See Objections Bottom of Page
Recently I was talking with a rabbi who teaches on the university level. Unfortunately, it did not take long to realize he did not know the TaNaCH very well at all, and especially its historical context based upon the major objections he presented to me and parroted by those under his guidance. On the other hand, he was very knowledgeable of current rabbinical influences that are not always in-line with the TaNaCH. For example, this brother thought the temple that was destroyed in 586 had not been destroyed at the time Daniel received the revelation in Daniel 9:24-26. Yet, he confidently referred me to another anti-Yeshua apologist, who apart from wit and personal appeal, never really adequately deals with the issues with objective honesty either. I pointed this out to the rabbi citing Daniel 9:24-26 in historical context, and he was stunned in my opinion because that understanding alone opens one's eyes to the fact Messiah the King would come at two times in history according to the timeline presented in the TaNaCH; not merely an interpretation. Messiah the King would come once humbly on a donkey to be cut off, but not for himself according to Nehemiah 2:8, Isaiah 9:6, Zechariah 9:9 and Daniel 9:24-26, and the same Messiah the King would subsequently return in the clouds as the "Ancient of Days" in accordance with Daniel 7 and Zechariah 12:10 during the last days. The fact is many people do not know the history of the TaNaCH well, and apart from a story or something tied to a holiday, they really do not know the TaNaCH. The most tragic thing about all of this is that so many do not really know the G-d of the TaNaCH Who wants to tabernacle with each and every one of His children. I have encountered more people who are defined by what they do not believe instead of by a relationship with the G-d of the TaNaCH Himself. Time and again, I ask a simple question and am redirected on some long diversion into what they do not believe or something peripheral at best. On this page I am going to list links to objections and answers to them. My goal is that you will be set free from religion in your thinking and whatever else that hinders you to meet the G-d of the TaNaCH at your personal Jabbok in life, wrestle with Him in prayer, and come away broken by the knowledge that you can and did meet G-d and that He loves you. Do not send me money. Do not leave your community. Meet the true G-d of the TaNaCH, and let Him live His life through you to touch others with the love of His truth summed up in Messiah Yeshua, the Jewish Messiah for the nations.
Does the person you trust know where they are going?
"How can you say, 'We are wise, for we have the law of the Lord,' when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?"
Jeremiah 8:8
Does your moral, rabbinical, prophetic, or denominational interpretation that lack scriptural support in Biblical context dictate your theology?
Objections, Rationale, and Responces
Objection 1: The Jewish Messiah will only be human. G-d cannot become human (Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 44:6, Hosea 11:9, Ezekiel 28:2, Numbers 23:19).
Response 1: It is blasphemy to call someone G-d who is not G-d. Yet, the TaNaCH says a child would be born, and this child would be called "Almighty G-d" according to Isaiah 9:6. Almighty G-d is "born" a man child, and who do you think you are telling G-d what he can or can not do anyway? Micah 5:2 even informs us where this Messiah "whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting" would be born. There are examples of G-d appearing/tabernacleing among us in many ways in the TaNaCH, and the fact there is one G-d does not rule out the possibility of the Almighty becoming a man. This common objection and scriptural quotations used when it is brought up is addressed more adequately here.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Objection 2: No person can take on the sins of others . . .
Response 2: No SINFUL person can take on the sins of others according to Deuteronomy 24:16, Exodus 32:30-35, Ezekiel 18:1-4; 20-24; 26-27. THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE. The TaNaCH plainly declares without any "spin" that "he bore the sin of many," and the "he" is "a man." Isaiah 53:6 is about a SINLESS righteous man (iysh) of sorrows AND the servant identified in the first person singular over twenty times in that chapter, taking on the sins of G-d's people, and according to the immediate context the transgressing people include Jews (Isaiah 53:6; Hosea 11:7). Even Isaiah, a great man of G-d relative to his own knew he was sinful (Compare Daniel 9:11, Isaiah 64:6 and Isaiah 6:5 with Isaiah 53:9). If Isaiah in the TaNaCH could perceive his own sinfulness, who do you think you are? The righteous servant in Isaiah 53:6 is about the Messiah baring our transgressions whether by contrast or by context, and you will be held accountable for continuing to willfully lie to those trusting you to guide them for there is no way Israel the nation is the righteous servant in Isaiah 53 according to the TaNaCH! See Isaiah 1:4, Ezekiel 5:15, and many others. . .
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Objection 3: The Messiah cannot trace his lineage through Jehoiakim, Jeconiah, or Shealtiel, because this royal line was cursed (I Chronicles 3:15-17; Jeremiah 22:18,30). But according to both Matthew 1:11-12 and Luke 3:27, Jesus was a descendant of Shealtiel.
Response 3: The line of Joseph (Yeshua's supposed father) was cursed. Yeshua, the Branch from Jesse, was not the physical offspring of Joseph (Isaiah 11:1). Miriam was a descendant of Jesse, David, Nathan; the same names mentioned following Zechariah 12:10. Moreover, Miriam technically received first born inheritance rights having no brothers, which is transferred to include the spouce at marriage. Therefore, it is possible Joseph married out of the curse described in this objection when marrying Miriam, but regardless, Yeshua was not the physical offspring of Joseph anyway. Joseph was only Yeshua's supposed father. Yeshua is Son of David in the flesh through Miriam on one hand (Jeremiah 23:5), but Son of G-d in the flesh through the Almighty causing Miriam to conceive supernaturally BUT NOT Sexually on the other (Proverbs 30:4). See also Isaiah 9:6. But what about Messiah ruling as a king in the Earth ending war, and ushering in lasting peace in the Earth as it is in heaven? Those aspects of Yeshua's kingship that are yet to be fulfilled in the Earth are resolved with the response to objection seven below.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Objection 4: G-d hates human sacrifice
Response 4: G-d hates human sacrifice when we sacrifice humans, including our children and/or worship anything other than Him. This should not be confused with G-d Himself choosing to become a man in order to lay his humanity (not his deity) down in death to totally and permanently ransom your soul and mine for the penalty for sin upon the soul is death under the law. The soul that sins will die (Ezekiel 18:4), and the TaNaCH does not support the modern rabbinical notion that you and I can redeem ourselves from that penalty. With that in mind, think about Daniel 12:2 very carefully. Isaiah 53:6 is not the same thing as Baal worship, and anyone discerning the difference should be ashamed of themselves for putting the two in the same category.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Objection 5: Yeshua (Jesus) broke the Sabbath.
Response 5: Yeshua was only accused of breaking the Shabbat. There are various schools of thought within Judaism today that would point the finger at others for not adhering to their interpretation of the law. Yeshua argued that healing a fellow Jew on the Shabbat who spent a lifetime bedridden, which he did, was more justified than pulling an ox out of the ditch, which was permissible on the Shabbat by rabbinical Judaism of that time. Are you telling me you would not take the sickness away from your loved one on the Shabbat if you could, but would pull an ox out of the ditch or change a flat tire on the Shabatt? Truly there is nothing new under the sun. Shame on you for cleaning the outside of the dish, but not the hypocrisy on the inside. . .
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Objection 6: The Jewish Messiah will not perform miracles.
Response 6: Here is another example of not knowing the TaNaCH, and/or what rabbis before historical Yeshua anticipated. HaMaschiach, according to Jewish sages predating Yeshua, stated he would come with healing in his wings (Malachi 4:2). See also Isaiah 61:1-2 and Isaiah 35:5-6.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Objection 7: The Messiah will only come one time.
Response 7: Daniel 9:24-26 clearly shows Maschiach nagid as coming at two times in history-once to be cut off before the second temple's destruction in 70, and again at the end of the times when the nations come against Israel according to unfulfilled prophesies in TaNaCH. Elsewhere the TaNaCH includes details of these two advents. On one hand he "whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting" would be born in Bethelehem (Micah 5:2). On the other he would come in the clouds according to the TaNaCH (Daniel 7). Daniel 9:24-26 provides the historical timeline clearly showing two visitations by the same Maschiach nagind.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Objection 8: Isaiah would have used the Hebrew word bethulah, and not almah if he intended on promoting a virgin birth in Isaiah 7:14.
Rationale for objection 8 : Isaiah uses the Hebrew word alma only one time in his entire corpus (7:14), the prophet uses this word virgin (betulah) five times throughout the book of Isaiah (23:4; 23:12; 37:22; 47:1; 62:5) Had Isaiah wished to speak about a virgin birth , he would have used the word betulah not alma. Betulah is a common word in the Jewish scriptures, and can only mean “virgin.” In fact, although Isaiah used the Hebrew word alma only one time in his entire corpus (7:14), the prophet uses this word virgin (betulah) five times throughout the book of Isaiah (23:4; 23:12; 37:22; 47:1; 62:5).
Response to objection 8: Almah occurs nine times in the TaNaCh, and one time in Isaiah. In Genesis 24:14-16 bethualh is used, but the Hebrew text adds naarah to bethualh six times to keep this bethualh young. That is because bethulah could possibly mean a child of three years or a woman of sixty, beyond the child-bearing age based upon Biblical useage. On the other hand, the use of almah in Genesis 24:43 does not need to be qualified with naarah as it applied to Rebekah-a young woman that reached puberty, had no prior sexual relations, and no prior marriages. That is what she was. Rebekah is called almah in verse 43; not bethulah. Exodus 2:8 uses the term. Almah also occurs in Songs of Solomon 1:3: “The virgins love you”; there is nothing to suggest marriage, etc, here. In Songs of Solomon 6:8 three classes of women are distinguished: queens, concubines, and “virgins-” almah. If these virgins were married to the king, they would be either queens or concubines; they could not be listed separately. Only by being unmarried virgin women at the court can they be classified apart from the queens and concubines. The objection that “Had Isaiah wished to speak about a virgin birth, he would have used the word betulah not alma” is wrong. If Isaiah had used bethulah, those who want to have a young married woman in Isaiah 7:14 could
cite Joel 1:8, where bethulah is used of a woman who has had “a husband”: “Weep like a bethulah, girded with sackcloth, for the husband of her youth.” Some commentators make bethualah in Joel 1:8 a virgin widow, but the term for “husband” most naturally implies sex relations. Either way, this bethualah in Joel 1:8 was married. So, Isaiah would not use the term buthulah for a young virgin who had had reached puberty and had never been married. Jeremiah uses bethulah several times to describe Israel as the wife who has gone astray, which makes the meaning of “virgin” doubtful in these instances. This means the statement that betulah “can only mean ‘virgin'” in the Bible is wrong. Twice when the biblical narrative wants to express very clearly that the bethulah is really a virgin, it adds, “who had not known a man” to insure it isn't misunderstood in the other ways the word bethulah is used in the TaNaCH. In 7:14, Isaiah did not use bethulah because he wanted to avoid any possible ambiguity. Almah alone seems to insure the thought that this is a young unmarried virgin that had reached puberty just as it was in the case of Rebekah in Genesis 24:43 compared with 24:14-16. Bethulah could
be used to describe a wayward wife as Jeremiah used it. Bethulah could be used to describe someone who has been married as in Joel 1:8. Bethulah could possibly mean a child of three years or a woman of sixty, beyond the child-bearing age. But almah means a young unmarried virgin who has reached puberty without adding a word to express youth, no prior marriage, no prior sexual relations, and puberty based upon usage in the TaNaCH. Therefore, the argument that bethulah can only mean virgin is not quite right within Biblical context. Moreover, the contention that bethulah is more common actually underscores the Isaiah 7:14 prophesy as something intended by the Almighty to be understood as very uncommon or unusual by the inclusion of almah instead. Indeed, the subject of Isaiah 7:14 is a young unmarried virgin who reached puberty based upon usage in the TaNaCH, and yet would conceive supernaturally. A more thorough analysis of almah.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Objection 9: Almah does not mean virgin anywhere in the Jewish Scriptures predating Yeshua, or Jesus.
Rationale for objection 9: The word alma appears in the Jewish scriptures seven times. If even one reference clearly refers to a woman who is not a virgin, then Matthew's rendition of Isaiah 7:14 becomes untenable. One of the places where the uncommon Hebrew word alma appears in the Bible is in Proverbs 30:18-20 which reads, There are three things which are too wonderful for me, four which I do not understand: the way of an eagle in the sky, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship in the middle of the sea, and the way of a man with a young woman [ b'alma ]. This is the way of an adulterous woman: she eats and wipes her mouth, and says, “I have done no wrong.” In the above three verses, King Solomon compares a man with an alma to three other things: an eagle in the sky, a serpent on a rock, and a ship in the sea. What do these three things all have in common? They leave no trace. . . King Solomon informs us that once a man has been with an alma there is also no trace of the fornication that had occurred between them. Therefore, in the following verse (verse 20) King Solomon explains that once this adulterous woman has eaten (a metaphor for her fornication), she removes the trace of her sexual activity by exclaiming, “I have done no wrong.” The word alma clearly does not mean virgin.
Response to objection 9: First of all, it is not King Solomon making the comparrison as Proverbs 30 are from among the "sayings of Agur son of Jakeh." Second, the conclusion that alma clearly does not mean virgin in Proverbs 30 is made from Biblical silence for nowhere in the immediate context does it say these things leave no trace. One could just as easily make other comparrisons such as they all are seductive by their nature, they all can be dangerous by their nature, they all are uncontrollable by their nature, they all are there for a moment and gone the next by their nature with or without a trace-excpecially where sexual intercourse is involved. These all may be true in part, but let's analyse how the Bible actually uses almah in the comparrison in this passage. The adulterous woman is like a man with an almah, and the word almah is used elsewhere to describe a young woman having reached puberty, having no prior husbands, or sexual relations (Genesis 24:14-16 and Genesis 24:43). Now if "The adulterous woman is like a man with an almah" is taken to be a “young husband and young wife,” the comparison is pointless. A husband and his wife would be "ish beishto," or "man and wife." We don’t have that here. “The wife isha ... cannot as such be called almah.” A seductive adulteress here is like a vigorous man (gibbor) who is seducing an almah. The comparison suggests the chastity of the almah, which is violated just as marriage is violated by the adulterous wife. That is the point Agur is making in his comparrison as inspired by the Almighty. The word alma clearly means young virgin having reached puberty, and having no prior husbands. A more thorough analysis of almah.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Objection 10: The contention that the Greek word 'parthenos' means virgin in the Septuagint is incorrect.
Rationale for objection 10: Matthew's rendering the Hebrew word alma as virgin in Matthew 1:23 is wrong. The Greek word parthenos can mean either a young woman or a virgin; for this reason the Greek word parthenos can be found in the Septuagint referring to someone who is not a virgin. For example, in Genesis 34:2-4, Shechem raped Dinah, the daughter of the patriarch Jacob, yet the Septuagint refers to her as a parthenos after she had been defiled. The Bible reports that after Shechem had violated her, "his heart desired Dinah, and he loved the damsel (LXX: parthenos ) and he spoke tenderly to the damsel (LXX: parthenos )." Clearly, Dinah was not a virgin after having been raped, and yet she was referred to as a parthenos , the very same word the Septuagint used to translate the Hebrew word alma in Isaiah 7:14.
Response to objection 10: In Genesis 34:3, the Septuagint calls Dina a parthenos after she has been ravished. This is used to prove that parthenos does not mean “virgin.” But what should she be called? An ishah? She was no married woman. Or a porne (v. 31)? She was not a prostitute. Dina was a violated parthenos, “or violated virgin.” A broken circle is not a circle, and a broken marriage is not a marriage; and so a violated virgin is not a virgin. Such a usage does not disprove the essential meaning of parthenos as “virgin.” In 2 Sam. 2:2, Abigail, who is at this time David’s wife, is called Nabal’s wife. Once she was Nabal’s wife, but now she is David’s wife. This does not change the meaning of “wife.” In Isaiah 1:3, God calls Israel “My people,” even though they have rejected the Lord. Are they God’s people? By God’s choice, yes; by their breaking of the covenant, no. In Isaiah 1:21 Jerusalem is called “the faithful city” which “has become a prostitute.” So Dina was supposed to be a virgin, but she had been wronged. From a shepherd's or pastorial point of view I must point out that it is likely that the Almighty viewed Dina as virgin, or parthenos even after being violated under the circumstances based upon what I know of His character. In other words, the wording "violated virgin" was intentional in order to recognize that transgression occured on one hand, but seems to imply one victimized in such a horrible way is still pure in G-d's sight. Those of you privy to victims of rape today would do well to cite this passage, treat them with the dignity of any other person reserving themselves for marriage instead of defiled trash, and underscore G-d's perspective/love. For all of these reasons, Dina being called parthenos does not disprove the essential meaning of virgin. Even so, the Hebrew almah clearly means young virgin woman who reached puberty, and had no prior husbands. See Response 8 and 9. A more thorough analysis of almah.
Copyright © Noothergospel.com 2008 ~ 2010