fourth Sabbatical Cycle
The 4th Sabbatical Cycle after the 119th Jubilee Cycle
The Sabbatical Cycle of Sword, Famines, and Pestilence
December 19, 2017
Shabbat Shalom To the Royal Family,
Someone once said that if Yehovah does not punish the USA then Yehovah will have to apologize to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah for destroying them.
I was thinking about this today.
Thousands of people in Belair had to flee with just moments notice as a wall of fire raced towards them whipped up by the notorious Santa Anna winds. And they are saying these winds will be hurricane strength this week and will carry the fires even further. Right now they are racing at about a football field per second according to one news source.
So let me think here. Hurricane Harvey floods Houston. Then Irma hits the Carribean and the South East USA and that was followed by Hurrican Maria which devastated Puerto Rico. North Korea threatening to Nuke the USA and then shows us they can do this by launching ICBMs. Now we have wildfires in California. One fireman said they no longer have a fire season but they have fires from January to December or fire-years now. We must be dreaming. Will we have earthquakes too? And yet no one stops and thinks.
I see the supreme court is weighing the case of the Christian Cake maker who refused to make a wedding cake for a Gay couple. And the News makes the Christian out to be the bad guy the poor victims of this outrageous discrimination are the two Gay men.
The World is outraged at the fact that men are making advances at women in the workplace. Some are doing so by using their positions of power to get what they want. Sex! But it is that same Liberal left that is screaming and crying when Trump won and they would then wear the pussy hats. Those same liberals promoting the lust that Hollywood had in most of their movies promoting the seeking after sex and getting it. These same Hollywood movie makers promoting the LGBTQ lifestyle in all their movies and even Disney now has gay cartoons.Their lusts burned in them and on the screens. Oh and now their cities burn. Ironic.
Soon the sword comes. We have been telling you this since 2005. YAWN. Rolling over going back to sleep. We have been accurately telling you what was to come, each step of the way as we explain the curse for not keeping the Sabbatical and Jubilee years. But few listened. Christians and Messianic alike sought after signs. The planet Saturn in the womb of Virgo, the end of the world according to the Mayan Calendar. The so-called Jubilee year of 2017, the 70 years since Israel became a nation and here it is now at the end of that time and nothing of note. No Messiah.
But the next thing according to the Jubilee cycles is the Sword. And we see Iran now has its army stretched from Iran to the Mediterranean Sea. Saudi and Israel are working together to combat Iran. The EU is now openly supporting the PA after President Trumps decision to move the US Embassy to the Capital of Israel, Jerusalem. North Korea and Iran co-operating on arms deals.
Yehovah is about to whistle for that army that is to come and destroy the USA and UK. Oh yes Canada and its Gay Agenda laws along with Australia which has now blessed the Gay Marriage act are also about to see Yehovah’s anger also. His arm is stretched out against us.
Isaiah 5:20-30 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes,
And prudent in their own sight!
Woe to men mighty at drinking wine,
Woe to men valiant for mixing intoxicating drink,
Who justify the wicked for a bribe,
And take away justice from the righteous man!
Therefore, as the fire devours the stubble,
And the flame consumes the chaff,
So their root will be as rottenness,
And their blossom will ascend like dust;
Because they have rejected the law of the Lord of hosts,
And despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.
Therefore the anger of the Lord is aroused against His people;
He has stretched out His hand against them
And stricken them,
And the hills trembled.
Their carcasses were as refuse in the midst of the streets.
For all this His anger is not turned away,
But His hand is stretched out still.
He will lift up a banner to the nations from afar,
And will whistle to them from the end of the earth;
Surely they shall come with speed, swiftly.
No one will be weary or stumble among them,
No one will slumber or sleep;
Nor will the belt on their loins be loosed,
Nor the strap of their sandals be broken;
Whose arrows are sharp,
And all their bows bent;
Their horses’ hooves will seem like flint,
And their wheels like a whirlwind.
Their roaring will be like a lion,
They will roar like young lions;
Yes, they will roar
And lay hold of the prey;
They will carry it away safely,
And no one will deliver.
In that day they will roar against them
Like the roaring of the sea.
And if one looks to the land,
Behold, darkness and sorrow;
And the light is darkened by the clouds.
Who is it that Yehovah whistles for?
Isaiah 7:18-20 And it shall come to pass in that day
That the Lord will whistle for the fly
That is in the farthest part of the rivers of Egypt,
And for the bee that is in the land of Assyria.
They will come, and all of them will rest
In the desolate valleys and in the clefts of the rocks,
And on all thorns and in all pastures.
In the same day the Lord will shave with a hired razor,
With those from beyond the River, with the king of Assyria,
Yehovah’s hand is stretched out even now with these wildfires and with these hurricanes and earthquakes and Tornadoes and all these disasters that are now coming one after another to the USA. But it will remain stretched out until they are utterly destroyed by Assyria.
Isaiah 10:4-11 Without Me they shall bow down among the prisoners,
And they shall fall among the slain.”
For all this His anger is not turned away,
But His hand is stretched out still.
“Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger
And the staff in whose hand is My indignation.
I will send him against an ungodly nation,
And against the people of My wrath
I will give him charge,
To seize the spoil, to take the prey,
And to tread them down like the mire of the streets.
Yet he does not mean so,
Nor does his heart think so;
But it is in his heart to destroy,
And cut off not a few nations.
For he says,
‘Are not my princes altogether kings?
Is not Calno like Carchemish?
Is not Hamath like Arpad?
Is not Samaria like Damascus?
As my hand has found the kingdoms of the idols,
Whose carved images excelled those of Jerusalem and Samaria,
As I have done to Samaria and her idols,
Shall I not do also to Jerusalem and her idols?’ ”
Ahhh… I must be dreaming. Go back to sleep. This is just mother nature taking its course.
But those of you who have read Remembering the Sabbatical year of 2016 and The 2300 Days of Hell, you should be yelling out this warning from the rooftops. Trouble is you’re being drowned out by the crickets.
Some of you are wondering why I am explaining to you and having you research for yourself from the Old Testament exactly where you are told to be looking for a Messiah and what would happen to Him.
As we all know Christianity has done the truth of Scriptures a great harm. I am speaking of today’s Christianity that took shape sometime around 325 C.E with Constantine. And it is from this paganized Christianity that most of us, if not all of us have come from.
We then, are called by Yehovah and our eyes are opened to the truth and we begin to learn that Jesus never did away with the Torah as we have been told. As the Ruach, The Holy Spirit works with us we begin to learn Jesus Hebrew name was and is Yehshua and He kept the Torah and taught us to also keep it. His name means Yehovah Salvation or Yehovah Saves.
Then we learn that loving Yehovah is done by keeping the commandments.
John 14:15 “If you love Me, keep My commandments.
1 John 2:3-4 Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
We learn about the Holy Days and the Sabbath and we begin to keep them and as we do we learn even more. And then something else happens.
Deut 8:1-2 “Every commandment which I command you today you must be careful to observe, that you may live and multiply, and go in and possess the land of which the Lord swore to your fathers. And you shall remember that the Lord your God led you all the way these forty years in the wilderness, to humble you and test you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not.
So here we are. We are now being tested and many of you are up in arms.
Some of you although you use the name of Yehovah, you still are committing idolatry. You still have multiple gods you follow. The god family you say. The Jews see you doing many of the things the Christians do who do not keep the law. The Christians want to convert the Jews to Christianity in order to save their souls.
Some of the Jews do convert and then they too stop keeping the Sabbath as it is done away and then they keep Christmas and some Christians keep Chanukah because it is just about the same as Christmas and I have just heard Marty Goetz sing his Christmas Chanukah song for this season. It all becomes blurred. It is all idolatry in Yehovah’s eyes.
Yes, I know just how hard it is to separate all these things as it truly does get confusing.
Then some begin to listen to the Anti Missionaries and they can’t respond to the questions put to them. The next thing you hear is that they have renounced the New Testament and denied that the Messiah ever came and begin to attack Christian teachings. They use Paul who Christians have really misunderstood and this misunderstanding is what is used against them and against you.
Attacking Christian teachings is pretty easy to do. It has so many holes that they dig for themselves. And by doing this the anti Missionaries seem to sound like they are right. But those of us who have come out of this false understanding should be able to defend our views, our faith. And as many of you have seen by the questions I had you prove it was not so easy to do by the Torah alone. It gets even harder to answer these when you mix in with it your false Christian views that you have not yet left behind.
Let me now jump over to a parable that you all need to heed.
Right after Yehshua explained about the grains of wheat that fell upon various ground conditions and then explained who those wheat grains are and how some multiplied 40, 60 and 100 fold as they taught others or did a work. He then tells you about the tares in relation to that wheat which you are to be. That is someone who is doing a work and producing a crop to show from this work you do.
Mat 13:24-30 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’ But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.” ’ ”
A stalk of wheat produces an abundance of kernels that can be used to make bread and food. But the darnel or the tare does not produce enough of a kernel to make it worth the effort to harvest it to make food. The Tare takes up space and does not produce anything. It does not do a work. It accuses and impedes the growth of the wheat taking the water and nutrients it needs to grow. Some of you are tares and you think you are wheat. You do not do any of the work nor help others to do it and you prevent others from growing in the truth of the Torah. You waste the time of those wheats that need to grow.
Yehovah has sent to us in these last days a test to see if we are going to obey Him or not. To see if you are a wheat or a tare. Are you growing? Are you producing fruit? Are you helping others to produce fruit? Are you obeying Yehovah? Are you accusing the Brethren? Are you fighting with others about Torah? Are you a tare or the wheat?
As we explained last week the Great Falling away, the Apostasy that leads people away is already underway. Preston McNutt put out an article last week that I think you might like to read.
There are many anti Missionaries today and well there should be. I would not want any Jew to convert to Christianity nor to stop keeping the Sabbath and Holy Days. And here is the rub. Some of you do not understand what I am saying.
If those who claim to be followers of Yehshua were to actually be following Him and obeying Him and keeping the Torah then they could “win” more Jews to Yehshua. But is that the goal here, to convert the Jew?
While in Israel this past fall I was introduced to a Jewish man by the name of Shlomo. He was very interested in how I was converting Christian groups in Africa to the Torah. He used to be one of these anti missionaries that confound and confused those Christians who go around and try to convert the Jew to Christianity. So he was very interested to hear me explain the Torah as I do to Christian groups in order for them to start to obey Yehovah. He found this very intriguing. During our great conversation, a young Hebrew Roots man sat down and butted into our conversation changing the subject. He was trying to convert the Jews to Hebrew Roots and it was exactly the same as the Christians do only he now said Yehshua instead of Jesus. I sat there and let him go on and on. Then Shlomo began to question some of his theology and as a defense, the young man spoke the parable of Ephriam coming back to the Father and how Judah was upset about this because they did not know Yehshua. Shlomo was about to say something and I could see he was perturbed at this rude young man. So I jumped in and asked him to repeat the parable.
He said the prodigal son Ephriam, found his senses and came home. His Father ran to him to welcome him back and killed the fatted calf for him but not for the other son who is Judah. Judah was angry according to this young man and also according to him, he did not get the fatted calf because he did not believe in Jesus. He would then go on to say over and over that the Jews had to convert to accept Yehshua or they would not be welcomed by the Father. Really, I thought. Let us now read what it actually says.
Luke 15:1-32 Then He said: “A certain man had two sons. And the younger of them said to his father, “Father, give me the portion of goods that falls to me.’ So he divided to them his livelihood. And not many days after, the younger son gathered all together, journeyed to a far country, and there wasted his possessions with prodigal living. But when he had spent all, there arose a severe famine in that land, and he began to be in want. Then he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country, and he sent him into his fields to feed swine. And he would gladly have filled his stomach with the pods that the swine ate, and no one gave him anything. “But when he came to himself, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger! I will arise and go to my father, and will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you, and I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Make me like one of your hired servants.” ’ “And he arose and came to his father. But when he was still a great way off, his father saw him and had compassion, and ran and fell on his neck and kissed him. And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight, and am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ “But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring out the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet. And bring the fatted calf here and kill it, and let us eat and be merry; for this my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ And they began to be merry. “Now his older son was in the field. And as he came and drew near to the house, he heard music and dancing. So he called one of the servants and asked what these things meant. And he said to him, ‘Your brother has come, and because he has received him safe and sound, your father has killed the fatted calf.’ “But he was angry and would not go in. Therefore his father came out and pleaded with him. So he answered and said to his father, ‘Lo, these many years I have been serving you; I never transgressed your commandment at any time; and yet you never gave me a young goat, that I might make merry with my friends. But as soon as this son of yours came, who has devoured your livelihood with harlots, you killed the fatted calf for him.’ “And he said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that I have is yours. It was right that we should make merry and be glad, for your brother was dead and is alive again, and was lost and is found.’ ”
What did the Father say to the older son Judah?
‘Son, you are always with me, and all that I have is yours.
Judah is already with the Father and it is us Ephraimites who are eating in the pig trough of life. Judah already keeps the Sabbath and Holy Days and Sabbatical years. They postpone or keep them at the wrong time but they do keep them. We Ephrimaites have been worshiping every tree and rock we could find and never kept any of the appointments of Yehovah. The young man tried to respond that the Jews do not know Jesus/Yehshua. And I would counter by saying they are already with Yehovah. They have always been with Him as the Parable says. Yehshua was sent not to the Jews, but to the lost house of Israel. Not to the Jews but to us worshiping trees and rocks and who are not keeping the Torah. So why are you trying to convert the Jew. He is with the Father already.
Mathew 15:21-28 Then Jesus went out from there and departed to the region of Tyre and Sidon. And behold, a woman of Canaan came from that region and cried out to Him, saying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David! My daughter is severely demon-possessed.” But He answered her not a word. And His disciples came and urged Him, saying, “Send her away, for she cries out after us.” But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Then she came and worshiped Him, saying, “Lord, help me!” But He answered and said, “It is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.” And she said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.” Then Jesus answered and said to her, “O woman, great is your faith! Let it be to you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour.
If this is true then why are you trying to convert the Jew to a paganized Christianity that does not know the Torah to start with? The Jews already know the Torah for the most part. The young man then took my sightedmoon business card and tossed it on the table and stormed off. All of us come out the paganized Christian stinken thinken that we were a part of. Baptists, Catholics, Pentecostals, Mormon, Jehovah Witnesses and a whole host of others denominations. Most of us assume that when we come into this Hebrew walk we bring with us those things, those understandings we had, those lies we were already taught. We then mix in the lies of our false religion with the truth of the Torah. And that is where all of our problems come from. Many people think they have to convert the Jew in order for them to be saved. But that is not what the parable is showing us. What that parable is showing us is that Ephraim or Christianity must convert to the Torah like the older brother Judah already is doing. Never mind the fact that Judah does some things wrong. Yehovah will take care of that in His own divine way. It is not for us to condemn them.
I am not trying to teach the Jews nor do I ever try to convert them to Jesus. That is not my mission nor my calling. They are already with the Father.
We have anti Missionaries because they are standing up against false Christian teachings. The same false teaching some of you still espouse. To them now that you’re Torah observant you are no different than the Christians. They have 2000 years of hate towards the followers of Jesus.
But at first, after the death of Yehshua, we have read how thousands and thousands of Jews were now believers. And this happened everywhere until Constantine came along and formed Christianity in 325 CE and then the Jews stopped converting.
So now this week we have a lot to go through as we dismantle the anti Missionary arguments as taught by Tovia Singer from whom many of the other lesser known people have learned. Many of the questions they put forward are the same ones Tovia uses. So we will address some of them.
Once you get past the false Christian thinking, then you can see the pushback by Judah to that false narrative. Once you understand the truth, then Judah will be able to sit and talk with you.
Last week we asked you three questions.
Question one; Where are the scriptures that tell us God was going to come in the flesh?
Question two; Where are the scriptures that say God will die for your sins?
Question three; Where are we told that the Messiah would be killed?
These questions have been put to me by someone who claims to be an old friend of mine. But they are also possed by the Anti Missionary to the unsuspecting believer who is many times awestruck by those who are Jewish teachers. But even those Jewish teachers are there to win an argument. They are not always there to teach the truth.
Many times they will say that you can’t understand because you do not know Hebrew. They have a valid point. So they then explain it to you because they do know the Hebrew. And you believe them because they are “JEWISH”. But they also translate the Hebrew and do so with an agenda. This Anti Jesus agenda brought on by the false Christian teachings doing away with the Torah. So how can you know the truth? You must learn Hebrew and or you must do your own research.
I met the following writer of these emails named Ralph at the World Wide Church of God where we both attended. And I got him a job where I was working at that time. Ralph also went to Ambassador College for a number of years and then suddenly left. I never knew why but it was just before the implosion of the WWCG. Anyways that is our history and now he is getting our News Letters but does not agree with me.
Greetings Grandpa Joe and former Stetson co-worker,
I noticed you have asked your readers to find references to the messiah in the Old Testament or shall we say the Hebrew bible since Jews do not believe that their bible has been superseded. Would you be so kind as to point out the scriptures in the Hebrew bible that state that yahweh was going to incarnate himself and become the messiah?
Much appreciated and then the next time I am in Orangeville we should get together and catch up on the past 31 years!
Shabbat Shalom Joe!
Haven’t heard back from you on my request to have you show me scriptures in the Hebrew Bible that state Yahweh would incarnate himself and become the Messiah. Your site heralds the message to prove all things, so where is the proof to my question? You obviously cannot come up with the scriptures I have requested because they don’t exist. Don’t you think it strange that the central tenet of Christianity, that the Messiah was Yawheh incarnate is found nowhere in the Hebrew Bible?
Something to think about on the Sabbath.
One final thought and then I will leave you alone to your erroneous ways. Obviously the Jews hoped for a Messiah and there are scriptures that say so. This is not the issue. The issue is the fact that the Hebrew Bible does not in any verse say Yahweh was going to incarnate himself and become the Messiah. Further, the Jews rejected Yeshua because he did not fulfill the prophecies of a messiah. Take your delusions of scholarship and debate a rabbi and put it on your website to show how pitiful you will come out of it. Our school on Bayview is connected to a synagogue. I can arrange the debate!
Keep preaching to the choir and continue in your delusions. Your books on prophecy will all end like 1975 for the WCG. It was cancelled due to lack on interest by the universe.
Ralph Di Fiore
So can you brethren answer these questions? They are asked with the view that they cannot be answered. Hmmm. I guess I will just stop believing in Yehshua or Jesus and become a full-blown Jewish wannabe.
While there is no single passage that says directly that the Messiah will rise again on the third day, there are passages that, by the Jewish manner of interpretation, imply that. One must understand that the Jewish rabbis do not think in the same way that modern Americans think. We often look simply at the direct and obvious meaning of a scripture (what the rabbis called the “pshat”). Thus a passage saying a young woman (virgin) will bear a child meant that a young woman would bear a child, probably in the near future. But Matthew shows the Jewish way of thinking when he applies that passage to Jesus and the virgin birth. It is this way of thinking (called “drash”) that would apply to passages about the third day. (Modern preachers use this method often, drawing conclusions from a passage that may not directly say what they want.)
Jesus used the book of Jonah to prove that he would rise on the third day.
“But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” (Matthew 12:39-40)
Another passage that can be interpreted as being about the Messiah is
Hosea 6:1-3. “Come, and let us return unto the LORD: for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up. After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight. Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the LORD: his going forth is prepared as the morning; and he shall come unto us as the rain, as the latter and former rain unto the earth.”
Verse two talks about God raising the subject of the passage up on the third day. The obvious primary meaning (pshat) is that God would provide restoration to Israel. The interpretive meaning (drash) is that the Messiah would suffer, and be raised on the third day to live although he had been dead.
Remember this verse as we will come back to it in a teaching in just a few weeks times.
(Investigator 120, 2008 May)
The New Testament (NT) claims Jesus rose from the dead on the third day and that the Old Testament (OT) predicted it:
For I handed on to you as of first importance…that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures… (I Corinthians 15:3-4)
Keep in mind The Apostle Paul was trained by the best Jewish sages of the time.
Acts 22:3 “I am indeed a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the strictness of our fathers’ law, and was zealous toward God as you all are today.
(Gamaliel I, also called Rabban Gamaliel (rabban, meaning “teacher”) (flourished 1st century ad), a tanna, one of a select group of Palestinian masters of the Jewish Oral Law, and a teacher twice mentioned in the New Testament.
According to tradition—but not historic fact—Gamaliel succeeded his father, Simon, and his grandfather, the renowned sage Hillel (to whose school of thought he belonged), as nasi (president) of the Sanhedrin, the supreme Jewish court. It is certain, though, that Gamaliel held a leading position in the Sanhedrin and that he enjoyed the highest repute as teacher of the Law; he was the first to be given the title rabban. Like his grandfather, Gamaliel also was given the title ha-Zaqen (the Elder).
The New Testament (Acts 5:34–39) relates that Gamaliel intervened on behalf of the Apostles of Jesuswhen they had been seized and brought to the Sanhedrin, and another passage (Acts 22:3) tells how St. Paul, in a speech to the Jews, tried to influence them by stating that he had been a student of Gamaliel (“I am a Jew, . . . brought up . . . at the feet of Gamaliel”).
Gamaliel established a number of lenient ordinances, in particular, laws affecting women and non-Jews. Of his teaching, only one saying is preserved in the Talmud; it enjoins the duties of study and scrupulous observance of religious ordinances. Gamaliel’s renown is summed up in the words recorded in the Talmud: “When Rabban Gamaliel the Elder died, regard for the Torah [Jewish Law] ceased, and purity and piety died.”)
Apparently, however, the OT nowhere predicts a third-day resurrection. Atheists challenge: “I defy anyone to find any OT passage that prophesies a Messiah’s resurrection on the third day.”Christian apologists” cite Psalm 16:8-11:
8 I keep the LORD always before me;
because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved.
9 Therefore my heart is glad, and my soul rejoices;
my body [flesh] also rests secure.
10 For you do not give me up to Sheol,
or let your faithful one see the Pit [or “corruption.”].
11 You show me the path of life.
in your presence there is fullness of joy;
in your right hand are pleasures forevermore. (New RSV)
Most Bibles have “corruption” in 16:10 rather than “the Pit” but both are correct subject to context. And “body” in 16:9 is usually translated “flesh”. (Wigram, 5th edition)The NT quotes 16:8-11 and applies it to Jesus’ resurrection. (Acts 2:24-31; 13:34-37) However, Psalm 16 does not mention Jesus or three days. It’s a “Psalm of David” and seemingly about David.
Critics declare: “Only someone desperate to find a resurrection prophecy believes Psalm 16 predicts a Messiah’s resurrection.”
That a Messiah would die and rise was not obvious to 1st century Jews. It needed explaining:
Then he [Jesus] opened their minds to understand the scriptures, and he said to them,
“Thus it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day… (Luke 24:45-46)
Peter’s explanation of Psalm 16, applying it to Jesus, was likewise new to his Jewish audience. (Acts 2:22-37),
“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know— Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it. For David says concerning Him:
‘I foresaw the Lord always before my face,
For He is at my right hand, that I may not be shaken.
Therefore my heart rejoiced, and my tongue was glad;
Moreover my flesh also will rest in hope.
For You will not leave my soul in Hades,
Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.
You have made known to me the ways of life;
You will make me full of joy in Your presence.’
“Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear.
“For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself:
‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at My right hand,
Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.” ’
“Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”
WORLD RULER WHO BRINGS PEACE
“All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the LORD; and all the families of the nations shall worship before him.” (Psalm 22:27)
The Old Testament predicts the coming of a world ruler, descended from David, through whom God brings world peace:
For a child has been born for us, a son given to us; authority rests upon his shoulders; and he is named Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. His authority shall grow continually, and there shall be endless peace for the throne of David and his kingdom. (Isaiah 9:6-7)
See, my servant shall prosper; he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high… so shall he startle many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of him… (Isaiah 52:13, 15)
But you, O Bethlehem…from you shall come forth for me one who is to rule Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days… And they shall live secure, for now he shall be great to the ends of the earth; and he shall be the one of peace. (Micah 5:1-5)
And I saw one like a human being coming with the clouds of heaven… To him was given dominion and glory and kingship that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingship is one that shall never be destroyed. (Daniel 7:13-14)
Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter Jerusalem! Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey… And he shall command peace to the nations; his dominion shall be from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth. (Zechariah 9:9-10)
How many different people can rule the world in peace? One person only. Because after world peace is accomplished it cannot be done by another since we’re talking about one world, one earth.Therefore the preceding Scriptures refer to one individual. This accepted, let us uncover more OT predictions about Him.
Isaiah 52 & 53 says that the “servant” will be “cut off”, that is killed, and yet “prolong his days”:
For he was cut off from the land of the living stricken for the transgression of my people. They made his grave with the wicked and his tomb with the rich… (53:8-9) When you make his life an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring, and shall prolong his days; through him the will of the LORD shall prosper. (53:10)
(I must interrupt here. This verse is saying that His life, His soul would be an offering for sin. Many of the anti Missionaries say there is no way that a human could be a sin offering. They call it human sacrifice and go off on that thread leading you away from the truth. Get out your own Bible and read this verse for yourself. His life would be an offering for sin!)
To die, be entombed and then live implies resurrection. No “third day” mentioned – but let’s go on.
The wording of Psalm 16:1-8 fits David and other Godly people.
Verses 9-11, however, fit only one person:
9 Therefore my heart is glad; and my soul rejoices, and my body [flesh] rests secure.
10 For you do not give me up to Sheol, or let your faithful one see the Pit [corruption].
11 You show me the path of life…in your right hand are pleasures evermore.”
Verse 9 implies death. A “body” or “flesh” rests in Sheol (the grave) but is not left in – not “given up to” – Sheol. The flesh or body then enters “the path of life…evermore”.Verses 10 to 11, therefore, imply resurrection, which is how the NT interprets them. But still no “third day”.
Psalm 72 is “Of Solomon” and anticipates worldwide prosperity and peace:
May he live while the sun endures, and as long as the moon throughout all generations. (v. 7) May he have dominion from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth. (v. 8)
May all kings fall down before him, all nations serve him (v. 11)
Blessed be his glorious name forever; may his glory fill the whole earth. (v. 19)
Observe that Verse 8 is the same as Zechariah 9:10. Why did Zechariah repeat the words about Solomon centuries after Solomon’s death? Evidently, the grandiose language about Solomon in Psalm 72 was prophetic of someone future. That’s why Zechariah quoted it centuries after Solomon and applied it to someone future.
We have then a case of parallel lives or parallel situations – an OT person (Solomon) is prophetic of the future world ruler.
King David similarly is prophetic of a future, greater, “David”. We see this because after David’s death the OT has predictions about David! See Ezekiel 34:23-24; 37:24-28; Hosea 3:5.
With David and Solomon as precedents, we could expect other exemplary OT Israelites to also parallel the future world ruler, at least in some ways. Some faced death, or were physically stressed for three days, and then saved:
Isaac faced being sacrificed but was reprieved the third day. (Genesis 22:1-13)
Now it came to pass after these things that God tested Abraham, and said to him, “Abraham!”
And he said, “Here I am.”
Then He said, “Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.”
So Abraham rose early in the morning and saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son; and he split the wood for the burnt offering, and arose and went to the place of which God had told him. Then on the third day Abraham lifted his eyes and saw the place afar off. And Abraham said to his young men, “Stay here with the donkey; the lad and I will go yonder and worship, and we will come back to you.”
So Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and laid it on Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife, and the two of them went together. But Isaac spoke to Abraham his father and said, “My father!”
And he said, “Here I am, my son.”
Then he said, “Look, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?”
And Abraham said, “My son, God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering.” So the two of them went together.
Then they came to the place of which God had told him. And Abraham built an altar there and placed the wood in order; and he bound Isaac his son and laid him on the altar, upon the wood. And Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to slay his son.
But the Angel of the Lord called to him from heaven and said, “Abraham, Abraham!”
So he said, “Here I am.”
And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”
Then Abraham lifted his eyes and looked, and there behind him was a ram caught in a thicket by its horns. So Abraham went and took the ram, and offered it up for a burnt offering instead of his son. And Abraham called the name of the place, The-Lord-Will-Provide; as it is said to this day, “In the Mount of the Lord it shall be provided.” Yehovah-jireh
Joseph imprisoned his brothers for three days in Egypt, then offered them life. (Genesis 42:16-19)
Send one of you, and let him bring your brother; and you shall be kept in prison, that your words may be tested to see whether there is any truth in you; or else, by the life of Pharaoh, surely you are spies!” So he put them all together in prison three days.
Then Joseph said to them the third day, “Do this and live, for I fear God: If you are honest men, let one of your brothers be confined to your prison house; but you, go and carry grain for the famine of your houses.
Two Israelite spies fleeing Jericho hid for three days. (Joshua 2:15-22)
Then she let them down by a rope through the window, for her house was on the city wall; she dwelt on the wall. And she said to them, “Get to the mountain, lest the pursuers meet you. Hide there three days, until the pursuers have returned. Afterward you may go your way.”
David hid for three days without food while waiting for Jonathan. (I Samuel 20:5)
And David said to Jonathan, “Indeed tomorrow is the New Moon, and I should not fail to sit with the king to eat. But let me go, that I may hide in the field until the third day at evening.
When King Hezekiah got sick Isaiah announced he would die, but then predicted recovery in three days. (II Kings 20:1-6)
In those days Hezekiah was sick and near death. And Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz, went to him and said to him, “Thus says the Lord: ‘Set your house in order, for you shall die, and not live.’ ”
Then he turned his face toward the wall, and prayed to the Lord, saying, “Remember now, O Lord, I pray, how I have walked before You in truth and with a loyal heart, and have done what was good in Your sight.” And Hezekiah wept bitterly.
And it happened, before Isaiah had gone out into the middle court, that the word of the Lord came to him, saying, “Return and tell Hezekiah the leader of My people, ‘Thus says the Lord, the God of David your father: “I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; surely I will heal you. On the third day you shall go up to the house of the Lord. And I will add to your days fifteen years. I will deliver you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria; and I will defend this city for My own sake, and for the sake of My servant David.” ’ ”
Queen Esther fasted three days before intervening to save the Jews. (Esther 4:16)
“Go, gather all the Jews who are present in Shushan, and fast for me; neither eat nor drink for three days, night or day. My maids and I will fast likewise. And so I will go to the king, which is against the law; and if I perish, I perish!”
Jonah was inside the fish “three days and three nights”. (Jonah 1:17)
Now the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.
Given that the future world ruler would die and rise, such parallel situations suggest that his death involves three days.
THE THIRD DAY
Recall Psalm 16:10, “For you do not…let your faithful one see the Pit [corruption]”. The same Hebrew word is used of Jonah’s three days in the fish’s belly: “You brought up my life from the Pit [corruption].” (Jonah 2:6)
From this connection, ancient readers could have concluded that the implied resurrection of Psalm 16:10 involves three days.
Recall also the “suffering servant” (Isaiah 52 & 53) who is “led to the slaughter” but lives again and “makes many righteous” and by whom “we are healed”:
But he was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; Upon him was the punishment that made us whole, and by his bruises we are healed. (53:5)
A generation before Isaiah, the prophet Hosea wrote that Israel was full of lies, murder, thievery, adultery and bloodshed. (Hosea 4:1-3) and would be destroyed. But in “the latter days” they would “seek the LORD their God, and David their king”. (3:4-5) Israel’s “healing” would involve a three-day period: Come let us return to the LORD; for it is he who has torn down, and he who will heal us… After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him. (Hosea 6:1-2)
Adding Hosea’s prediction to Isaiah’s suggests that Israel is “healed” by means of the “slaughtered” servant restored to life “on the third day”.
THUS IT IS WRITTEN
No single OT verse predicts a Messiah’s resurrection on the third day. But multiple verses compared with open mind imply it:
Then he [Jesus] opened their minds to understand the scriptures, and he said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day… (Luke 24:45-46)
REFERENCES:New RSV Reference Bible, 1973, Zondervan, USA.
Wigram, G. V. nd Englishman’s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the Old Testament, Fifth Edition. Entries: Anoint 768; Corruption 1252; Cut off 618; Flesh 278; Heal 1187; Messiah 769; Soul 829.
I have been trying to save this for a separate teaching but it has to be said here and now after this teaching. You just read this statement above.
A generation before Isaiah, the prophet Hosea wrote that Israel was full of lies, murder, thievery, adultery, and bloodshed. (Hosea 4:1-3) and would be destroyed. But in “the latter days” they would “seek the LORD their God, and David their king”. (3:4-5) Israel’s “healing” would involve a three-day period: Come let us return to the LORD; for it is he who has torn down, and he who will heal us… After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him. (Hosea 6:1-2)
Adding Hosea’s prediction to Isaiah’s suggests that Israel is “healed” by means of the “slaughtered” servant restored to life “on the third day”.
I am only going to mention it here and hope to come back to it in more detail later. but I do have a whole chapter about this in The 2300 Days of Hell that you should read.
The Temple was built at the end of the 3rd Millennial day just as the 4th Millennial Day was to begin. Look at our charts and see the year the Temple was started in 967 B.C. The end of the 3rd Millennial Day was the year 896 B.C. The Temple was destroyed in 70 C.E. And the end of that 4th Millennial day was 85 C.E. Again look at our charts which you can find at this link. Please print them off you wish.
Now look at the Millennial charts at this link The temple was in service for the whole of the 4th Millennial week. And then destroyed at the end of it.
Israel was also destroyed during this 4th Millennial Day in 723 B.C.
Yehshua was also killed on the 4th day of the week.
Now understand and learn a prophetic lesson here. Yehshua was in the grave for 3 days and three nights. Yehshua went into the Grave at the end of the 4th Day. He was killed at the end of the 4th day the same as the temple was destroyed at the end of the 4th day.
Yehshua came out of the grave at the end of the Sabbath on the 7th Day. And then ascended to Heaven and came back the 8th day and then met with the Apostles on that same 8th Day.
Yehshua is not going to come back until the end of the 7th Millennium and then we will be married and dwell with Him here on this earth for the 8th Millennium. The 8th Day. David the Messiah, the Mashiach, David the anointed one is the King who will rule over Israel during the 7th Millennium.
The Messiah ben Joseph and Messiah ben David confuse and hide this truth. Christian teachings assume the Messiah to be Yehshua that is to come at the start of the 7th Millennium when in fact it is David as the Jews have correctly thought.
Hosea 3:4-5 For the children of Israel shall abide many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred pillar, without ephod or teraphim.
Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek the Lord their God and David their king. They shall fear the Lord and His goodness in the latter days.
How many of you are seeking David your King? Everyone is expecting Yehshua but no one is looking for David the anointed, the Mashiach to return.
Hosea 6:1-2 Come, and let us return to the Lord;
For He has torn, but He will heal us;
He has stricken, but He will bind us up.
After two days He will revive us;
On the third day He will raise us up,
That we may live in His sight.
That third Millennial day is at the end of the 7th millennium just as Yehshua came out of the grave at the end of the Sabbath, the 7th day of the week. If your keeping Sunday as your day of rest then you are not going to be there for that rest that we are seeking to enter.
Hebrew 4:11 Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience.
We are to seek to enter that 7th Millennial rest with David our King. Then at the end of the 7th Millennium, all the dead who ever lived will be raised up to life and Satan will be let loose for a short time and then put away forever. Only then will Yehovah come and the marriage ceremony is able to take place. This is what the 8th Day is all about. Yehovah dwelling with us. The most misundertood and hardly ever taught appointed days. The most importan of all the Holy Days. The climax of them all.
A little while ago, I was on an anti-missionary forum called Messiah Truth, where I have engaged in some debates on different topics. There, one of the moderators placed a link on the forum to a website where the lecture series of rabbi Tovia Singer called “Let’s get biblical” was available online. So I downloaded it, put it on my I-Pod and started to listen to the series. At first, I thought it was very amusing to listen to because it didn’t really raise questions about my faith. I had heard most of the arguments he raises against the belief in God’s means of salvation through Yeshua the Messiah. But as I listened to it a few times, it really started to bother me because it seemed like he was getting very cocky, especially the remarks about “leaving skid marks” were really outrageous. Also, I thought about all the people listening to his lectures, who were not able to respond to his points he raises in those lectures, how they might be shaken by what they hear. Then I thought of making a rebuttal and making it available online as well. Because I am not that much of a speaker, I thought I could best make a rebuttal in writing, which really took more time than if I would do it in speech. What really got to me is that the stories rabbi Singer tells his audience are extremely one-sided and he presents his case in such a way that you would think that Messianic Jewish believers have nothing to do at all with the Tenach (the “Old Testament”) and his audience seems to fall for it time and time again. At times he leaves information out or gives false information (predominately regarding the Hebrew application), and contradicts himself by making up facts and presenting it as a neat story, to give his audience the impression that he has a solid case for his views, as will become clear as you read the rebuttals. This is especially apparent in the Isaiah 53 lecture.
I have tried to address every point of substance and have not gone into every little detail of his lectures. But I have done my best to provide the “other side” of the coin where it was relevant in light of the topic at hand and give additional information that Rabbi Singer has left out for obvious reasons. I don’t give the mainstream Evangelical Christian position in my responses. I am not an Evangelical Christian so I can’t speak for them. In this response, I have done my best to reflect the Messianic Jewish views the best way possible and how things are viewed in the Tenach and the New Testament from the Messianic Jewish perspective. I would encourage anyone to read this with an unbiased view and observe the points made by Rabbi Singer and my points on this website and then draw your conclusion and ask yourself why rabbi Singer makes these one-sided claims, when he is familiar with the Messianic Jewish position on many things he doesn’t address in his lectures. So before you read my advice to you is: Forget about Oral Law (which tends to favour the Rabbinic Jewish interpretations) and forget about the New Testament (which tends to favour Messianic Jewish interpretations). Look at both sides with an unbiased mind. Read openly and judge honestly.
Psalm 110: Who is speaking?
March 14, 2009
The Psalm 110 lecture of rabbi Tovia Singer’s “Let’s get Biblical” series is not about all of Psalm 110 but about the first verse. It is also one of the easiest to refute, simply because it is abundantly clear that David is the speaker here and speaks of the Messiah and of no one else. This is one of the lectures where I really wanted to be in the audience asking the very same question that was asked him. Namely, that there is more to the subject of this chapter than one might think. Of course, he would tell me then that it was obvious from my question that I didn’t read or understand a word of Hebrew. If you didn’t know already, this is the standard anti-missionary scare tactic. They will challenge you on the Hebrew! Although the rabbi is right about one thing, which is that this verse doesn’t prove that the Messiah is God. But it does affirm the view that the Messiah was to be more than human. Because who can be more than King David? King David is the greatest king ever known to mankind. He was the king of kings. And yet he speaks here of someone as “his lord/master”. There is not a king that can come forth from the Gentiles, nor from the Jewish people, that could excel David. All the kings that followed him, were always compared to him in their righteousness. As the rabbi said it correctly “he was their measuring rod”.
You might say “this isn’t King David speaking, but the Levites for whom the Psalms were written to sing in the Temple”, just as the rabbi claims, hereby following the reading of the Ramban (aka Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman or Nachmanides). This is what the Ramban wrote (emphasis mine)
King David was the composer who wrote the Psalms with the aid of the holy spirit. He composed them for the purpose of having them sung before the altar of God. He himself did not sing them, nor was he permitted to do so, for that function was forbidden to him by law of the Torah. (Deuteronomy 18:6-7) Instead, he gave the Psalms to the Levites, so that they would sing them. This is clearly written in the book of I Chronicles 16:7 Therefore, King David perforce expressed the psalm in the language appropriate for the utterance by the Levites. Thus, if King David had said; “The Eternal said to me”, the Levites repeating these words would be uttering falsehood. Instead, it is proper for the Levite to say in the Temple: “The Eternal saith unto my lord: (that is to King David) Sit thou at My right hand.” The purport of the term ‘sitting’ is to state that the Creator, blessed be He, will protect him during his lifetime and that He will save him and cause him to prevail over his enemies. So it was, for he lifted up his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time. This is the right hand of God.
Is this reading actually valid? Let’s examine the text:
L’David, mizmor: N’um Yahweh l’adoni, shev limini; ad-asit oyveycha, hadom l’ragleicha
1 A Psalm of David.
The LORD saith unto my lord: ‘Sit thou at My right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.’
This is how Rabbi Singer’s argument goes: This is a verse speaking about King David, who wrote it for the Levi’im (Levites) to sing in the Temple. And because he wrote it for them to sing in the Temple it was necessary for him to write it from their perspective, because would he write it from his perspective and said “the LORD said to me” and the Levi’im would say it likewise, then they would be lying. So that’s why he wrote it from their perspective and therefore had to write “the LORD said to my lord” referring to King David and then they would be truthful. (9:00)
Again, we ask the question: Is this a valid reading? Let’s look at the validity of this claim:
It starts out with (L’David mizmor) which means “a psalm of David”. It can also mean ”a psalm for/to David”. This is actually subject of dispute. The more likely form is the former, however, as mentioned, it can also mean the latter. The first claim is that it was exclusively written for the Levi’im to sing in the Temple. Well, the common phrase “lam’natseach” [for the leader], meaning the leader of the worship, is completely absent here. We find it in a lot of Psalms. We find it in Psalm 51 through 65, for example. The second claim is that this is written from the perspective of the Levi’im. But I couldn’t find one instance where David did this. In fact, he had a lot of Psalms where he could have used this method of writing. Let’s take the most striking example of all the Psalms: Psalm 51. This is a Psalm David wrote after he had sinned greatly and taken Batsheva, the wife of the Hittite Uriah, whom he murdered. He there goes all out to confess to God and what does he write?
Lam’natseach. Mizmor l’David
1 For the Leader. A Psalm of David;
This is beyond any doubt a Psalm written for the Levi’im to utter in the Temple. But what does King David do next? You would think that, if the rabbis were right, he would go on to write from the perspective of the Levites, right? Not so! He then goes on to speak from his own perspective and not from the perspective of the Levi’im. So according to the reasoning of Rabbi Singer and the Ramban, the Levi’im would be lying if they uttered this Psalm in the Temple, because it didn’t happen to them, but to someone else, and therefore they couldn’t sing this as if it happened to them. That would be misleading. But this is not at all implied by the psalmist and this never occurred to him even once, otherwise, he would have written this in the third person. Notice the expression in verse 16:
Hatsileini midamim, Elohim
16 Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God….
Where is the perspective of the Levi’im when it is needed the most? How about Psalm 59? Let’s look at how David writes there and never considers the perspective of the Levi’im:
1 For the Leader; Al-tashheth. [A Psalm] of David; Michtam; when Saul sent, and they watched the house to kill him. 2 Deliver me from mine enemies, O my God; set me on high from them that rise up against me. 3 Deliver me from the workers of iniquity, and save me from the men of blood. 4 For, lo, they lie in wait for my soul; the impudent gather themselves together against me; not for my transgression, nor for my sin, O LORD.
Well, do you see David writing from the perspective of the Levi’im? I certainly don’t! And we can’t imagine the Levi’im singing these Psalms, saying “Deliver him from his enemies” or anything of that kind. So it’s obvious that David never considered their perspective in the first place. And where does this leave the charge of deceit made by Rabbi Tovia Singer? Absolutely nowhere! David wrote this Psalm, not for the Levi’im to sing in the Temple referring to him, but what God said about the Messiah.
Then there is, of course, the charge of the New Testament account that the Messiah raises this question to the Pharisees and says to them “if he is supposed to be the son of David, then how come David calls him “lord”?” According to Rabbi Tovia Singer, this is an unlikely event because the people who know a little Hebrew would point Yeshua to the fact that the two “lords” aren’t the same. But is that the point Yeshua wanted to make? That both “lords” in that psalm are the same and therefore the Messiah is God? Not at all! All he was trying to tell the people is exactly what he said there; how come that David, the greatest of kings in the history of all of Israel, calls the Messiah, who is supposed to be his son by many generations, his lord?
So whether the first lord and the second lord are or aren’t the same has never been the question. The question was if the Messiah is actually King David’s lord, then what does this tell us about the Messiah? So it is clearly demonstrated that Rabbi Tovia Singer is totally wrong in his analysis and wrongly points us to the Ramban. But because it is the Ramban, the rabbi takes his analysis as the absolute truth and doesn’t ask any questions. If he would have been half as critical towards the commentary of the Ramban as he was to the New Testament, he would have seen that this analysis is, sad but true, wrong and therefore their conclusion is false. Apart from HaShem, it is the Messiah and the Messiah only who is David’s lord. Who else fits the bill?
What then do we make of rabbi Tovia Singer’s claims? They are totally untrue!
Zechariah12:10 – Who is pierced?
March 14, 2009
Taken from Nakdimon’s page. Nakdimon, who is a Dutch Messianic Jew is the original author of this article.
Here is the actual link:
Zechariah12:10 – Who is pierced?
In this essay, we will examine more claims of rabbi Tovia Singer and see if they are accurate. This time we are going to look at Zechariah 12:10. This verse is also quoted in the New Testament. Let’s take a look at it from Zechariah:
Wehibitu elai, et asher-daqaru, wesafdu alaaw, kemisped al-hayachid, wehamer alaaw, kehamer al-habechor
and they shall look unto Me because they have thrust him through; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his first-born.
Charge #1: John needed to change Zechariah 12:10 to make it fit Yeshua. (2:45)
This is the first claim of rabbi Tovia Singer. But did John really have to change the text? The way John quotes Zechariah 12:10 actually doesn’t change anything about the meaning of the verse. The point John wants to make is that Yeshua is the pierced one. It would have been a loose/loose situation anyway, cause had John quoted it as in Zechariah, then he would have been accused of trying to say that Yeshua was God and that therefore God was pierced, etc, you name the accusations. Instead, all John was trying to communicate to his readers is that Yeshua is the pierced one.
Notice also that John doesn’t quote the entire verse, but leaves out the mourning part. John is not saying that this prophecy is fulfilled there and then. He is trying to make clear that He is the one they will look upon, the pierced one. It is in Revelation that he actually quotes the entire verse including the mourning and then this prophecy will come to its fulfillment. But whether it says “they will look upon me” or, “they will look upon him” makes no difference to the message of John. Also, the verse from Zechariah doesn’t say that they will look upon the pierced one there and then, meaning that the pierced one is pierced there and then. In order for them to look upon the pierced one, he must be pierced first and when this will happen is not told in the text. If this must still happen, then this will be very unusual in this time and age of guns and missiles. Rarely is someone in current wars being thrusted through. Bottom line is that John didn’t have to change anything to try to make Yeshua fit this prophecy. The point he wanted to make remains the same.
Charge #2: Et asher (11:20)
Rabbi Tovia Singer claims that the words “et asher” means “because of the one”. Is this true? And if it isn’t, is this just a slip of the tongue by the rabbi? Since there is an enormous pride in the anti-missionary community and an emphasis of knowledge of the Hebrew language, one may be lead to the logical conclusion that rabbi Singer either knows enough Hebrew to know what the meaning is or that rabbi Singer studied this out enough to know what he is talking about and, most importantly of course, we would find nothing to contradict that view the Tenach. The fact, however, is that rabbi Singer is completely wrong! The meaning of the words “et asher” is totally dependent on the context it is written in. Meaning, that it depends on whether it refers to a situation or it refers to a person. If it refers to a situation it means “because of” or “regarding” or “that which” (or anything similar), but if it refers to a person it means “whom” or “who” or “whosoever” (or anything similar).
I could find a total of 18 instances in 17 verses where the words “et asher” is used in relation to a person and I have noticed one thing: not 1 single instance can it be translated with “because of the one”, the translation rabbi Singer so confidently recommended, without making a total mess of the verse. I will give you some key examples of the application of “et asher” which clearly show the false claims of Rabbi Singer:
The first example from 1 Samuel 16:3 is a striking example of what I have been saying above. The first “et asher” refers to a situation and is translated as “what”, whereas the second refers to a person and can’t mean “because of the one”, but plainly “whom”. The last example of Jeremiah has an exact same grammatical structure as Zechariah 12:10! I wonder how rabbi Singer can put his strongly suggested translation in this verse if “et asher” really means “because of the one”:
So where does this leave the claim of Rabbi Singer? And I wonder how rabbi Singer can put his strongly suggested translation in this verse if “et asher” really means “because of the one”. How did he come to that conclusion? Fact is that rabbi Tovia Singer’s claim is false. The correct translation of this verse is: “And they will look to Me, Whom/the One they have pierced, …”. Since Rabbi Singer practically accuses others of not knowing Hebrew and therefore unable to know the true meaning of certain words, didn’t Rabbi Singer really know the meaning of the simple Hebrew words “et-asher” himself? I will let you decide if this was just a “slip of the tongue” of rabbi Singer or that this was a deliberate attempt to misinform his audience. But to me, this reveals to what lengths he will go to try to disprove Messianic Jewish faith.
As for the interchangeable use of “Me” and “Him”, this is common in the Hebrew Bible. I would point you to Genesis 18:17-19
And YHWH said: ‘Shall I hide from Abraham that which I am doing; seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? For I have known him, to the end that he may command his children and his household after him, that they may keep the way of YHWH, to do righteousness and justice; to the end that YHWH may bring upon Abraham that which He hath spoken of him.’
In addition, I would like to address a common charge of anti-missionaries. It goes “Jews never pierced Jesus, it was the Romans. So this prophecy couldn’t possibly be about Israel piercing Jesus because nothing like that ever happened.”
This argument is also contrary the testimony that the Hebrew Bible gives us. Let’s look at the story of David and Uriah in 2 Samuel 11. David sleeps with the wife of Uriah and wants to cover up his adultery because he tried to have Uriah sleep with Batsheva so that people would think that Uriah was the father of the child she was carrying. But when Uriah didn’t go along with the game, David decided to get rid of Uriah in order to take Batsheva as his wife and all would be well. So he ordered to have Uriah put in the line of fire in the war with the Ammonites and make sure that he wouldn’t survive. And so happened. But look at how God thought about this act of David in 2 Samuel 12:9;
Wherefore hast thou despised the word of YHWH, to do that which is evil in My sight? Uriah the Hittite thou hast smitten with the sword, and his wife thou hast taken to be thy wife, and him thou hast slain with the sword of the children of Ammon.
So we see here that God smashes David for the death of Uriah although David was many miles removed from the battlefield. However, God knows that David ordered and arranged the death of Uriah and God reckoned it as if David himself had personally slain Uriah. Likewise, there is no denying that Yeshua’s death was ordered and arranged by leading men amongst the Jewish community.
Another common argument is the “mourning of the living”. This is how the anti-missionary argument basically goes: “If Jesus was to appear and we would see him alive, then why would we mourn? We would rejoice instead because Moshiach has finally arrived!”
I would say that, considering the way anti-missionaries think about Yeshua and all they have spoken against him and how they have resisted him to the extend that his name is even forbidden to be mentioned in a lot of traditional Jewish homes and is even a curse word! (Remember that Hitler and Muhammad are names that aren’t banned from Jewish homes and are persons that can be discussed freely!) If this same despised Yeshua would appear and reveal himself as Moshiach, whom the Jewish people have been longing for, for centuries and centuries and if everything we have said about him appears to be true and everything rabbinic Judaism has been saying about him appears to be wrong, from the moment he was rejected up until this day, do you really think that there would be a rejoicing? Just go to a search engine on the internet and type in the word “anti-missionary” or “counter-missionary” and go to those websites and see what is the basic consensus among those groups about Yeshua. Now bear in mind that those aren’t words just to be making a statement, casual words. Those are words from the very heart! If all that violent rejection of what would suddenly appear to be Moshiach [i.e. Moshiach of “… – Ani ma’amin…], all this time actually has been the rejecting of the Anointed of YHWH, I doubt very strongly that there would be any rejoicing whatsoever taking place. Just listen to the lectures of Rabbi Tovia Singer and his insults when he repeatedly speaks about “leaving skid marks”! Just think about that, that when reality hits home and reality shows that Yeshua is the One, Melech Moshiach ben David. What will your reaction be?
What then do we make of rabbi Tovia Singer’s claims? They are totally untrue!
Isaiah 53 – Who is this servant?
Part I: What rabbi Tovia Singer failed to tell his audience.
This chapter must be the most discussed section of any book of any religion at any time. There has been much speculation about this chapter as to who is this servant the prophet is talking about. Who IS this servant? Let’s consider the claims that Rabbi Tovia Singer comes up with to prove that Isaiah 53 couldn’t be talking about Yeshua.
First I want to point to the fact that the rabbi always speaks of “fundamentalist Christians” or “fundamentalist Evangelicals” when he speaks of the people that take their faith in the Messiah of Israel seriously (1:50). All this because the word fundamentalist has a very negative charge. Think of what he would say if CNN would cover a story about devout Orthodox Jews calling them “fundamentalist Orthodox Jews” all the time. Let’s go to the arguments Rabbi Singer raises in the first part of his lecture and see if there is any truth to them.
Charge no 1: Who is speaking? (7:40)
Rabbi Singer raises the question to the audience about who they think is the speaker. The people all come up with their options and the rabbi explains why their options won’t work. But when someone says that Israel is the speaker, he denies that Israel is the speaker but fails to explain why Israel can’t be the speaker! Why doesn’t the rabbi explain this as he did in the other cases? Simply because he can’t. This is just subject to interpretation and therefore there is no argument he can come up with besides theological preference. Israel can’t be the speaker, because if it is then it can’t be the servant.
Charge no.2: Identity of the servant. (35:50)
Rabbi Tovia Singer wants to identify this servant and to know who this servant is, he comes with an analogy about a book he read and started somewhere on page 273, where the book spoke of a Danny and Sally. He didn’t know who they were so he started to back paddle as little as possible to show who they were. So he does too with this servant. There is only one problem with this analogy: that book spoke of specific names and there was only one Danny and one Sally, but in the book of Isaiah has not but one servant. Isaiah, Eliakim and David are also called Gods servant. Also curious is the fact that the rabbi says he wanted to back paddle as little as possible and starts reading towards Isaiah 53 (37:15, 40:00) and deliberately skips the one time the word “servant” is mentioned that is closest to the “4th servant song”, namely Isaiah 50:10! And who is this servant?
4 The Lord GOD hath given me the tongue of them that are taught, that I should know how to sustain with words him that is weary; He wakeneth morning by morning, He wakeneth mine ear to hear as they that are taught. 5 The Lord GOD hath opened mine ear, and I was not rebellious, neither turned away backward. 6 I gave my back to the smiters, and my checks to them that plucked off the hair; I hid not my face from shame and spitting. 7 For the Lord GOD will help me; therefore have I not been confounded; therefore have I set my face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be ashamed. 8 He is near that justifieth me; who will contend with me? let us stand up together; who is mine adversary? let him come near to me. 9 Behold, the Lord GOD will help me; who is he that shall condemn me? Behold, they all shall wax old as a garment, the moth shall eat them up. 10 Who is among you that feareth the LORD, that obeyeth the voice of His servant? though he walketh in darkness, and hath no light, let him trust in the name of the LORD, and stay upon his God. 11 Behold, all ye that kindle a fire, that gird yourselves with firebrands, begone in the flame of your fire, and among the brands that ye have kindled. This shall ye have of My hand; ye shall lie down in sorrow. (Is 50:4-11)
This servant is not Israel. Notice the last sentence where this servant speaks of “This shall ye have from my hand; ye shall lie down in sorrow.” The servant is the speaker! How can this be about Israel?
When it comes to the servant, rabbi Singer wants to disprove Yeshua and so he goes on to emphasize the differences rather than the similarities. However, when it comes to Israel being the servant he points us to the similarities but disregards the differences. But what do those similarities say? Nothing at all. We must keep in mind that the majority of the Tenach is about the history of the relationship between God and His people Israel and that therefore there is a lot written about Israel. So since there is so much written about Israel, there is a lot of material that can be taken as a parallel to the servant. To illustrate what I mean, here are some similarities between Cyrus and the Unnamed servant in the Servant Songs.
– Taken by the hand (45:1 – 42:6)
– Called by his name (45:4 – 49:1)
– he will make God known all over the world (45:6 – 49:6)
– he will cast down nations (45:1 – 52:15)
And this is from just 6 verses written about Cyrus in Isaiah 45 and I still could find up to 4 similarities, whereas there is much more written about Israel. Which means you can find anything you want about Israel to apply to any situation at any time in history. Theologically, though, you have a problem. Rabbi Tovia Singer’s examples of resemblance say absolutely nothing.
What IS interesting though is that there are major differences between the unnamed servant and Israel. Namely:
-Israel is called blind and imprisoned (42:19) – the servant will open the eyes of the blind and release prisoners (42:7)
-Israel is called deaf and is rebellious (42:19,20,25) – the servant has opened ears and isn’t rebellious (50:5)
-Israel walks in darkness and looks for light (59:9) – the servant brings people from out of the darkness and will be a light (42:7, 49:6)
-Israel is punished for their disobedience (42:24-25) – the servant is rewarded for his obedience (49:4-6)
-Israel speaks lies (59:3) – the servant has not spoken deceitfully (53:9)
-Israel has lost its way (59:7-8) – the servant leads Israel back on track (49:5-6)
-Israel suffers for their own sins (42:25) – the servant suffers for the sins of others (53:3-9)
-Israel suffers to their own shame (50:1-3) – the servant suffers and knows he will not be ashamed (50:7)
-Israel is in need of salvation (59) – the servant will bring salvation. (49:6)
-Israel needs an intercessor (59:16) – the servant IS an intercessor (53:12)
Charge no.3: Israel suffers because of the sins of the gentiles? (29:25)
So Rabbi Tovia Singer argues. This cannot be! Allow me to illustrate and please pay close attention to the following:
When you say that hitting someone goes too far and will not be tolerated and on the other hand say that hitting someone is acceptable behaviour, then these two are contradictory statements for obvious reasons, right?
When you tell your child that you will discipline him when he steals and on the other hand you say that he can steal and you will not discipline him, then these two are contradictory statements for obvious reasons, right?
When you say that Isaiah 53 is about events such as the Holocaust, etc [events where the gentiles have gone too far] and that God isn’t pleased about these events or caused them to come upon Israel and these events were entirely due to the wickedness of the gentiles and, on the other hand, the prophet says that God was indeed pleased with whatever happens in Isaiah 53 and God did indeed cause it to come upon the servant, then these two are contradictory statements for the same obvious reasons!
What do I mean by all this? Well, Rabbi Tovia Singer boldly says:
“the reason why the Jews have endured the suffering and persecution and pain and unwanted death is not because of their iniquity of their rejecting Jesus, of killing God, but it’s gonna be because of as a result of the sins of the world. When the gentile kings sinned what did they do? They punished, they persecuted the Jews. Am I right? That was their sin? Who suffered as a result of that sin? The Jewish people! And that is going to be their recognition at the end of days!”
Listening to his words a little later he quotes Zechariah 1:15 (1:18:12) saying:
“’I am very angry with the nations…’ why? ‘…because they’re at ease. And I was wroth a little but they helped to do harm.’ They did far more than Israel ever deserved.”
In other words, rabbi Tovia Singer says that God is angry with all the persecution and the harsh and cruel treatment Israel got from the nations, and the nation’s wickedness was the cause of the suffering of Israel and it was not God’s intention to cause Israel to suffer as much as they have by the hands of the nations. Every time the nations went too far and overstepped their boundaries against the Jewish people to bring them great suffering, even to the point of annihilation, it was because of their own iniquities rather than by Gods cause and God had nothing to do with it. But this view is contradictory to what the prophet Isaiah is saying! This is what the prophet says:
6 All we like sheep did go astray, we turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath made to light on him the iniquity of us all…
10 Yet it pleased the LORD to crush him by disease…
There is clearly a contradiction here. Did God cause the Gentiles to overstep their boundaries against Israel? Was God pleased with the extreme cruel treatment of the Gentiles against His people? Of course not! If what rabbi Tovia Singer says, and therefore the entire anti-missionary position, is true, then the prophet is wrong! But that is not an option since we are trying to figure out what the prophet is trying to say. So if the prophet says that, whatever he is describing in Isaiah 53, God has caused it to come upon the servant (v.6) and was pleased with it (v.10), then how can the rabbinic Jewish position say the exact opposite and claim that it is saying exactly the same as the prophet? LET THE TRUTH BE KNOWN: It is the exact opposite of what Isaiah is saying! Obviously this can’t be about Israel suffering from the exceedingly cruel behaviour at the hands of their persecutors, because if it was about that, then God would not be pleased with it and so the rabbi and Isaiah are in disagreement with each other, to say it politely. Cause where rabbi Singer claims that God is angry with the nations for such behaviour and God didn’t have anything to do with it, the prophet Isaiah says God was pleased and that God caused it to come upon the servant. So who do we believe: Y’shayahu ben-Amots hanavi or rabbi Tovia Singer? So from the Traditional Jewish (anti-missionary, Talmud, etc) position, if what they are saying is true and this is about Israel, then God would be pleased with events such as the Holocaust! Therefore, this simply can’t be about Israel as the rabbi, in trying to prove Israel as the servant, contradicts what the prophet says.
Let me be more specific: If the rabbinic Jewish position is flawed about Israel being the servant, then who IS the prophet really talking about? And seeing that they are clearly wrong, and have merely been echoing the voice of the Sages and rabbis of the past, then this does serious damage to the infallibility accredited to these Sages and rabbis of the past as far as their interpretation of other texts goes.
To elaborate on the analysis of verse 6 and 10 above, some anti-missionaries take Deuteronomy 28:63 as a parallel to those verses claiming that God seems to be saying that He is pleased to destroy Israel to cause them to repent, even to the point of annihilation. Obviously Deuteronomy 28:63 isn’t about events such as the Holocaust, but for the sake of argument we will accept that claim, then we still have a major problem on our hands. Israel did not repent after the Holocaust! In fact, more Jews have lost their faith in HaShem BECAUSE of the Holocaust to the point that Israel is a secular state, from the day it declared it’s independence up till now. So if the Holocaust was God’s plan for teshuvah (repentance) then that whole plan backfired! In addition, this grasping at Deuteronomy 28:63 blows another hole in the anti-missionary position that rabbi Tovia Singer uses in this lecture, namely, the Gentile king’s recognition in the end of days that God had nothing to do with the severe persecution and that it was solely the wickedness of the Gentiles that caused Israel to suffer as much as they did. Either way, you put it, Israel as the servant will not work!
In his zeal to prove that Israel is the servant (51:44) rabbi Singer quotes from a couple of Nazi source about their opinion on the appearance of the Jew in comparison of to the appearance of the ape where man supposedly has come from. Rabbi Singer then actually sees this as proof and a parallel to Isaiah 52:14 by quoting it. Now, this is actually the best he could do, as he says so himself! The only major problem is, that this is supposed to be the opinion of the gentiles, according to Rabbi Tovia Singer, but Isaiah 52:14 isn’t the gentiles speaking, but it is God speaking about his servant! According to rabbinic Judaism’s views, the gentiles don’t start speaking until two verses later in Isaiah 53:1! So unless one wants to argue that God shares the opinion of the Nazi’s about the appearance of His people, we can safely conclude that rabbi Tovia Singer totally made this up! This verse has nothing to do with Nazi opinion. This verse is about God speaking about His servant’s marred appearance from the humiliating suffering, not about his ugliness, as the Nazi paper reports.
In order to prove that the Christians will come up to Jews at the end of days, Rabbi Tovia Singer quotes Jeremiah 16:19, proving that Christianity is a false religion.
(19) O YHWH, my strength, and my stronghold, and my refuge, in the day of affliction, unto Thee shall the nations come from the ends of the earth, and shall say: ‘Our fathers have inherited nought but lies, vanity and things wherein there is no profit.’
However, let’s consider where Christianity started: In Israel with a handful of Jews. This isn’t a gentile faith, this is from the Hebrew Bible and thoroughly recognizes the Tenach as the sole word of God. If anything this verse speaks of those gentiles of the religions apart from the Hebrew Bible and the gentiles that are atheists and have adapted the views that there is no such thing as a God and that man is the highest level or all organisms “so make sure you live your life to the fullest, cause you only live once”. So this verse doesn’t prove anything against Messianic Jewish beliefs.
Isaiah 53 – Who is this servant?
Part II: What rabbi Tovia Singer failed to tell his audience.
Charge # 4: Lamo (10:40)
Rabbi Tovia Singer promised (9:40) that even if he only had Isaiah 53 and nothing else he could prove that this wasn’t talking about Yeshua. He starts with the famous “lamo” argument and lashes out to the translators of the KJV translation, who translate it as “him”. The verse that rabbi Singer reads to his audience goes:
for the transgression of my people a plague befell them (vs 8)
This above translation is the translation the rabbi suggests in his lecture. Notice that I have given the translated words parallel colours. Take note that he makes a big deal (1:14:00, part 1) about the KJV translating verse 5 (…we are healed) in the present tense while that sentence is in the past tense and condemns those translators, but now rabbi Singer uses the past tense where there is no past tense at all! The word “befell” is nowhere to be found in the text, that’s why it’s left in the colour black. I thought that was a bad thing! So when the KJV does it, it is one of the great Christian deceiving tactics, but now the rabbis does it and it is considered an accurate translation, acceptable at worst. But to continue with the word “lamo”, we can be very brief: the rabbi is right! Lamo means “for them”. BUT, how is it consistently used in the scriptures? The rabbi goes on to give us examples of other verses where lamo is used and they are, of course, all plural. Now the following is interesting. There are 3 instances of lamo being applied to a single individual or item and guess what the KJV does in all those instances. It translates it accordingly! If the word lamo refers to a single person, then it should be translated in the singular form, which is exactly what the KJV does! Here are the quotes:
#1 And he said, Blessed [be] the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. (Gen 9:26)
#2 he maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto. (Isaiah 44:15)
#3 for the transgression of my people was he stricken (Isaiah 53:8)
So what is rabbi Tovia Singer complaining about? The KJV has no agenda here, it just translates it in accordance with the context and thus follows a consistent pattern. But rather than the KJV having an agenda, it is the rabbi who has an agenda. He not only blatantly lies about the KJV translating the word “lamo” as “them” in all other places, as has clearly been demonstrated, but he then goes on to ignore the use of lamo in Isaiah 44:15! WHY? Because it doesn’t support his claim! Look at the context and you will see it is totally singular. I have put all the singular Hebrew words in brackets and made them red:
10 Who hath fashioned a god [el], or molten an image [uphesel nasach] that is profitable for nothing?
11 Behold, all the fellows thereof [chaveraav] shall be ashamed; and the craftsmen skilled above men; let them all be gathered together, let them stand up; they shall fear, they shall be ashamed together.
12 The smith maketh an ax, and worketh in the coals, and fashioneth it [yitserhu] with hammers, and worketh it [wayif´alehu] with his strong arm; yea, he is hungry, and his strength faileth; he drinketh no water, and is faint.
13 The carpenter stretcheth out a line; he marketh it [y´ta´arehu] out with a pencil; he fitteth it [ya´asehu] with planes, and he marketh it [y´ta´arehu] out with the compasses, and maketh it [wa´ya´asehu] after the figure of a man, according to the beauty of a man, to dwell in the house.
14 He heweth him down cedars, and taketh the ilex [tirzah] and the oak [w´alon], and strengtheneth for himself one among the trees of the forest; he planteth a bay-tree [oren], and the rain doth nourish it [y´gadel].
15 Then a man useth it [w´hayah] for fuel; and he taketh thereof (i.e. from the pieces of wood), and warmeth himself; yea, he kindleth it, and baketh bread; yea, he maketh a god [el], and worshippeth it; he maketh it [asahu] a graven image [pesel], and falleth down thereto [lamo].
And then it goes on and tells the same story in the singular. So it looks like the KJV translates lamo correctly. You might say “but this is about idols in general hence the plural lamo”. But the context is singular, uses a substantial number of singular words to describe the idol and the actions of the worshipper and so it should be translated accordingly. Likewise, the language of Isaiah 53 is thoroughly singular and therefore lamo should be translated accordingly. So why does rabbi Tovia Singer ignore this passage? And where does this leave his claims of distortion? Also, there are translations that translate it as saying “for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due”, making it clear that this servant got the punishment that the speakers deserved.
Charge #5: b’motav (19:00)
Rabbi Tovia Singer makes the claim that the word must be changed to the singular because it is a “nuisance to the cross”. But again, I must give the rabbi credit where credit is due: he is right again. “B’motav” means “in his deaths” and “b’moto” means “in his death”. But does this indicate plurality? NO! If it were “b’moteihem/b’motam”, then he would have a point beyond any doubt, since this would mean “in their deaths/in their death”, which is indisputably plural. But this word in Isaiah 53:9 does not support anything he goes on to say. The rabbi then goes on to say that he can’t prove his point from the Tenach because the word “b’motav” doesn’t appear in the rest of scripture. But the plural expression of that word is indeed used elsewhere in scripture. But rabbi Singer doesn’t quote that and we will see why he doesn’t. Let’s look at Ezekiel 28:
(8) They shall bring thee down to the pit; and thou shalt die the deaths of them that are slain, in the heart of the seas….
(10) Thou shalt die the deaths of the uncircumcised by the hand of strangers; for I have spoken, saith the Lord YHWH.’
These are examples of a single person being addressed and threatened to die deaths (plural). Now it is often said that these are instances that the word “deaths” refer to the plural “uncircumcised”. Well, that doesn’t excuse the plural use either, because the Tenach shows us that the singular is used in reference to a multitude [e.g. Numbers 23:10; Let me die the death (singular; moth) of the righteous (plural; y’sharim)]. And also verse 8 is a striking example of the plural being applied to a singular person. It speaks of “m’motei chalal b’lev yamim” which translates “in the deaths of one slain in the heart of the seas”. The plural (chalalim) is not used here (e.g. Isaiah 66:16, Daniel 11:26). Again, Rabbi Tovia Singer claimed that this was an exceptional word and this form doesn’t appear in the rest of the Tenach so that means he must have studied it out. So if he has studied this out, how come he “forgot” to mention these two instances? So again, Rabbi Tovia Singer’s charge of deceit is yet again without any substance whatsoever and I again leave it up to you to decide if this was just an accidental mistake or he deliberately left out the information.
Charge #6: God promises God
Rabbi Singer keeps arguing that God is making promises to God, that is, God making promises to Himself. For starters, this is not a deal that is made. It is a description of what awaits the servant when he has fulfilled his task. But if you want more on the concept of the Devine nature of the Messiah, please see my response on the “Trinity” lecture.
Charge #7: Deal? (27:50)
Rabbi Tovia Singer makes a big deal about a word that can be translated any way you like. Since this is a prophecy and this is surely to happen it isn’t a question of “if” the servant will do something, but “when” he will have done it! (for example Isaiah 4:4) So the word “ma” (im) actually won’t prove neither the rabbinic reading nor the messianic reading. So there is no deal as far as the messianic reading is concerned. The servant will do that and when he has done it that will be the result. Sure prophecy, sure fulfillment. Also notice that the servant will live and see generations after he has made his soul a “guilt-offering”, in other words, after he has died. This can only be speaking of a resurrection.
Charge #8: Seed/ arhz (Zera) (30:15)Rabbi Singer then goes on a rampage about the fact that Yeshua didn’t have any seed when the prophet explicitly says this, that is, according to the rabbi. The rabbi says that the servant has to have children. Rabbi Singer argues that the word “nb” (ben) is the proper word to refer to non-physical children, not “arhz” (zera). He actually goes so far to say that “the word ‘zera’… can only mean physical children, NEVER spiritual children. By definition the word ‘zera’ means ‘seed’. It’s talking about that which leaves the loins of a man. It’s not talking about those people that follow his teachings. ‘Zera’ only means PHYSICAL children. NEVER does it mean someone’s gonna have spiritual children, that’s IMPOSSIBLE! And therefore it’s clear here that this is talking about physical children. ‘Prove it to me!’ Boy, am I gonna prove it to you!”
Then the rabbi gives us some verses that prove his point and then drills his point home with an account in Genesis 15, a dialogue between God and Abram where God appears to Abram and Abram mistakes Eliezer for his son (nb /ben) and says that God didn’t give him any seed (arhz /zera). Sounds like a pretty convincing story, doesn’t it? However… yet again Rabbi Tovia Singer is not telling the whole story and plays with the mind of his audience. Look at the quotes above again:
zera only means physical seed…
never spiritual seed…
that’s impossible …
boy am I gonna prove it to you…
If what rabbi Singer says is actually true, then we won’t be able to find a single instance where zera is used metaphorically (referring to non-physical seed) in the Tenach since he told his audience that was impossible, right? Okay! Now what the rabbi failed to tell his audience and conveniently left out is the following. A few chapters after Isaiah 53 we see the word seed used again. This is what Isaiah 57:4 says:
Against whom do ye sport yourselves? Against whom make ye a wide mouth, and draw out the tongue? Are ye not children of transgression, a seed of falsehood,
Now unless rabbi Tovia Singer is going to argue that the people of Israel are direct descendants and physical offspring of falsehood, this pretty much looks like a metaphorical use of the word “zera”, something that rabbi Tovia Singer, who has great knowledge of Hebrew, said that was IMPOSSIBLE! Why does Isaiah then seem to think otherwise? Didn’t he know enough Hebrew to know what rabbi Singer knows? No, it’s simply because Isaiah doesn’t have to disprove or discredit anyone, but Rabbi Singer clearly does! Again, is this just a slip of the tongue or deliberately left out? Now we will proceed to the next example, which comes from Psalm 22:31:
A seed shall serve him; it shall be told of the Lord unto the next generation.
Unless you believe that God married some hot goddess and will have physical children, this pretty much looks like a metaphorical usage of the word “zera”. At least it looks like the word zera is used to describe to other peoples’ offspring and not of the subject itself, God. “But…”, you object, “…this doesn’t speak of Gods children at all. This just says that “a seed” (zera) will serve Him and not that “his seed” (zero) will serve Him!” To which my answer is; don’t you do the exact same thing regarding the servant in Isaiah 53? What does it say?
He will see seed
Exactly! It says “yir’eh zera” and not “yir’eh zero”, so why does rabbi Singer claim that the servant must have children or that he is promised children? The text doesn’t say that at all! Now I am aware of instances that the prophet doesn’t use the possessive form but it is still implied. But who says that he is implying it here? Nowhere in the text of Isaiah 53 is there ever a promise to the servant that he will have children. Maybe people with a double agenda may think so, but looking at the Hebrew text, which is the source of Rabbi Singer’s arguments, there is no basis for that argument. Except for theological bias, of course. Here are more references to metaphorical uses of zera in Isaiah:
“4 Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evil-doers, children that deal corruptly…” (Isaiah 1)
“20 Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, thou hast slain thy people; the seed of evil-doers shall not be named for ever.”(Isaiah 14)
“3 But draw near hither, ye sons of the sorceress, the seed of the adulterer and the harlot.” (Isaiah 57)
Unless one is going to argue that all the parents of the ones being addressed here are truly considered harlots and evildoers, you are going to have to concede that it’s implied here to refer to people who follow the evil works and the ways of adultery like the generations before them, regardless if they are their physical children or not. For all we know most of the parents of those being addressed here have been righteous while they wandered off. This clearly refers to the works of their predecessors rather than their origins.
So this charge remains without teeth, is made up from thin air and Rabbi Singer is caught lying yet again!
Charge #9: Vindication by blood alone?
Rabbi Singer claims that Yeshua has only vindicated His followers through His blood. The rabbi says that it can’t refer to Yeshua because according to the Gospels “Christians are healed by the blood of Jesus and not by his knowledge, as is said of this servant” (my rendition). This is a totally inaccurate position, because we believe it all goes hand in hand. Yeshua knew he had to give up his life in order for us to be saved. It was his knowledge that made him say “Let this cup pass me by… but it is not as I want but as You wish”. Without this knowledge, things would have been very different and either one is completely blind to this fact or just chooses to nitpick in order not to come to this conclusion. We believe that through his life, suffering, death and resurrection all good things have come to mankind. They are all a piece of the big puzzle. So clearly Rabbi Singer wants to nitpick and he can go just head. He makes a claim of vindication through knowledge based on one verse and ignores all the other verses that speak of this servants suffering bringing vindication and atonement to the speakers. This is a point even Rashi makes in his commentary on Isaiah 53. I advice anyone to read it on http://www.chabad.org/library/article.htm/aid/63255/jewish/The-Bible-with-Rashi.html.
I have copied and pasted it below for you. Rashi comments follow the bold print
1Who would have believed our report, and to whom was the arm of the Lord revealed?
Who would have believed our report: So will the nations say to one another, Were we to hear from others what we see, it would be unbelievable.
the arm of the Lord: like this, with greatness and glory, to whom was it revealed until now?
2And he came up like a sapling before it, and like a root from dry ground, he had neither form nor comeliness; and we saw him that he had no appearance. Now shall we desire him?
And he came up like a sapling before it: This people, before this greatness came to it, was a very humble people, and it came up by itself like a sapling of the saplings of the trees.
and like a root: he came up from dry land.
neither form: had he in the beginning, nor comeliness.
and we saw him that he had no appearance. Now shall we desire him?: And when we saw him from the beginning without an appearance, how could we desire him?
Now shall we desire him?: This is a question.
3Despised and rejected by men, a man of pains and accustomed to illness, and as one who hides his face from us, despised and we held him of no account.
Despised and rejected by men: was he. So is the custom of this prophet: he mentions all Israel as one man, e.g., (44:2), “Fear not, My servant Jacob” ; (44:1) “And now, hearken, Jacob, My servant.” Here too (52:13), “Behold My servant shall prosper,” he said concerning the house of Jacob. ?????????? is an expression of prosperity. Comp. (I Sam. 18:14) “And David was successful (??????????) in all his ways.”
and as one who hides his face from us: Because of their intense shame and humility, they were as one who hides his face from us, with their faces bound up in concealment, in order that we not see them, like a plagued man who hides his face and is afraid to look.
4Indeed, he bore our illnesses, and our pains-he carried them, yet we accounted him as plagued, smitten by God and oppressed.
Indeed, he bore our illnesses: Heb. ?????, an expression of ‘but’ in all places. But now we see that this came to him not because of his low state, but that he was chastised with pains so that all the nations be atoned for with Israel’s suffering. The illness that should rightfully have come upon us, he bore.
yet we accounted him: We thought that he was hated by the Omnipresent, but he was not so, but he was pained because of our transgressions and crushed because of our iniquities.
5But he was pained because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities; the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his wound we were healed.
the chastisement of our welfare was upon him: The chastisement due to the welfare that we enjoyed, came upon him, for he was chastised so that there be peace for the entire world.
6We all went astray like sheep, we have turned, each one on his way, and the Lord accepted his prayers for the iniquity of all of us.
We all went astray like sheep: Now it is revealed that all the heathens (nations [mss.]) had erred.
accepted his prayers: He accepted his prayers and was appeased concerning the iniquity of all of us, that He did not destroy His world.
accepted… prayers: Heb. ??????????, espriad in O.F., an expression of supplication.
7He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he would not open his mouth; like a lamb to the slaughter he would be brought, and like a ewe that is mute before her shearers, and he would not open his mouth.
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted: Behold he was oppressed by taskmasters and people who exert pressure.
and he was afflicted: with verbal taunts, sorparlec in O.F.
yet he would not open his mouth: He would suffer and remain silent like the lamb that is brought to the slaughter, and like the ewe that is mute before her shearers.
and he would not open his mouth: This refers to the lamb brought to the slaughter.
8From imprisonment and from judgment he is taken, and his generation who shall tell? For he was cut off from the land of the living; because of the transgression of my people, a plague befell them.
From imprisonment and from judgment he is taken: The prophet reports and says that the heathens (nations [mss., K’li Paz]) will say this at the end of days, when they see that he was taken from the imprisonment that he was imprisoned in their hands and from the judgment of torments that he suffered until now.
and his generation: The years that passed over him.
who shall tell?: The tribulations that befell him, for from the beginning, he was cut off and exiled from the land of the living that is the land of Israel for because of the transgression of my people, this plague came to the righteous among them.
9And he gave his grave to the wicked, and to the wealthy with his kinds of death, because he committed no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.
And he gave his grave to the wicked: He subjected himself to be buried according to anything the wicked of the heathens (nations [mss., K’li Paz]) would decree upon him, for they would penalize him with death and the burial of donkeys in the intestines of the dogs.
to the wicked: According to the will of the wicked, he was willing to be buried, and he would not deny the living God.
and to the wealthy with his kinds of death: and to the will of the ruler he subjected himself to all kinds of death that he decreed upon him, because he did not wish to agree to (denial) [of the Torah] to commit evil and to rob like all the heathens (nations [mss., K’li Paz]) among whom he lived.
and there was no deceit in his mouth: to accept idolatry (to accept a pagan deity as God [Parshandatha]).
10And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill; if his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see children, he shall prolong his days, and God’s purpose shall prosper in his hand.
And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill: The Holy One, blessed be He, wished to crush him and to cause him to repent; therefore, he made him ill.
If his soul makes itself restitution, etc.: Said the Holy One, blessed be He, “I will see, if his soul will be given and delivered with My holiness to return it to Me as restitution for all that he betrayed Me, I will pay him his recompense, and he will see children, etc.” This word ?????? is an expression of ransom that one gives to the one against when he sinned, amende in O.F., to free from faults, similar to the matter mentioned in the episode of the Philistines (I Sam. 6:3), “Do not send it away empty, but you shall send back with it a guilt offering (??????).”
11From the toil of his soul he would see, he would be satisfied; with his knowledge My servant would vindicate the just for many, and their iniquities he would bear.
From the toil of his soul: he would eat and be satisfied, and he would not rob and plunder.
with his knowledge… would vindicate the just: My servant would judge justly all those who came to litigate before him.
and their iniquities he would bear: He would bear, in the manner of all the righteous, as it is said (Num. 18:1): “You and your sons shall bear the iniquity of the sanctuary.”
12Therefore, I will allot him a portion in public, and with the strong he shall share plunder, because he poured out his soul to death, and with transgressors he was counted; and he bore the sin of many, and interceded for the transgressors.
Therefore: Because he did this, I will allot him an inheritance and a lot in public with the Patriarchs.
he poured out his soul to death: Heb. ???????. An expression like (Gen. 24: 20), “And she emptied (????????) her pitcher.”
and with transgressors he was counted: He suffered torments as if he had sinned and transgressed, and this is because of others; he bore the sin of the many.
and interceded for the transgressors: through his sufferings, for good came to the world through him.
This is his commentary (in italics, all emphasis mine):
4. Indeed, he bore our illnesses Heb. ?????, an expression of ‘but’ in all places. But now we see that this came to him not because of his low state, but that he was chastised with pains so that all the nations be atoned for with Israel’s suffering. The illness that should rightfully have come upon us, he bore.
yet we accounted him We thought that he was hated by the Omnipresent, but he was not so, but he was pained because of our transgressions and crushed because of our iniquities.
5. the chastisement of our welfare was upon him The chastisement due to the welfare that we enjoyed, came upon him, for he was chastised so that there be peace for the entire world.
Now this is not “the big prove” that this speaks of the suffering of the servant bringing atonement, but since Rabbi Singer claims that the Christian reading is flawed, he is obviously also in contention with Rashi’s reading.
Charge #10: The New Testament slips! (1:04:20)
In order to demonstrate that the Israel interpretation was common and the Messianic interpretation was not Rabbi Tovia Singer claims that the New Testament slips by showing that the Messianic reading of Isaiah 53 was new at that time and everyone knew that Israel was the subject of that chapter. So he brings us to Matthew 16 where Yeshua announced His suffering and death and Kefa (Peter) took him aside and rebuked Him, saying “that should not be unto thee”, showing clearly that the Messianic interpretation was unknown in that day. Well, once again, the rabbi is right. There was no teachings that the Messiah, son of David, was to die. This is also something that the New Testament teaches. Sha’ul (Paul) makes this point in his letter
1 Corinthians 2:7-9: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known [it], they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
So Paul makes it emphatically clear that it was not known that the Messiah, son of David, had to die, this was hidden in Scriptures. But does this support the claim of the rabbi that “everyone” knew that it was speaking of Israel in the singular? Of this, the New Testament gives us a conclusive answer also. Let’s look at the account of the book of Acts, chapter 8, where Philip meets the Ethiopian who happens to read the chapter of Isaiah 53:
“29 Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. 30 And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? 31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. 32 The place of the scripture which he read was this,
He was led as a sheep to the slaughter;
and like a lamb dumb before his shearer,
so opened he not his mouth:
33 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away:
and who shall declare his generation?
for his life is taken from the earth.
34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.”
This man didn’t know what Isaiah 53 was speaking about either! When it was read he asked of whom it spoke, “the prophet himself or some other man”. He asked of which individual it spoke! It never occurred to the man that it could be speaking about a nation in the singular. What he should have said is “of course I know who this speaks of. It speaks of Israel in the singular”. But he never thought of that. So, no, this Israel interpretation was not commonly known in those days.
Charge #11: Rashi invented Israel interpretation. (52:50)
Rabbi Tovia Singer goes on with the argument that the Israel interpretation is invented by Rashi and then goes on to tell us how that claim is wrong, quoting other sources that should date before Rashi. Now there is something fishy going on here, because those same sources claim that this chapter is about the Messiah as well. Yet, if you would raise this to an anti-missionary, he would be quick to point you to the fact that these interpretations are mere “midrash” or homily and not the “p’shat” (straight forward) meaning of the text and therefore irrelevant. Including rabbi Singer, who blatantly lied about there not being one rabbi that said that Isaiah 53 was about Messiah ben David in a debate with Dr Michael L. Brown. (listen http://www.realmessiah.com/Listen/Entries/2008/12/11_Debate_-_DR_brown_and_Rabbi_Singer.html at about 48:50 in the debate) So where they will disregard the midrash saying it’s about the Messiah, the same midrash is taken to be valid evidence that the Israel interpretation is actually pre-Rashi.
Now let’s look at the sources rabbi Singer comes up with: The Zohar: is quoted as pre-dating Rashi. But the Zohar isn’t ancient, although rabbinic Judaism claims it is. It’s most likely 12th century, composed by Moses de Leon. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zohar )
Midrash Rabbah: This is actually just a side reference to a midrash on Ruth and is actually the closest any pre-Rashi traditional Jewish source comes to the Israel interpretation.
Brachot 5a: isn’t about the “righteous remnant” of Israel nor is it about “all Israel”, but just righteous people in general. It has nothing to do with a particular group of righteous people.
Targum: I have the Aramaic at home but I haven’t read it, because I don’t know Aramaic. But I have read some translations (Driver & Neubauer; Levey) of the entire the Targum and there is nothing that indicates that Israel is the servant. Yes, Israel suffers, but so do the Gentiles! What does that tell us? Absolutely nothing! What IS evident is the intercessory role that is allotted solely to the Messiah and absolutely absent in relation to Israel. Instead, just as the servant in Isaiah 53 intercedes for the transgressors, so does the Messiah intercede for his people in the Targum. The intercessory role is ascribed solely and totally to the Messiah and this shows us whom the Targum understands to be the servant. But because the Targum obviously doesn’t believe that the Messiah would die, it ascribes some of the sufferings to the gentiles and some to Israel. If, according to the Targum, the suffering of the servant was the main theme of the chapter, i.e. to identify the servant, then it wouldn’t have ascribed any suffering to the gentiles. So according to the Targum, the servant, who intercedes for the sins of his people, is the Messiah.
Origen: Now this is the only pre-Rashi source that I have been confronted with in my years of debating anti-missionaries that gives us a literal reading of Israel being the servant in Isaiah 53. Note that it’s not even a rabbinic source! That’s how rare this view was. But let’s see what Origen is saying exactly in chapter 55 of his book:
Now I remember that, on one occasion, at a disputation held with certain Jews, who were reckoned wise men, I quoted these prophecies; to which my Jewish opponent replied, that these predictions bore reference to the whole people, regarded as one individual, and as being in a state of dispersion and suffering, in order that many proselytes might be gained, on account of the dispersion of the Jews among numerous heathen nations. And in this way he explained the words, “Thy form shall be of no reputation among men;” and then, “They to whom no message was sent respecting him shall see;” and the expression, “A man under suffering.” Many arguments were employed on that occasion during the discussion to prove that these predictions regarding one particular person were not rightly applied by them to the whole nation. And I asked to what character the expression would be appropriate, “This man bears our sins, and suffers pain on our behalf;” and this, “But He was wounded for our sins, and bruised for our iniquities;” and to whom the expression properly belonged, “By His stripes were we healed.” For it is manifest that it is they who had been sinners, and had been healed by the Saviour’s sufferings (whether belonging to the Jewish nation or converts from the Gentiles), who use such language in the writings of the prophet who foresaw these events, and who, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, appiled these words to a person. But we seemed to press them hardest with the expression, “Because of the iniquities of My people was He led away unto death.” For if the people, according to them, are the subject of the prophecy, how is the man said to be led away to death because of the iniquities of the people of God, unless he be a different person from that people of God? And who is this person save Jesus Christ, by whose stripes they who believe on Him are healed, when “He had spoiled the principalities and powers (that were over us), and had made a show of them openly on His cross?” At another time we may explain the several parts of the prophecy, leaving none of them unexamined. But these matters have been treated at greater length, necessarily as I think, on account of the language of the Jew, as quoted in the work of Celsus.
Notice Origen says that it was on this one occasion that he was presented with this weird interpretation. He starts with “I remember”, which is not something that you say when you hear something all the time. This tells us that he had to dig it up from deep in his memory. Origen speaks of “on one occasion” debating with “certain Jews”. What is also evident is that he speaks of these Jews claiming this is about “the whole people”, and not about “a righteous remnant”. We also see that this wasn’t regarded as intercession, but “in order that many proselytes might be gained”. This is a whole other interpretation than that of modern-day Judaism. Take note also that according to Celsus, who was anti-Christian this was reckoned as “the language of the Jew”, and thus Israel is speaking here and this was not seen as being the language of the gentile kings. There is nothing in this chapter that would indicate that this was “the” Jewish view of that time. What then do we make of Rabbi Tovia Singer’s claims? They are totally untrue!
A little summary:
Rabbi Singer claimed that Israel isn’t the speaker but fails to tell us why when this option is suggested, whereas he does explain why the other options can’t be the speakers. He couldn’t tell us why, because there is no reason to think that Israel can’t be the speaker other than theological bias, since Israel being the speaker would disqualify it from being the servant
Rabbi Singer claimed that, based on Isaiah 52:14 Israel is considered “sub-human” and brings out a Nazi paper to back up his claim, saying this was the best way to demonstrate Israel fitting the description. This argument is totally fabricated! Isaiah 52:14 is God speaking about His servant and not the opinion of the Gentiles thinking Jews are ugly people. Therefore the verse is totally misapplied by Rabbi Singer.
Rabbi Singer claimed that the chapter is about Gentiles recognizing in the end of days that their persecution of the Jews has brought them healing, etc. However, from verse 6 and 10 we learn that this can’t be true, since God didn’t cause Gentiles to overstep their boundaries of persecuting the Jewish people to the point of near extinction (per verse 6) and subsequently wasn’t pleased with the persecution of the Jewish people in events such as the Holocaust (per verse 10).
Rabbi Singer claimed that the word “lamo” is translated incorrectly because the KJV has an agenda. This claim is proven to be false. The KJV has translated it correctly in all instances where the subject is singular. Likewise, the subject in Isaiah 53 is singular and therefore the singular translation is correct. Furthermore, it is rabbi Singer that hasn’t been fair towards his audience, since he conveniently “forgets” to mention the “lamo” in Isaiah 44:15, which refers to a single idol.
Rabbi Singer claimed that he was back-paddling as little as possible to find out who the servant was. However, he conveniently “forgot” to mention the reference to the “eved” closest to Isaiah 53, namely Isaiah 50, that in no way refers to Israel.
Rabbi Singer claimed that because the plural “bemotav” is used, the servant must be a multitude addressed. But, again, he conveniently “forgets” to mention the two examples in Ezekiel 28.
Rabbi Singer claimed that the word “zera” could impossibly refer to spiritual children, i.e. used either metaphorically or of people following the ways of their predecessors. This claim has proven to be false. I have given several examples of metaphorical use where “zera” (seed) refers to spiritual descendants or metaphorical usage, of people following the ways of their predecessors.
Rabbi Singer, proving himself to be a true anti-missionary, dismisses the rabbinic sources, that say that Isaiah 53 is about the Messiah, as being irrelevant because they are merely midrash (or homily), but uses the same sources that allegedly enforce his POV and presents them as valid evidence, although they are also midrash.
It’s funny to see how Rabbi Singer fails to tell the whole story all the time and only gives his audience the part that fits his agenda and then claims that others try to deceive their readers by asking “why play with my holy scriptures”. If anyone is playing with scripture – and with the mind of his listeners – it is obviously Rabbi Singer, who is clearly enjoying his one-sided story. You may say: “well, cut the Rabbi some slack. He might have missed it”. Then he shouldn’t go and accuse others of deliberate distortion and then go hiding behind the excuse that people make mistakes when it comes back to him, because the examples are right there in the book of Isaiah and it is highly unlikely that he missed it. If he wants people to be considerate towards him, he should be considerate towards them. But if anyone in his audience knew Hebrew and was half as critical to his views as he was against the Messianic view, then he would fall on his face right there. As for that comment that they “play with our Bible” and about “leaving skid marks”, which rabbi Singer uses repeatedly, my answer would be: if any system has “played with our Bible” it is the Talmud, that added and subtracted tons of laws from the Written Law and given us numerous crooked interpretations of the Tenach. If anyone with half the critique one has towards the New Testament is let loose on the Talmud he would need at least quadruple the amount of time and paperwork to criticize it as one needs to criticize the New Testament.
Jews of the Devil? (11:30)
This lecture actually should have been called “slandering of Messianic Jews” or something like that, because that’s exactly what rabbi Tovia Singer is doing for the vast majority of this lecture. I am not even going to address the points about the slander of rabbi Singer against Messianic Jews. I do want to address the claim of rabbi Singer that “only Satan can” reject the truth when knowing the truth. (We actually don’t believe that Jews “know” that Yeshua is the Messiah, but we say that because they don’t believe he is the Messiah they want to get rid of all possible allusions to him, be it by removing Isaiah 53 from the haphtarah [which I’m not sure of] or making another interpretation than the Messianic interpretation prominent. As I have shown before, the rabbi keeps essential information from his audience time and time again and only tells the part that support his claims) What’s funny is that this is what has been the testimony of the Tenach about Israel, yet rabbi Singer points his audience to the New Testament to make it seem that the New Testament says that Jews reject the truth when it’s right there in front of them. Notice that the New Testament is written by Jews, but still is called anti-Semitic by the anti-missionaries. Well, then if you speak bad about Yeshua then, as a Jew, you can still be called anti-Semitic as well. This, then, also goes for the Tenach. So let’s look at some amazing “anti-Semitic” statements of the prophets in the Tenach that show us Jews rejecting the truth. And I say Jews instead of Israel because that’s the terminology that rabbi Singer uses himself. Remember, we are only being consistent and want to avoid the use of double standards. We will see that even when knowing that God has just acted or a true prophet spoke, they rejecting him anyway. I will replace the word “Israel” with “the Jews” for shock-value, to increase the “anti-Semitic” tone of the prophet and see what happens if rabbi Singer holds the Tenach to the same standards as he does with the New Testament:
This is what the prophet says that God told him about the Jews: 4 And He said unto me: ‘Son of man, go, get thee unto the Jews, and speak with My words unto them. 5 For thou art not sent to a people of an unintelligible speech and of a slow tongue, but to the Jews; 6 not to many peoples of an unintelligible speech and of a slow tongue, whose words thou canst not understand. Surely, if I sent thee to them, they would hearken unto thee. 7 But the Jews will not consent to hearken unto thee; for they consent not to hearken unto Me; for all the Jews are of a hard forehead and of a stiff heart.
Excuse me? This known prophet Ezekiel is sent to the Jews and God says that they will reject his words nonetheless. Even when they know he is Gods true prophet! But God doesn’t stop there, He even goes beyond that. He says that had He sent Ezekiel to the Gentiles, they would have listened to him and received the words of God, even though they didn’t speak the language. But the Jews? Now way! Talking about anti-Semitic statements! Knowing that Ezekiel is a true prophet and understanding every word he says, God says that they will reject whatever he says anyway. Can you imagine what the anti-missionaries would have said if this testimony would have been found in the New Testament?
Now the next anti-Semitic statement; 1Kings 18-19.
Eliyahu (Elijah) on Mount Carmel with everyone present taking on the prophets of Baäl and defeating them hands down, showing without any doubt that he is the true prophet of the one true God. Yet in spite of that incredibly miraculous event that took place and people witnessing the glory of the God of Israel, they still went with Baäl and rejected God and His prophet! Now the New Testament is often criticized for being anti-Semitic because of it’s testimony that although the people saw all the miraculous deeds of Yeshua, they still rejected him? Herewith implying that they didn’t take place, because had they taken place as the New Testament witnesses, they wouldn’t have rejected him as they did. But what are we then to make of this account in 1 Kings 18-19? By anti-missionary standards it couldn’t have occurred.
Well, how about the testimony of the Torah about the Exodus? The testimony of Israel, after seeing the miraculous works God did through Moshe (Moses) and the glorious victory over Egypt, which they saw with their own eyes, an entire dynasty wiped away without one man lifting up a sword, totally demolishing that country and still the people spoke about going back to Egypt to live there as slaves because they thought they would be better off, continuously mumbling against God and Moses to the point that they even wanted to stone Aharon and Moshe (read Numbers 14), constantly rebelling after almost constantly being witnesses of God’s miracles. Building the golden calf, where “all the people” brought their gold to make the statue. (even though anti-missionaries will claim that only 3000 people participated in this event, but the reality is that the entire nation participated and only 3000 failed to repent and didn’t choose for God and were therefore slain) “Only the Devil can do that”? No, that’s not what the Tenach tells us! The Tenach, not Christians, tells us that the Jews are capable of knowing and still rejecting. So where is rabbi Singer’s outrage now?
Have you noticed, by the way, how highly rabbi Singer speaks about the prophets in his lectures? This is all after the fact. In the time of the prophets they weren’t esteemed so highly by the religious leaders of our people as they are now. It all started in Egypt, Moses came to the people and they rebelled against him in the wilderness, in the time of the prophets some were ignored, some were rejected, some were persecuted, some were killed. Then the people went into exile and they eventually came back to the land, where they, completely in harmony with the behaviour of the previous generations, rejected and killed the Messiah. Of course, we are all to blame for him being slain because we have all sinned, Jew and Gentile alike. So this is no lashing out to the beloved Jewish people. But notice the pattern all the way back to Moses: when prophets didn’t live up to their expectations and asked too much from them (i.e. let go of their wicked ways and start to obey their words) they rebelled and rejected the message of the prophets. When the Messiah came and did exactly the same, not living up to their expectations and obey his words, they rebelled again and rejected him altogether as well. So what I am trying to say is that it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the Messiah wasn’t recognised by his people when he came to them.
“You don’t understand!…” 16:00
Then rabbi Singer says that we can’t tell Jews what their books say. According to the rabbi this would be like the Chinese telling an American that he doesn’t know his own constitution. But this is comparing sticks to stones, because for starters, the gentiles didn’t come to the Jews by themselves to tell them that they have figured it all out. They learned it from the Messiah Himself and His followers, who were all Jews. This would be similar to Chinese people who got their information from the likes of Abraham Lincoln and the founding fathers and then came to the American and tell him what certain constitutional laws really meant to say. They don’t need to know how to read the language, since they got their information in Chinese and still got the right interpretation from the founding fathers. As shown before Ezekiel 3:4-7 bears witness to this fact. So Gentile don’t make their case based on their own knowledge, but based on what Messiah has said.
Difference between Messianic Judaism and Pentecostals Evangelicals 29:30
Rabbi Tovia Singer claims that the only difference between Messianic Judaism and Pentecostals Evangelicals is rabbinic Jewish customs. This is partially true. Although there are religious expressions that are in conformity with rabbinic Judaism, because it has a lot of beauty in it, this is not the only thing that separates us from Gentile Pentecostals congregations. That the rabbi comes to this conclusion maybe because the traditions are all outward expressions of the faith. But these traditions are in no way binding! So the expression may be in agreement with traditional Jewish way, but the experience is anything but conform traditional Judaism. If you go into a Messianic Congregation that observes Torah you immediately notice the difference between that and a traditional Jewish meeting. As rabbi Singer correctly points out in his lecture on “Sin and atonement” at 01:06:20-01:08:55. The main thing we and Gentile congregations disagree on is the centrality of the Torah, which, according to mainstream Pentecostals, was abolished by Yeshua. However, there are more and more Gentiles that see the importance of the Torah and observance of the Shabbat and feasts and kosher laws (i.e. biblical kosher, NOT halachic kosher!), (and in some cases) teachings of cleanliness due to the message Messianic Jews are spreading. Other than that, there are hardly differences. That we make kiddush and wear kippah does not “define” our Judaism! Also, we use the Hebrew names, not necessarily for Jewish people, but to remind the gentile believers that Yeshua and his disciples were all Jews, which is something the gentile believers tend to forget and instead see them first and foremost as Christians. The Messiah is part of Israel and the faith of the gentile believers is the inheritance of Israel, which they share in. Not as the heirs, but as co-heirs to the promise God made to Abraham, that through him, all the nations would be blessed. So it’s not a ploy “to lure Jews into Christianity”, but rather to set the record straight with our gentile brothers in Lord Yeshua. Furthermore, I want to use the analogy rabbi Singer uses in another setting: If you would step into a time machine and go back to those days, I would bet that if you would ask someone where Jesus, the son of Joseph was, people would ask you what you were talking about. They didn’t know any Jesus, or Mary, or James, or John, or Matthew, or Peter. But if you would ask for Yeshua ben Yosef, people would know whom you were asking about. People were familiar with the names Yeshua, Miryam, Ya’aqov, Yochanan, Mattityahu, Kefa. So it has nothing to do with “trying to sound Jewish” because IT WAS JEWISH!
As for all the other slander of Messianic Judaism, I urge you to go and see for yourself and meet Messianic Jews to see that if rabbi Tovia Singer’s allegations are correct or not. By now you should know better than just to take rabbi Singer at his word. But rabbinic tradition is hardly considered “keeping the commandments”. Furthermore, we have nothing against rabbinic tradition. On the contrary: we find a lot of wisdom and beauty in the traditions. What we do reject is the teaching that these traditions are Torah, given from God. That is simply untrue. Even the New Testament makes the distinction between the Torah and the “tradition of the Elders”. So either it’s from God and it’s not tradition or either it’s tradition and it is not from God. Therefore, we see the beauty of the traditions and apply these traditions and don’t see them as a bad thing, we absolutely do NOT see them as Torah and therefore, religiously binding, since that claim can’t be substantiated from the Tenach. God is not interested in the Jewish ness of a religion but in the truthfulness of people to his word. So if I must set aside my Jewish pride to gain what I know to be true, the resurrected Messiah, then I will follow the example of the apostle Sha’ul in Philippians 3:7-8 and do just that.
Yet more lies! Why? (40:10)
Then rabbi Tovia Singer expands on Gen. 49:10 and tells his audience about a Christian that interpreted it in a certain way. But then rabbi Tovia Singer goes on to do something remarkable. He presents that interpretation as “the” Christian position. If this is “the” Christian position, then I wonder why this is the first time I have ever heard of it. This interpretation is one I have never heard of! So instead of this being “the” Christian interpretation, this is just one individual that understood the text as such.
Check your theology! (41:33)
Then rabbi Tovia Singer points us to Hoshea 3 to show that Jews aren’t supposed to have a king. But, again, as I pointed out in the “Rabbi Singer Answers Questions” section, these things don’t just happen “because the prophet says so”. There had to be something that caused this. And because Israel, as a majority, rejected Yeshua’s sacrifice for their sins, his role as mediator and High Priest, his role as their king, they don’t have these things. It is only when they accept him in the latter days, these things will be restored. When they “turn to Yahweh, their God, and David, their king” in the latter days. By the way, also notice that the text also speaks about Israel not having idols. So what does that tell us? How many secular Jews are into idolatry, séances and all that stuff? I thought that “Jews are not gonna have it”.
He then goes on to say that according to Christianity it all comes down to the sacrifice on Calvary and that it teaches that you can be a lousy person, but if you believe in Yeshua, you’re saved. Where does the New Testament teach this? I dare rabbi Singer to come up with the quote where the New Testament says that any lousy person is saved by just “believing”. What the New Testament DOES teach is that belief with repentance is essential for salvation and that without repentance that changes the lifestyle into God-fearing obedience, your belief is worthless. Yet another misrepresentation of Messianic Jewish faith.
Rabbi Tovia Singer tries to demonstrate that sacrifices have no meaning to king Solomon. The only problem is that he is using the wrong text to demonstrate this. What is Ecclesiastes all about? It’s about things in life, how people live their lives in vain. What does it say about atonement? NOTHING in any way, shape or form! So why use something that has nothing to do with atonement to prove that it doesn’t say anything about Messiah’s atonement? What king Solomon says, and who could disagree with him on that, is that as far as the way of life is concerned, keeping Gods commandments is the best thing man can do, because all the rest has no profit whatsoever. We can again, put the shoe on the other foot and say that king Solomon says nothing about prayer, repentance and charity as well. What does that tell us about these three important aspects of life? Nothing, because we understand that he isn’t making a case about atonement, he is trying to explain that the best man can do in life is not to pursue the things of his own heart, but to keep God’s commandments. That’s the conclusion of a man that had it all, but saw no profit in them. One should ask, why rabbi Singer feels compelled to make these baseless allegations time and time again?
No accounts of blood sacrifices in the Tenach (52:30)
Rabbi Tovia Singer then gives his audience something to think about. He asks his audience that if sacrifices were so important, then why isn’t there one case of someone bringing sacrifices for sins in the entire Tenach? This should make you wonder, right? Here is the answer: because the Tenach emphasizes Gods mercy rather than the way to get atonement. The Torah has already laid out the atonement system. Think about it: the Tenach deals with just a few cases where people sinned. In those instances, when people are forgiven the authors show God’s love for His people Israel and His compassion for them. Does this mean that no one ever brought sacrifices for their sins? If the Bible kept count of every single sin in Temple times and every single goat or lamb that was offered, the authors would still be writing to this day, trying to keep track of sin sacrifices. However, the point the authors wanted to make is to show the grace of God towards His people. But to say that no one ever brought sacrifices when they sinned is to say that every one disregarded the Torah that explicitly commands sacrifices to atone for sins. And if we are to believe the anti-missionaries (rabbi Singer in particular), the Torah was too caught up with blood and the prophets, seeing this, repudiated Torah-sacrifices, therewith rectifying the error that was made in the Torah. Sure!
The New Testament teaches reliance on man (1:01:30)
Again, I would advise you to read the New Testament and talk to Christians and see if they “look horizontally” and not “up” instead of taking rabbi Singer at his word. Look at some of the following references in the New Testament itself:
Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven…But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust… Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. (Mat 5:16,44-45,48)
Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven…After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. (Mat 6:1, 9)
Insomuch that the multitude wondered, when they saw the dumb to speak, the maimed to be whole, the lame to walk, and the blind to see: and they glorified the God of Israel. (Mat 15:31)
And immediately he rose up before them, and took up that whereon he lay, and departed to his own house, glorifying God. (Luke 5:25)
So when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding nothing how they might punish them, because of the people: for all [men] glorified God for that which was done… And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou [art] God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is: (Acts 4:21, 24)
Virtually all epistles in the New Testament start with words like: “I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus [the Messiah].”
So take my advice and look for yourself. Only then you will know if there is any truth to rabbi Singer’s allegations.
Rabbi Singer then gives his audience the impression that the New Testament teaches that celibacy is the way to go and that being married is something one should only consider when one “burns”. He does so to demonstrate that “the biggest knackers” of the New Testament were all bachelors in contrast to prophets in the Tenach. He then lists prophets who were married with children, to prove how the teachings of the New Testament is anti-Tenach. But, as is the custom of this rabbi, what he does again is not telling his audience the whole story and conveniently leaves some of “the biggest knackers” in the Tenach out of his line-up. Why? Because they don’t support the story he wants his audience to hear. What about Jeremiah? What about Elijah? What about Elisha? It’s obvious why he doesn’t mention them! So what does Paul mean? He is saying that all people, who give themselves to God in ministry, would do good to stay single for the purpose of being able to completely give themselves to God without having to consider (read: compromise), for example, how to feed their family, etc. What is so wrong about that?
Then the rabbi acts as if Messianic Judaism has anything against physical pleasure. This is absolutely erroneous. What Messianic Judaism DOES teach, is that the lure of having too much physical pleasure is always there and can overtake a person. And one should be careful not to get too carried away in the process. And what is wrong about being worried about having sex and afterwards going to a religious meeting? Notice that the question from “dear Abby” is not just about having sex. It’s about having sex “on Sunday morning” (i.e. before the meeting) and then going to the meeting right after. Doesn’t Torah teach us that after having sex, we are physically unclean and remain unclean until the evening? Then why is this being ridiculed by the rabbi? First we are ridiculed for NOT keeping the Torah and now we are ridiculed for asking questions that are derived from the Torah. Rabbi Singer’s entire analysis is totally irrelevant.
Again you need to ask yourself the important question: Why does rabbi Singer use these arguments and does he make claims that are just untrue and why does he have to be inconsistent in his approach in order to make his story stick? I’ll let you decide for yourself.
In closing I would like to point you to an interesting lecture of a Jewish man called Mariano Grinbank, who gives an interesting insight about the messianic teachings according to traditional Jewish sources. You can find his lecture called “rabbinic Judaism” here: http://calvarysantafe.org/player.php?ServiceID=90
See how you will find the traits of the Messiah in those sources. Rabbi Singer can say all he wants about the Christian Messiah being foreign to Judaism, but his sources say otherwise.