Expert: Griff Ruby - 9/14/2009

Question
Hello, Mr. Ruby,

Thank you for your great analysis.  I really appreciate it.  

The Commandments I asked about in Deuteronomy warned against adding to God’s “entire word,” which at the time would have included the entire Tanakh, which of course would include all the subsequent Prophets, etc.  In fact, in Jewish belief the “entire word” also includes the oral tradition, known as the oral Torah, later codified in the Talmud (without the analysis and commentary of the Talmud, one cannot really understand the nuance of the Torah).  But it clearly did not include or allow for the future alteration of most of its laws and commandments centuries later in a whole new system: Christianity.  

And that leads me to my next question.  It seems that there are numerous places in the Tanakh that specify that the Laws should be followed forever.  One cannot be held accountable for not following a Commandment that is impossible to follow, such as animal sacrifice after the Temple was destroyed.  But that’s very different from completely ignoring most Commandments.  For example:

Genesis 17:9-10  “You shall keep My covenant – you and your offspring after you throughout their generations.”

Exodus 31:16  “The children of Israel shall observe the Sabbath, to make the Sabbath as eternal covenant for their generations.”

Deuteronomy 11:1  “You shall love Hashem, your God, and you shall safeguard His charge, His decrees, His ordinances, and His Commandments, all the days.”

Deuteronomy 28:46  “The Commandments will be a sign and a wonder, in you and in your offspring, forever.”

Psalms 111:7-9  “His handiwork is truth and justice, faithful are all his orders, they are steadfast forever, for eternity, accomplished in truth and fairness.  He sent redemption to His people; He commanded His covenant for eternity.  

2 Kings 17:37  “And the decrees and the laws, and the Torah and the commandments that He wrote for you, you shall observe to do all the days.”

These statements from God and concerning God are very clear and unambiguous.  Forever, for eternity, for all your generations, for all the days.  It's as clear as can be.  It doesn't say: until someone else comes along, or, for a thousand years.  It's for eternity.  How do Christians get around these very definitive commands from the Bible?  

It’s true that one can find instances along the course of the expansive denouement of the Bible where some of these Commandments may not have been enforced, or even ignored, but those were the exception, not the rule.  The rule seems extremely clear.  When Christians quote the statement from the New Testament that the Law has been “nailed to the cross” and therefore abrogated, it seems totally at odds with the direct word of God.  Why would Christians honor a statement made by a religious man rather than honor the direct word of God?  As you said, it would need a belief that God literally changed His mind.  But of course we both know that there are numerous statements in the Bible that God does not change His mind.

Numbers 23:19  “God is not a man, that He should be deceitful, nor a son of man, that He should change His mind.    

Samuel 15:29  “Moreover, the Eternal One of Israel does not lie and does not relent, for He is not a human that He should relent.”  

Come to think of it, doesn’t Christian belief state that Jesus was the Son of Man and was in some sense a human incarnation of God?  How does that conflate with the above statements from the Bible?  That raises an even more fundamental question.  Besides the issue of the Law, there is the unlikely credibility of Jesus messiahship.  There are numerous prophecies in the Torah defining the characteristics of the messiah.  Jesus does not seem to meet those criteria.  Behold:  

I know of six recognized major criteria in the Torah to establish whether someone was the Messiah.  

The first criterion involved genealogy.  The person had to be:

1) Jewish (Isaiah 11:6);  

2) from the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:1) - tribal affiliation was always established through the birth father only in Biblical Jewish law - and since Jesus had no Earthly father, it eliminated him from messianic consideration;  

3) had to be a descendant of King David (Jeremiah 33:17-20 and 1 Chronicles 17:11-12) - and since Jesus obviously had no Earthly father, and since the genealogical record as listed in Matthew and Luke are 15 generations off, and completely contradictory, that obviously eliminated Jesus from consideration;  

4) had to be from the seed of Solomon (2 Samuel 7:12-16, Psalms 89:29-38, 1 Chronicles 17:11-14, 22:9-10, 28:6-7) - since Luke claimed that Jesus descended through Nathan instead of Solomon, Jesus is eliminated from consideration;

The second major criterion is that the Messiah will be anointed king of Israel, which had to be done by a Jewish prophet.  Although a woman anointed the feet of Jesus with oil, and Jesus implied that he was king of Israel, he was not generally recognized at the time as king of Israel.

The third criterion is that the Messiah will return all exiles back to Israel (Isaiah 11:12, 27:12-13, Jeremiah 33:7).  Not only did Jesus fail to do that, shortly after his death Israel was destroyed by the Romans and the Jews were sent into the Diaspora.  This failure of prophecy eliminates Jesus as Messiah.

Fourthly, the Messiah will rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem (Ezekiel 37:26-28, Micah 4:1, Isaiah 2:2, 3).  Since Jesus did not rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem, he is therefore eliminated from consideration.   

Fifth, the Messiah will bring peace to the world and end all war (Ezekiel 37:26, Micah 4:3, Isaiah 2:4).  Since it's obvious that Jesus did not do that, and that since Jesus lived the world has known only war and distress, this eliminates Jesus from Messiahship.

Sixth, the Messiah will bring knowledge of God throughout the entire world (Isaiah 11:9, 40:5, Zephaniah 3:9, Jeremiah 31:33).  The fact that Christian missionaries are still busily at work is a clear demonstration that the entire world still does not know God.  Since that is the case, Jesus is eliminated from consideration as Messiah.

In addition to all of these prophecies, other statements seem to contradict Christian claims in the New Testament.  For instance, with regard to Jesus being with, or sitting at the right hand of, the “Father:”

2 Kings 19:19 – “So that all kingdoms on Earth may know that You alone, O Lord, are God.”

1 Chronicles 17:20 – “O Lord, there is none like you, neither is there any God beside you.”

Isaiah 44:6 – “I am the first and I am the last, apart from Me there is no God.”

Isaiah 45:5, 6 – “I am the Lord, and there is no other, besides Me there is no God.”

I would really appreciate your astute analysis of these points.  

Your partner in the pursuit of truth,
Bruce


Answer
I am not aware of any clear consensus within the Jewish rabbinical community that everyone in the whole world was ever to be bound to all the specifics of the Mosaic Law.  At least some are known to have expressed the view that only the basic seven Noachian would be binding on the Gentiles, as was alone expected of all prior to the coming of Moses and the Torah.
The conclusion made by the Church in the first Jerusalem Council (mentioned in Acts 15) basically amounts to affirming that non-Jewish Christians would only be bound to the seven Noachian Laws, and not the whole of the Law of Moses.  Those "seven laws" would be:
1) Prohibition of Idolatry: - There is only one God. You shall not make for yourself an idol.
2) Prohibition of Murder: - You shall not murder.
3) Prohibition of Theft: - You shall not steal.
4) Prohibition of Sexual Promiscuity: - You shall not commit adultery.
5) Prohibition of Blasphemy: - Revere God and do not blaspheme.
6) Prohibition of Cruelty to Animals: - Do not eat the flesh of an animal while it is still alive.
7) Requirement to have just Laws: - You shall set up an effective government to police the preceding six laws.
Only those already circumcised would be also bound to the whole of the Law of Moses, as was the case for the congregation of St. James in Jerusalem.  So those Christians under St. James were both Christians AND Jews at the same time, continuing to worship at the Temple, continuing to observe all the Kashrut, and so forth, while honoring Christ as their Messiah.  There is absolutely no reason a person could not do the same thing today if one so chose, with the one big obvious exception that Temple worship is impossible, regardless of whether one would do so as only a Jew or as a Jew and Christian simultaneously.  It is safe to say that those who were circumcised under the Law, even Proselytes of the various nations, continued to be bound by the Law even as they converted to Christ, though perhaps some might be excused, if given some dispensation by the earthly authority of God's congregation.
But now, what about the Law being for all time?  Is that in any grammatical way any different from the Temple being for all time, or the animal sacrifices to be for all time?  For that matter, is the earth itself to be for all time?  Are we to interpret that to mean that the earth will somehow remain even after our Sun becomes a decaying red giant and gobbles up everything inside the orbit of Neptune, some billions of years hence?
It seems to me that many of the ritual details of the Law in some way point forward to the coming of the Messiah, and as such would understandably be adjusted once the Messiah has come, such that the new ritual details would from that point onward point backwards to the Messiah who came (and forwards only to His second coming).  For are there not prophecies that on the one hand promise that He would come seated on the colt of an ass, yet others that He would come in the clouds?  Would not that fact itself point to two comings, one in humility (as also discussed in Isaiah 53 - for it is only post-Christian era rabbinical interpretations that have ever attempted to disassociate that clear prophecy from the Messiah), and one in glory be consistent?
So let's look at the big picture regarding the prophecies of the Messiah.  Certain Protestants have claimed that Jesus filled some 109 prophecies.  As I have not yet encountered an actual enumeration of these supposed "109" that they claim to have found, I cannot comment on them in detail, but I will readily grant that probably "half" or so might well be any of "a bit of a stretch" or "quite vague" or "hardly even a prophecy, as such."  On the other hand, there may well be yet some more prophecies contained in the Jewish Greek books (non-Masoretic text) which the Protestants will have ignored, as they dismiss these other books as mere "Apocrypha."
Now I admit that all of these fulfilled prophecies seem to be rather minor or superficial details as to where He would come from, and when and how, and other mostly minor events of His life.  Certainly, though numerous, they do seem small in comparison to the few but "big ticket" items such as bringing world peace and some change of human nature itself to be one of everyone happily and willingly following the Law of God, which latter items I must concede did not get fulfilled.  It's a bit like someone showing quite literally all the right credentials but then somehow inexplicably not having gone through with the rest of the contract.  It is the Church's belief that these things do get fulfilled when He comes in the clouds at the end of time as we know it, and when ushering in some Messianic age.  Until then it remains a promise as yet unfulfilled, but a promise which absolutely must be kept, and will be.
In the meantime, I realize that the delay is disappointing.  However, it occurs to me that this is not the first time God's promise had to be disappointingly delayed, and perhaps this has something to do with why it was delayed.  Think of the exiled nation of Israel being delivered out of Egypt.  In some theoretical sense, they could have entered the Promised Land within mere months of their departure from Egypt.  If only they had trusted Joshua and Caleb instead of the other ten spies.  It was on account of their lack of faith (and that coming right on the heels of the waters splitting for them!) that they were forced to wander in the desert for 40 years, before finally being permitted to enter the Promised Land.
I truly believe that if only the First Century Nation of Israel could have gotten behind Jesus as their Messiah instead of arranging to have Him crucified, all of these "big ticket" prophecies could have also been fulfilled right then.  But as before, the general run of Israel was at best fickle in its faith, and chickened out, and then soon after began yet another "wandering in the desert" that continues to this day.  Now I don't really believe that there was ever any real danger of Jesus not being crucified to pay for all of our sins (basic to the Christian spiritual economy) since God knew from the beginning what choices men would actually come to make.  So He knew that Israel would choose not to listen to Moses and Joshua and Caleb, and similarly that Israel would again choose not to listen to Jesus and His disciples, and even that Judas Iscariot would betray Him, but these choices were not mandated by God, merely predicted, just as one who already knows the story will know how the movie ends, even before seeing it.
But now let's look once more at one little bit of the prophecies you do cite, and which Christians also frequently cite, namely those pertaining to His birth and parentage.  There is one other prophecy about all this which you did not bring in, namely that He would be "born of a virgin."  Now I realize that the Masoretic text word of 'alma merely means (in many contexts) merely some young woman of no particular virtue or accomplishment or much of anything.  One would glean from that only that the Messiah's mother would be "young" and so apparently not "middle-aged" or old.  Well, there is hardly anything amazing or notable about that.  Everyone (since Adam and Eve) is born of a woman, and very many (a significant majority) from young and younger women.  Was Isaiah merely claiming that the Messiah would come from some nondescript or irrelevant persons or places?  Is that fitting for the arrival of the Messiah (unless in the Christian sense that someone with a great deal more in credentials would nevertheless find themselves in some chronically poor and humble circumstance, as being "born in a manger"), unless something else is meant?  Perhaps that may be one component of the reasons why it was that when the Jewish scholars translated that text into Greek they used the word "Parthenos," meaning "pure one," or "consecrated virgin," instead of some other Greek word (of which there were many to choose from), to refer to the mother of the Messiah.  Now that would be something remarkable, and a real sign, and something worth prophesying, something that sets the Messiah aside and identifies Him in no uncertain terms.
So, now factoring that in (and apparently the Jewish scholars did not see any conflict in having the Messiah born of a virgin while at the same time also being a descendant of David), what do we get, but a person who's literal (biological) Father is not of this earth at all (being God, via an "overshadowing" of the Holy Ghost), whose adoptive foster father actually was a direct male line heir of Kings David and Solomon and the rest, whose biological yet virginal mother is also a descendant of David (albeit through a separate, and apparently Levitical, lineage through Nathan), and who therefore fulfills all these apparently contradictory prophecies all at once.  Now THAT is something REALLY special, even far more so than the bare fact of a virginal birth itself.
Consider too now another problem about this prophecy.  Back in that First Century, everyone's genealogy was being stored and tracked, presumably at or near the Temple.  It was those records that were consulted to provide the Gospel genealogies, in the days that they still existed and could be found and checked.  But with the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem by the Romans later that century these records no longer exist and cannot be consulted.  Since that time, as the Jewish Diaspora, with all the intermarrying between tribes, and even between Jew and (most frequently, converted) Gentile, there is today no way for anyone to identify any clear descendant of Kings David and Solomon.  There is no Jew alive anywhere who can truthfully claim "I am of the tribe of Reuben, and I can document that," or likewise for the tribe of Gad or Judah or Ephrahim or Levi and so forth.  If that prophecy is to have any real meaning at all, then the Messiah has already come and gone.  If not Jesus (who also came at the right time, if you consider the "Seventy Weeks" of Daniel, and at which time there were in fact many claimants, such as Theudas and Judas of Galilee, as mentioned by Gamaliel (Acts 5:36-37) and even many thought John the Baptist to be the Messiah, all because they knew that the predicted time had come), then who?  Judas Maccabeus?  Simon bar Kochba?  Where are they today?