Standing your ground against critics
There seem to be no shortage of people who want to "help" Christians by saving us from the "lies" of our religion. One prominent anti-Christian that has a lot of content online is Rabbi Tovia Singer. Singer has written books, founded a "counter-missionary" (anti-Christian proselytizing) organization, debated Christians, and posted a lot of content on Youtube.
Most Christians I know are shy about their religion. Except for certain cult groups you don't see many Christians doing door to door witnessing or passing out tracts. There is a general attitude that it is best not to get into discussions about politics and religion with people you don't know very well or relatives you don't see very often, because people tend to get upset or start fights. Plus a large percentage of evangelical Christians are dispensationalists who believe that God has a separate salvation plan for Israel.
Anyway, Singer says that when he was younger he had no desire to "help" Christians until he met some and saw that many of them were good, righteous people. He claims he is not proselytizing, but if he manages to convince a Christian that the Gospel is a lie then what is the alternative? Would he rather Christians be atheists? Of course not. He does, of course, want them to accept Judaism.
However, in Judaism there is an alternative to full conversion. Non-Jews may become a "ger toshav", a sort of second-class citizen status for non-Jews willing to put themselves under the authority of the Rabbis and follow the "Noahide Laws" instead of the full list of hundreds of laws in the Talmud.
For Christians, though, one cannot reject the Son without rejecting the Father who sent him, so this is a very serious matter to contemplate.
These are naturally not the kinds of objections that atheists might raise which often center on the apparent contradictions between science and religion. Rather they are questions that have been around since at least the time of the Protestant Reformation. Therefore, I am sure that every difficulty that Rabbi Singer raises about the New Testament was asked by somebody else hundreds of years ago and has since been answered by numerous experts and answers documented in Bible Commentaries and countless other books and in sermons by thousands of Christian pastors.
Singer knows this to be true and so he turns it around as a negative joking about the number of books by Christian authors devoted to addressing such difficulties. (Of course, such books devote at least half of their pages to difficulties in the Old Testament.) There is nothing wrong with having such books. The Scriptures were written so very long ago in ancient languages it is only natural they would need some explanation for modern readers.
In the story a woman wants Jesus to cast a demon out of her daughter and Jesus tells her, "Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” (I mentioned this story in a previous blog post.) Apparently, Singer's reasoning is that Jesus is a Jew and therefore anything he says somehow reflects the opinion of all Jews. This is obviously not the case.
But it may not even be that Jesus is referring to gentiles as is usually assumed since he does not explain what he meant by his comment. In the Deuteronomy 23:17-18 the word "dog" seems to be linked with prostitution. So, perhaps that is what he meant. In any case, this story does not say anything about what Jews in general think of Gentiles.
The difficulty with Paul's argument that Rabbi Singer is pointing out has not gone unnoticed by Christians. In fact, "...no one probably ever read this passage without feeling a difficulty, and without asking himself whether this argument is sound, and is worthy a man of candor, and especially of an inspired man."[Barnes' Notes on the Bible, https://biblehub.com]
So, here is the problem stated by a Christian source: "To this argument it hath been objected, that the word seed was never used by the Hebrews in the plural number, except to denote the seeds of vegetables, Daniel 1:12..." [Benson Commentary, https://biblehub.com]
Gill takes a head-on approach to the problem suggesting there is Hebrew precedent outside the Bible for using the plural form of "seeds" in relation to posterity and not just vegetation and therefore attempting to render the whole issue moot. "Nor has the Jew (d) [Chizzuk Emuna, ar. 2. c. 90. p. 468.] any reason to charge him with a mistake, in observing that the word is not in the plural, but in the singular number, when it is the manner of the Hebrew language to speak of seed only in the singular number; but this is false, the word is used in the plural number, and so might have been here, had it been necessary, as in 1 Samuel 8:15 concerning seed sown in the earth, from whence the metaphor is here taken. The first tract in the Jews' Misna, or oral law, is called, "seeds"; and the word, even as spoken of the posterity of men, is used in the plural number in their Talmud (e) [T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 37. 1.]; where they say,
For reference, here is the passage from the Talmud referenced by Gill taken from a Jewish source:
Ellicott, on the other hand, tries to side-step the whole issue. "Such passages are not to be regarded as arguments possessing a permanent logical validity (which would be to apply the rigid canons of Western logic to a case for which they are unsuitable), but rather as marked illustrations of the organic unity which the apostolic writers recognised in the pre-Christian and Christian dispensations. Not only had both the same Author, and formed part of the same scheme, but they were actually the counterparts one of the other. The events which characterised the earlier dispensation had their analogies—sometimes spiritual, sometimes literal—in the later." [Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers on https://biblehub.com]
Although it seems that Paul's wording is more like Gen 13:15 or 17:8, it could be that Paul also had Genesis 22:17-18 in mind, a passage which has a sudden shift from the plural to the singular.
"However, in 22.18, even though there have been references to plurality (cf. 17a) there is a sudden shift to the singular in v. 17b. Often translated with a plural gloss to smooth out the reading, the text literally reads, 'your seed will possess the gate of his enemies.' This would seem to be a legitimate textual clue within the original context to see a sudden shift in referent, probably signaling some messianic or prophetic significance." [The Plain Sense(s) of Scripture: Questioning interpretive singularity in Galatians 3 and Romans 4]
Others have argued that when God promised to Abraham's seed he can't have meant all of his descendants, because it is evident that the promise was through Isaac only and then later limited to Isaac's son, Jacob, and so on until eventually it was limited down to the Messiah. "The promise was indeed at first general, and the term used was of the most general nature; but it was shown from time to time that God intended that it should be applied only to one branch or portion of the family of Abraham; and that limitation was finally so made as to terminate in the Messiah." [Barnes' Notes on the Bible on https://biblehub.com]
Granted, Singer has a grasp of the Hebrew language that can easily dazzle most Christians. He knows that most Christians have not been to seminary and have little or no knowledge of the Hebrew language. Even those who do go to seminary do not get fully immersed in the language. So, that is a weakness he can exploit (or help us with, depending on your perspective).
Singer even claims to have been raised speaking "Biblical Hebrew" as his mother tongue, but this is doubtful. "A Biblical [ancient] Hebrew 'speaker' wouldn’t understand a Modern one. And vice versa." More importantly, "A modern Hebrew speaker can not easily read the Bible." [4 Differences: Biblical Hebrew vs Modern Hebrew] Rabbis, of course, would have to learn some Biblical Hebrew, although I would think they would spend much more time reading the Talmud, which "...is written in Mishnaic Hebrew and Jewish Babylonian Aramaic." [Talmud]
It is important to realize, though, that Hebrew was essentially a dead language until the 19th century Zionists revived it. "During this movement, Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, a lexicographer (dictionary writer/editor), prepared the first modern Hebrew dictionary." [4 Differences: Biblical Hebrew vs Modern Hebrew] Sometime after the siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD the language "...developed into Mishnaic Hebrew, spoken up until the fifth century CE." [Biblical Hebrew] Between the 5th and 19th centuries, or a period of well over 1000 years, nobody spoke Hebrew as their native language.
This is not unlike Latin. Latin used to be the language of the Roman Empire, but today nobody speaks Latin as their native language, and that has been true for over 1000 years. [History of Latin]
Rabbi Singer likes to point out apparent discrepancies between the Old and New Testaments in Christian Bible translations. For example, Hebrews 8:9 is obviously quoting Jeremiah 31:32, but with a minor difference. In fact, Singer accuses the writer of Hebrews of intentionally mis-quoting the Hebrew Bible.
Obviously, there is a difference, but it is based on which ancient text was being used by the translators. The New King James Version (NKJV) is one of the few modern English translations that helps the reader understand this by providing a footnote. Note that NKJV has rendered the translation in accordance with the Masoretic Text (MT) while noting that the LXX (Greek Septuagint) has the alternative reading which is similar to the quote in Hebrews.
In the English it is difficult to see how such a difference could occur unintentionally, but in the Hebrew it is merely the difference of a single letter within a word. "The Hebrew Masters, as Surenhusius shows, in βίβλῷ καταλλαγῆς, p. 628, understand the word בעלתי to apply to the dominion of love and good pleasure; and it is not, save by an error in writing, that they turn it into the contrary, בחלתי, I have disdained or disregarded (fastidivi). The LXX. seem evidently to have read געלתי בם, which very word Jeremiah uses, ch. Jeremiah 14:19, μὴ ἀπὸ Σιὼν ἀπέστη (געלה) ἡ ψυχή σου; hath thy soul loathed Sion?" [Bengel's Gnomen on https://biblehub.com]
On the contrary, Biblical scholars say that Origen edited the Greek translation to make it more like the Hebrew text, not more like the New Testament. "A recension is a deliberate revision of a Greek translation on the basis of principles such as the desire to bring the work into conformity with the existing Hebrew text. In the early fifth century Jerome identified three recensions: one from Egypt attributed to Hesychius, one from Antioch (and Constantinople) attributed to Lucian, and one from Palestine attributed to Origen.... When Origen sought to correct the text toward the Hebrew he used a series of signs to indicate where he had changed the LXX." [Invitation to the Septuagint, 2nd ed.]
Dr. Aryeh Reich of Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan, Israel, says "Other sources – Greek, Latin, as well as Hebrew – testify to the origins of the Septuagint. The most detailed accounts are in the Letter of Aristeas, a hagiographic work of the second century, B.C.E. This work, as well, recounts how King Ptolemy summoned seventy-two elders from the land of Israel and requested that they translate their Torah for the library at Alexandria. This Letter, just like Masekhet Soferim, refers to a translation of the Torah alone, but other sources refer to translation of the entire Bible." Dr. Reich cites an example of one of those "other sources" as "...Epiphanes’ composition, 'On Weights and Measures'..." [The Greek Bible – Light or Darkness?]
Emanuel Tov, emeritus Professor in the Department of Bible at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, says "According to the Epistle of Aristeas, the translation of the Torah was initiated by Ptolemy II Philadelphus (reigned 285–246 B.C.E.). This date is probably correct, while most other details in this Epistle may be fictive. The translations of the Prophets and Writings were completed by the middle of the first century B.C.E. The grandson of Ben Sira knew the translation of the Prophets and part of the Writings in 132 or 116 B.C.E. according to different computations of the date of his Greek translation of Ben Sira." [Emanuel Tov, Septuagint]
"The LXX [Septuagint Greek Old Testament] was translated from a Hebrew text that differed, often greatly, from MT. This is not surprising, since in antiquity many differing copies of the Hebrew Scripture text were in circulation. Some of these differences are minor, while others involve a whole paragraph, chapter, or even book. All these copies contain 'Scripture.'" [Emanuel Tov, Septuagint]
According to another Jewish source, "Greek stood on its own footing. The Alexandrians read their [synagogue] services and lessons therein, most of them knowing little or no Hebrew. A Greek scroll was as sacred to them as that in holy tongue and character [Hebrew] was elsewhere. A Patriarch who held it unlawful to write versions of the sacred books in other tongues held Greek editions to be lawful. While versions of Esther in Coptic or Median might be read only to those speaking the particular language, a Greek text might be read to the general public." [Lewis Naphtali Dembitz, Jewish Services in Synagogue and Home, Jewish Publication Society of America, 1898, p. 292]
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, "The Jews made use of it [the Septuagint] long before the Christian Era, and in the time of Christ it was recognised as a legitimate text, and was employed in Palestine even by the rabbis. The Apostles and Evangelists utilised it also and borrowed Old Testament citations from it, especially in regard to the prophecies. The Fathers and the other ecclesiastical writers of the early Church drew upon it, either directly, as in the case of the Greek Fathers, or indirectly, like the Latin Fathers and writers and others who employed Latin, Syriac, Ethiopian, Arabic and Gothic versions. It was held in high esteem by all, some even believed it inspired. Consequently, a knowledge of the Septuagint helps to a perfect understanding of these literatures." [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13722a.htm]
Archaeologists found evidence of a Greek synagogue in Jerusalem.
However, Moses ben Nahman (also called Ramban), a leading medieval Jewish scholar said: "In my opinion, Hebrew was a Canaanite language. For Abraham did not bring it from Ur of the Chaldees [in Mesopotamia] and from Haran, for there they spoke Aramaic, as the incident of the pile of stones erected by Laban and Jacob proves [see Gen. 31:47]. And it was not a private language spoken by a single person but a language of Canaan, and many people in Egypt knew it for the countries were close together--particularly the ruler, for it is customary for kings and rulers to know several languages." [Prof. Gad Sarfatti, Department of Hebrew and Semitic Languages, Bar-Ilan University, Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew?]
Professor Sarfatti concludes, "From the information that we possess today we must think Ramban correct in the main, even if we do not agree with him that Abraham spoke Aramaic. Hebrew belongs to the Canaanite language group within the Semitic family of languages and is very similar to its neighbors: Phoenician, Moabite, and the language which flourishes in the Tel-el-Amarna letters, which were written in the fourteenth and thirteent[h] centuries B.C.E. from Israel, Syria and Phoenicia to the king of Egypt. In his book History of the Hebrew Language (in Hebrew) Haim Rabin writes that 'the Patriarchs, we know, came from Mesopotamia, where they did not speak a language of the Hebrew type; how then is it that we find the people of Israel, after they had taken possession of the Promised Land, beginning to write and to make use of a language which was already spoken by the Canaanites whom they dispossessed? The only possible answer is that at some stage our predecessors changed their language.'" [Prof. Gad Sarfatti, Department of Hebrew and Semitic Languages, Bar-Ilan University, Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew?]
As the creator of the universe God can naturally communicate through whomever he chooses in whatever language.
"...anti-missionaries including Tovia Singer LOVE to claim this must be past tense and refer to an event prior to Isaiah's writing. In reality there is no such thing as tense in Hebrew grammar. In reality Hebrew verbs do not take past, present and future forms, but perfect (completed action) or imperfect (incomplete action).... Normally a verb in the perfect form would imply a past tense which is why Singer insists this must be past tense and that it therefore refers to Hezekiah. In reality there is a special idiom in Hebrew called the 'Prophetic Perfect' this is where prophet speaks of future events in the perfect form because he has seen them in the future where they have already happened." [Unto Us a Child is Born- Isaiah 9:6-7 and the Prophetic Perfect]
Hezekiah "...could never be represented as a child just born, when he was, at least, ten or eleven years of age when this prophecy was given out, and twenty nine when Sennacherib came up with his army against him, as Aben Ezra observes; to which time he and others refer the context; nor can any reason be assigned why he should be called a 'son', in such a peculiar and unusual manner; nor can it be said of him, that he was the great light which shined upon the inhabitants of Galilee; nor was his birth the occasion of so great joy as the birth of this child is said to be; nor can it, with any justness, be said of him, that of the increase of his government and peace there was no end; seeing his government only extended to the two tribes of Benjamin and Judah, and his reign was but twenty nine years, and for the most part attended with affliction, oppression, and war..." [Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible, https://biblehub.com]
"That the Messiah is here intended, not only Christian but Jewish interpreters, in general, of any credit or reputation, agree. For so the ancient Hebrew doctors understood the place, and particularly the Chaldee paraphrast; although the later Jews have laboured, out of opposition to the Lord Jesus, to apply it to Hezekiah. Which extravagant notion, as it hath no foundation at all in this or any other text of Scripture, and therefore may be rejected without any further reason; so it is fully confuted by the following titles, which are such as cannot, without blasphemy and nonsense, be ascribed to Hezekiah, nor indeed to any mere man or mere creature, as we shall see." [Benson Commentary, https://biblehub.com]
I took the above quoted translation directly from a Jewish web site so that there would be no question that this was somehow faked or tampered with by Christian missionaries.
"Note first that the passage is clearly understood as a Messianic prophecy of a personal Messiah-King, descended from the lineage of David.... The statement, 'His name has been called from of old' alludes to the rabbinic belief that the name of the Messiah has existed from eternity past (compare Psalm 72:17) as one of seven things created before the world (the others being the throne of glory, the Torah, Paradise, the Temple, repentance and Gehenna; see Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, vol. 1, p. 175, note 2)." [ISAIAH 9:6-7, THE HEBREW TEXT & THE ANCIENT VERSIONS]
"Besides such titles as 'savior' and 'redeemer,' which are given to the expected Messiah in the intertestamental writings, a special title is given to him in the (Ethiopic) Book of Enoch (I En.; written shortly after Daniel) and in the Apocalypse of *Ezra (IV Ezra; written c. 30 years after the destruction of the Second Temple), that of the "son of man." This title is clearly borrowed from Daniel 7:13. Although in Daniel the term is purely symbolic (see above), the intertestamental books use it in reference to an actual person, the Messiah. According to these writings, the 'son of man,' who stands 'at the throne of God' in heaven, existed 'before the sun and the stars were created' (I En. 46:1–3); he will bring salvation at the end of the ages, when he will be enthroned as king of the world (IV Ezra 13:26)." [Eschatology, www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org]
Jesus clearly identified himself as this Son of Man.
However, you don't need a PhD, because there is no Christian church that will make understanding the Trinity a requirement of membership. It is enough to know that there is one God, not three, even in Trinitarian doctrine. Most Christians don't overthink it.
Definitely 1 John 5:7 nicely sums up the idea of the Trinity (depending on what translation you are reading). The three persons of the Trinity are also mentioned together in Matt 28:19.
Notice that Jesus said "I and the father are one." He did not say "I am one god, and the Father is another god." That would truly be idolatry. But in what sense did he mean that he and the Father were one? In John 17:11 he also says "that they may be one" as in "unified", or as Rabbi Singer words it, "in accord" with one another, not as in literally one substance.
So, I would concede Singer makes a good point that it does not seem clear from the context exactly what Jesus meant when he said he is one with the Father, whether he meant literally or as in he is "in accord" with God.
Jesus here appears to be saying that even though he was born in some sense he always existed. But beyond that he specifically uses the phrase God identified himself with in Exodus.
"I AM, is the name of God, Ex 3:14; it speaks his self-existence; he is the First and the Last, ever the same, Re 1:8." [Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary on https://biblehub.com]
"I am! is an explicit claim to deity. Although each occurrence of the phrase “I am” in the Fourth Gospel needs to be examined individually in context to see if an association with Exod 3:14 is present, it seems clear that this is the case here (as the response of the Jewish authorities in the following verse shows)." [study note, https://netbible.org]
אהיה עמך וזה " and in verse 14 "I Am Who I Am" is "אהיה אשר אהיה ". You can see quite easily for yourself that Singer is adding the word "with" into verse 14.
For confirmation, Exodus 3:14 from the Jewish Bible, A Hebrew - English Bible According to the Masoretic Text and the JPS (Jewish Publication Society) 1917 Edition:
So, that is three English translations from Jewish sources that all contradict Rabbi Singer's translation of this verse. So, clearly we cannot trust Rabbi Singer's translation of the Hebrew, and we cannot believe him when he claims Christian Bible translations are wrong!
Finally, the Septuagint Translation by Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton (Greek translation translated into English):
According to one source cited on wikipedia (Anglican priest Maxwell Staniforth in his Introduction to the 1964 edition of the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius), there is perhaps some influence from Stoicism on the Christian idea of the Holy Spirit. The Meditations is an important work of philosophy which I enjoy reading, but I think this idea of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit somehow coming from Greek philosophy is bogus. The Spirit of God is mentioned throughout the Bible, Old and New Testaments, so there's no reason to appeal to pagan ideas as a source of inspiration.
When Jesus said he was "one with the Father" he didn't mean he was the same person as the Father. The Father and Son must be different persons and exist simultaneously or it would make no sense for the Son to pray to the Father nor would it make sense for him to be seated at the right hand of the Father.
Proselytizing
Rabbi Singer considers any evangelical Christian to be a "missionary" since they will all happily convert anyone, including Jews, to Christianity and therefore are a threat even if they are well-meaning, good people. Of course, as a Christian I think this is kind of paranoid for a number of reasons.Most Christians I know are shy about their religion. Except for certain cult groups you don't see many Christians doing door to door witnessing or passing out tracts. There is a general attitude that it is best not to get into discussions about politics and religion with people you don't know very well or relatives you don't see very often, because people tend to get upset or start fights. Plus a large percentage of evangelical Christians are dispensationalists who believe that God has a separate salvation plan for Israel.
Anyway, Singer says that when he was younger he had no desire to "help" Christians until he met some and saw that many of them were good, righteous people. He claims he is not proselytizing, but if he manages to convince a Christian that the Gospel is a lie then what is the alternative? Would he rather Christians be atheists? Of course not. He does, of course, want them to accept Judaism.
However, in Judaism there is an alternative to full conversion. Non-Jews may become a "ger toshav", a sort of second-class citizen status for non-Jews willing to put themselves under the authority of the Rabbis and follow the "Noahide Laws" instead of the full list of hundreds of laws in the Talmud.
For Christians, though, one cannot reject the Son without rejecting the Father who sent him, so this is a very serious matter to contemplate.
Bible Difficulties
Rabbi Singer does not satisfy himself with understanding and promoting his own religion by teaching from the Hebrew Scriptures (what we Christians call the Old Testament) and the Talmud (a large Rabbinical commentary on the Hebrew Scriptures which modern Jews consider to be inspired). He also reads the Christian New Testament in search of difficult passages that he can criticize.These are naturally not the kinds of objections that atheists might raise which often center on the apparent contradictions between science and religion. Rather they are questions that have been around since at least the time of the Protestant Reformation. Therefore, I am sure that every difficulty that Rabbi Singer raises about the New Testament was asked by somebody else hundreds of years ago and has since been answered by numerous experts and answers documented in Bible Commentaries and countless other books and in sermons by thousands of Christian pastors.
Singer knows this to be true and so he turns it around as a negative joking about the number of books by Christian authors devoted to addressing such difficulties. (Of course, such books devote at least half of their pages to difficulties in the Old Testament.) There is nothing wrong with having such books. The Scriptures were written so very long ago in ancient languages it is only natural they would need some explanation for modern readers.
Examples
The Syrophoenician woman
Rabbi Singer says the story of the Syrophoenician woman in Mark 7:24-30 is very offensive to Jews. He says this story teaches that Jews look at gentiles as dogs. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is in fact no reason to take this story to be making any blanket statement about how Jews feel about gentiles.In the story a woman wants Jesus to cast a demon out of her daughter and Jesus tells her, "Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” (I mentioned this story in a previous blog post.) Apparently, Singer's reasoning is that Jesus is a Jew and therefore anything he says somehow reflects the opinion of all Jews. This is obviously not the case.
But it may not even be that Jesus is referring to gentiles as is usually assumed since he does not explain what he meant by his comment. In the Deuteronomy 23:17-18 the word "dog" seems to be linked with prostitution. So, perhaps that is what he meant. In any case, this story does not say anything about what Jews in general think of Gentiles.
Seed or Seeds
Singer points out a difficulty with Paul's argument in Galatians 3:15-17 and suggests that Paul is simply a pretender, that he cannot be a student of Gamaliel as he is quoted as saying in Acts 22:3, because he claims Paul makes a very basic mistake with the Hebrew. Here is the text in question:Galatians 3:15-17 King James Version (KJV)
15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
The difficulty with Paul's argument that Rabbi Singer is pointing out has not gone unnoticed by Christians. In fact, "...no one probably ever read this passage without feeling a difficulty, and without asking himself whether this argument is sound, and is worthy a man of candor, and especially of an inspired man."[Barnes' Notes on the Bible, https://biblehub.com]So, here is the problem stated by a Christian source: "To this argument it hath been objected, that the word seed was never used by the Hebrews in the plural number, except to denote the seeds of vegetables, Daniel 1:12..." [Benson Commentary, https://biblehub.com]
Gill takes a head-on approach to the problem suggesting there is Hebrew precedent outside the Bible for using the plural form of "seeds" in relation to posterity and not just vegetation and therefore attempting to render the whole issue moot. "Nor has the Jew (d) [Chizzuk Emuna, ar. 2. c. 90. p. 468.] any reason to charge him with a mistake, in observing that the word is not in the plural, but in the singular number, when it is the manner of the Hebrew language to speak of seed only in the singular number; but this is false, the word is used in the plural number, and so might have been here, had it been necessary, as in 1 Samuel 8:15 concerning seed sown in the earth, from whence the metaphor is here taken. The first tract in the Jews' Misna, or oral law, is called, "seeds"; and the word, even as spoken of the posterity of men, is used in the plural number in their Talmud (e) [T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 37. 1.]; where they say,
'pecuniary judgments are not as capital ones; in pecuniary judgments, a man gives his money, and it atones for him; in capital judgments, his blood, and the blood "of his seeds", or posterity, hang on him to the end of the world; for we so find in Cain, who slew his brother; as it is said, "the bloods of thy brother crieth"; it is not said, the blood of thy brother, but the bloods of thy brother, his blood, and the blood "of his seeds".'"[Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible, https://biblehub.com/commentaries/galatians/3-16.htm]
For reference, here is the passage from the Talmud referenced by Gill taken from a Jewish source:
[https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.37a?lang=bi]הוו יודעין שלא כדיני ממונות דיני נפשות דיני ממונות אדם נותן ממון ומתכפר לו דיני נפשות דמו ודם זרעותיו תלויין בו עד סוף העולםThe court tells them: You should know that cases of capital law are not like cases of monetary law. In cases of monetary law, a person who testifies falsely, causing money to be given to the wrong party, can give the money to the proper owner and his sin is atoned for. In cases of capital law, if one testifies falsely, the blood of the accused and the blood of his offspring that he did not merit to produce are ascribed to the witness’s testimony until eternity.
Ellicott, on the other hand, tries to side-step the whole issue. "Such passages are not to be regarded as arguments possessing a permanent logical validity (which would be to apply the rigid canons of Western logic to a case for which they are unsuitable), but rather as marked illustrations of the organic unity which the apostolic writers recognised in the pre-Christian and Christian dispensations. Not only had both the same Author, and formed part of the same scheme, but they were actually the counterparts one of the other. The events which characterised the earlier dispensation had their analogies—sometimes spiritual, sometimes literal—in the later." [Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers on https://biblehub.com]
Although it seems that Paul's wording is more like Gen 13:15 or 17:8, it could be that Paul also had Genesis 22:17-18 in mind, a passage which has a sudden shift from the plural to the singular.
Genesis 22:17-18 English Standard Version (ESV)
17 I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his[a] enemies, 18 and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice.”
Footnotes:
- Genesis 22:17 Or their
"However, in 22.18, even though there have been references to plurality (cf. 17a) there is a sudden shift to the singular in v. 17b. Often translated with a plural gloss to smooth out the reading, the text literally reads, 'your seed will possess the gate of his enemies.' This would seem to be a legitimate textual clue within the original context to see a sudden shift in referent, probably signaling some messianic or prophetic significance." [The Plain Sense(s) of Scripture: Questioning interpretive singularity in Galatians 3 and Romans 4]
Others have argued that when God promised to Abraham's seed he can't have meant all of his descendants, because it is evident that the promise was through Isaac only and then later limited to Isaac's son, Jacob, and so on until eventually it was limited down to the Messiah. "The promise was indeed at first general, and the term used was of the most general nature; but it was shown from time to time that God intended that it should be applied only to one branch or portion of the family of Abraham; and that limitation was finally so made as to terminate in the Messiah." [Barnes' Notes on the Bible on https://biblehub.com]
Modern vs Ancient Hebrew
Picking on Paul's use of single word and suggesting that he did not know Hebrew well is sort of like finding an odd use of a word in Plato's Republic and suggesting that Plato did not know Greek well or in one of Shakespeare's plays and suggesting that means Shakespeare did not know English very well. Rabbi Singer accuses Paul of being a fake and a liar and expresses his concern for righteous Christians who, according to him, are too ignorant to notice that Paul supposedly had a very poor grasp of the Hebrew language compared to even the average religious Jew today.Granted, Singer has a grasp of the Hebrew language that can easily dazzle most Christians. He knows that most Christians have not been to seminary and have little or no knowledge of the Hebrew language. Even those who do go to seminary do not get fully immersed in the language. So, that is a weakness he can exploit (or help us with, depending on your perspective).
Singer even claims to have been raised speaking "Biblical Hebrew" as his mother tongue, but this is doubtful. "A Biblical [ancient] Hebrew 'speaker' wouldn’t understand a Modern one. And vice versa." More importantly, "A modern Hebrew speaker can not easily read the Bible." [4 Differences: Biblical Hebrew vs Modern Hebrew] Rabbis, of course, would have to learn some Biblical Hebrew, although I would think they would spend much more time reading the Talmud, which "...is written in Mishnaic Hebrew and Jewish Babylonian Aramaic." [Talmud]
It is important to realize, though, that Hebrew was essentially a dead language until the 19th century Zionists revived it. "During this movement, Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, a lexicographer (dictionary writer/editor), prepared the first modern Hebrew dictionary." [4 Differences: Biblical Hebrew vs Modern Hebrew] Sometime after the siege of Jerusalem in 70 AD the language "...developed into Mishnaic Hebrew, spoken up until the fifth century CE." [Biblical Hebrew] Between the 5th and 19th centuries, or a period of well over 1000 years, nobody spoke Hebrew as their native language.
This is not unlike Latin. Latin used to be the language of the Roman Empire, but today nobody speaks Latin as their native language, and that has been true for over 1000 years. [History of Latin]
Greek vs Hebrew
Unlike Hebrew and Latin, Greek was never a dead language. The New Testament was written in what is known as Koine Greek whereas Plato and Homer were writing in Classical Greek. "Koine can be termed as the immediate ancestor to modern Greek." [Difference Between Koine Greek and Modern Greek]Rabbi Singer likes to point out apparent discrepancies between the Old and New Testaments in Christian Bible translations. For example, Hebrews 8:9 is obviously quoting Jeremiah 31:32, but with a minor difference. In fact, Singer accuses the writer of Hebrews of intentionally mis-quoting the Hebrew Bible.
Hebrews 8:9 New King James Version (NKJV)
9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord.
Jeremiah 31:32 New King James Version (NKJV)
32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, [a]though I was a husband to them, says the Lord.
Footnotes:
- Jeremiah 31:32 So with MT, Tg., Vg.; LXX, Syr. and I turned away from them
Obviously, there is a difference, but it is based on which ancient text was being used by the translators. The New King James Version (NKJV) is one of the few modern English translations that helps the reader understand this by providing a footnote. Note that NKJV has rendered the translation in accordance with the Masoretic Text (MT) while noting that the LXX (Greek Septuagint) has the alternative reading which is similar to the quote in Hebrews.
In the English it is difficult to see how such a difference could occur unintentionally, but in the Hebrew it is merely the difference of a single letter within a word. "The Hebrew Masters, as Surenhusius shows, in βίβλῷ καταλλαγῆς, p. 628, understand the word בעלתי to apply to the dominion of love and good pleasure; and it is not, save by an error in writing, that they turn it into the contrary, בחלתי, I have disdained or disregarded (fastidivi). The LXX. seem evidently to have read געלתי בם, which very word Jeremiah uses, ch. Jeremiah 14:19, μὴ ἀπὸ Σιὼν ἀπέστη (געלה) ἡ ψυχή σου; hath thy soul loathed Sion?" [Bengel's Gnomen on https://biblehub.com]
A Christian Conspiracy?
Rabbi Singer believes that the New Testament purposely mis-quoted the Old Testament to support Christological theology and that the Septuagint was then edited to agree with and cover up these alterations with Origen probably being the final editor.On the contrary, Biblical scholars say that Origen edited the Greek translation to make it more like the Hebrew text, not more like the New Testament. "A recension is a deliberate revision of a Greek translation on the basis of principles such as the desire to bring the work into conformity with the existing Hebrew text. In the early fifth century Jerome identified three recensions: one from Egypt attributed to Hesychius, one from Antioch (and Constantinople) attributed to Lucian, and one from Palestine attributed to Origen.... When Origen sought to correct the text toward the Hebrew he used a series of signs to indicate where he had changed the LXX." [Invitation to the Septuagint, 2nd ed.]
Septuagint Completed Before the New Testament
Singer also claims that in the first century the only part of the Hebrew Bible that had been translated into Greek was the Torah (the first 5 books) and the rest was assembled later being sort of reverse-engineered to match the New Testament. However, Jewish Bible scholars do not seem to agree with this assertion.Dr. Aryeh Reich of Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan, Israel, says "Other sources – Greek, Latin, as well as Hebrew – testify to the origins of the Septuagint. The most detailed accounts are in the Letter of Aristeas, a hagiographic work of the second century, B.C.E. This work, as well, recounts how King Ptolemy summoned seventy-two elders from the land of Israel and requested that they translate their Torah for the library at Alexandria. This Letter, just like Masekhet Soferim, refers to a translation of the Torah alone, but other sources refer to translation of the entire Bible." Dr. Reich cites an example of one of those "other sources" as "...Epiphanes’ composition, 'On Weights and Measures'..." [The Greek Bible – Light or Darkness?]
Emanuel Tov, emeritus Professor in the Department of Bible at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, says "According to the Epistle of Aristeas, the translation of the Torah was initiated by Ptolemy II Philadelphus (reigned 285–246 B.C.E.). This date is probably correct, while most other details in this Epistle may be fictive. The translations of the Prophets and Writings were completed by the middle of the first century B.C.E. The grandson of Ben Sira knew the translation of the Prophets and part of the Writings in 132 or 116 B.C.E. according to different computations of the date of his Greek translation of Ben Sira." [Emanuel Tov, Septuagint]
"The LXX [Septuagint Greek Old Testament] was translated from a Hebrew text that differed, often greatly, from MT. This is not surprising, since in antiquity many differing copies of the Hebrew Scripture text were in circulation. Some of these differences are minor, while others involve a whole paragraph, chapter, or even book. All these copies contain 'Scripture.'" [Emanuel Tov, Septuagint]
Greek Scriptures Read in Synagogues
Another example Singer picks on is Luke 4:18 quoting Isaiah 61:1. The Septuagint reads, "61:1 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind;" [http://ecmarsh.com/lxx/Esaias/index.htm] Rabbi Singer points out that in Luke 4:16-17 it says that Jesus was reading from a scroll in Synagogue, so to him this means Jesus must have been reading from the Hebrew, but we know that Greek was read in the synagogues.According to another Jewish source, "Greek stood on its own footing. The Alexandrians read their [synagogue] services and lessons therein, most of them knowing little or no Hebrew. A Greek scroll was as sacred to them as that in holy tongue and character [Hebrew] was elsewhere. A Patriarch who held it unlawful to write versions of the sacred books in other tongues held Greek editions to be lawful. While versions of Esther in Coptic or Median might be read only to those speaking the particular language, a Greek text might be read to the general public." [Lewis Naphtali Dembitz, Jewish Services in Synagogue and Home, Jewish Publication Society of America, 1898, p. 292]
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, "The Jews made use of it [the Septuagint] long before the Christian Era, and in the time of Christ it was recognised as a legitimate text, and was employed in Palestine even by the rabbis. The Apostles and Evangelists utilised it also and borrowed Old Testament citations from it, especially in regard to the prophecies. The Fathers and the other ecclesiastical writers of the early Church drew upon it, either directly, as in the case of the Greek Fathers, or indirectly, like the Latin Fathers and writers and others who employed Latin, Syriac, Ethiopian, Arabic and Gothic versions. It was held in high esteem by all, some even believed it inspired. Consequently, a knowledge of the Septuagint helps to a perfect understanding of these literatures." [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13722a.htm]
Archaeologists found evidence of a Greek synagogue in Jerusalem.
[The Theodotus Inscription]By the first century B. C.E. and first century C. E., we begin to find archaeologically identifiable remains of synagogue buildings. Among these is the “Theodotus inscription," which was discovered in 1913 in a cistern to the south of the Temple Mount. The inscription commemorates the dedication of a synagogue building, which presumably stood somewhere nearby. Although no remains survive of the building, the inscription provides valuable information about early synagogues. It reads as follows:Theodotus, son of Vettanos, a priest and an archisynagogos, grandson of an archisynagogos, built the synagogue for the reading of Torah and for teaching the commandments; furthermore, the hostel, and the rooms, and the water installation for lodging needy strangers. Its foundation stone was laid by his ancestors, the elders, and Simonides.
Hebrew a Canaanite Language
Singer likes to say that God did not forget to speak Hebrew. Many modern Jews have a great reverence for the Hebrew language. They see it as the special language of God in a mystical sense. They believe that when God spoke the universe into existence he was literally speaking in Hebrew.However, Moses ben Nahman (also called Ramban), a leading medieval Jewish scholar said: "In my opinion, Hebrew was a Canaanite language. For Abraham did not bring it from Ur of the Chaldees [in Mesopotamia] and from Haran, for there they spoke Aramaic, as the incident of the pile of stones erected by Laban and Jacob proves [see Gen. 31:47]. And it was not a private language spoken by a single person but a language of Canaan, and many people in Egypt knew it for the countries were close together--particularly the ruler, for it is customary for kings and rulers to know several languages." [Prof. Gad Sarfatti, Department of Hebrew and Semitic Languages, Bar-Ilan University, Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew?]
Professor Sarfatti concludes, "From the information that we possess today we must think Ramban correct in the main, even if we do not agree with him that Abraham spoke Aramaic. Hebrew belongs to the Canaanite language group within the Semitic family of languages and is very similar to its neighbors: Phoenician, Moabite, and the language which flourishes in the Tel-el-Amarna letters, which were written in the fourteenth and thirteent[h] centuries B.C.E. from Israel, Syria and Phoenicia to the king of Egypt. In his book History of the Hebrew Language (in Hebrew) Haim Rabin writes that 'the Patriarchs, we know, came from Mesopotamia, where they did not speak a language of the Hebrew type; how then is it that we find the people of Israel, after they had taken possession of the Promised Land, beginning to write and to make use of a language which was already spoken by the Canaanites whom they dispossessed? The only possible answer is that at some stage our predecessors changed their language.'" [Prof. Gad Sarfatti, Department of Hebrew and Semitic Languages, Bar-Ilan University, Did the Patriarchs Speak Hebrew?]
Isaiah Prophecy of the Messiah
Rabbi Singer promotes the idea that there is a Christian conspiracy to mis-translate Isaiah 9:6-7 to apply to the Messiah. In his argument, he once again takes advantage of the fact that most Christians do not have a great knowledge of Hebrew."...anti-missionaries including Tovia Singer LOVE to claim this must be past tense and refer to an event prior to Isaiah's writing. In reality there is no such thing as tense in Hebrew grammar. In reality Hebrew verbs do not take past, present and future forms, but perfect (completed action) or imperfect (incomplete action).... Normally a verb in the perfect form would imply a past tense which is why Singer insists this must be past tense and that it therefore refers to Hezekiah. In reality there is a special idiom in Hebrew called the 'Prophetic Perfect' this is where prophet speaks of future events in the perfect form because he has seen them in the future where they have already happened." [Unto Us a Child is Born- Isaiah 9:6-7 and the Prophetic Perfect]
Hezekiah "...could never be represented as a child just born, when he was, at least, ten or eleven years of age when this prophecy was given out, and twenty nine when Sennacherib came up with his army against him, as Aben Ezra observes; to which time he and others refer the context; nor can any reason be assigned why he should be called a 'son', in such a peculiar and unusual manner; nor can it be said of him, that he was the great light which shined upon the inhabitants of Galilee; nor was his birth the occasion of so great joy as the birth of this child is said to be; nor can it, with any justness, be said of him, that of the increase of his government and peace there was no end; seeing his government only extended to the two tribes of Benjamin and Judah, and his reign was but twenty nine years, and for the most part attended with affliction, oppression, and war..." [Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible, https://biblehub.com]
"That the Messiah is here intended, not only Christian but Jewish interpreters, in general, of any credit or reputation, agree. For so the ancient Hebrew doctors understood the place, and particularly the Chaldee paraphrast; although the later Jews have laboured, out of opposition to the Lord Jesus, to apply it to Hezekiah. Which extravagant notion, as it hath no foundation at all in this or any other text of Scripture, and therefore may be rejected without any further reason; so it is fully confuted by the following titles, which are such as cannot, without blasphemy and nonsense, be ascribed to Hezekiah, nor indeed to any mere man or mere creature, as we shall see." [Benson Commentary, https://biblehub.com]
Targum Jonathan
We can prove from a Jewish source that this passage was sometimes taken by Jews to be a prophecy of the Messiah. "Targum Jonathan is an Aramaic translation of the Neviim (Prophets). Authorship of the Targum is attributed to Jonathan ben Uzziel, a prime student of the great Talmudic sage Hillel. In Talmudic times, the Targum was read verse-by-verse, alternating with the Hebrew text of the haftarah." Here is how Targum Jonathan translates Isaiah 9:6-7 (in Aramaic numbered 9:5-6)[Targum Jonathan on Isaiah]The prophet said to the house of David, For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and he has taken the law upon himself to keep it. His name is called from eternity wonderful, the mighty God who liveth to eternity, the Messiah whose peace shall be great upon us in his days.The greatness of those who do the law shall be magnified, and to those, that preserve peace. There shall be no end to the throne of David, and of his kingdom, to establish it and to build it in judgment and in righteousness from henceforth, even for ever. By the Word of the Lord of hosts this shall be done.
I took the above quoted translation directly from a Jewish web site so that there would be no question that this was somehow faked or tampered with by Christian missionaries.
"Note first that the passage is clearly understood as a Messianic prophecy of a personal Messiah-King, descended from the lineage of David.... The statement, 'His name has been called from of old' alludes to the rabbinic belief that the name of the Messiah has existed from eternity past (compare Psalm 72:17) as one of seven things created before the world (the others being the throne of glory, the Torah, Paradise, the Temple, repentance and Gehenna; see Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, vol. 1, p. 175, note 2)." [ISAIAH 9:6-7, THE HEBREW TEXT & THE ANCIENT VERSIONS]
Son of Man
This idea of the Messiah existing "from eternity past" pre-dates Christianity. The Book of Enoch, a pre-Christian Jewish book that is quoted by Jesus and the Apostles, says the Messiah existed before God created the sun and stars."Besides such titles as 'savior' and 'redeemer,' which are given to the expected Messiah in the intertestamental writings, a special title is given to him in the (Ethiopic) Book of Enoch (I En.; written shortly after Daniel) and in the Apocalypse of *Ezra (IV Ezra; written c. 30 years after the destruction of the Second Temple), that of the "son of man." This title is clearly borrowed from Daniel 7:13. Although in Daniel the term is purely symbolic (see above), the intertestamental books use it in reference to an actual person, the Messiah. According to these writings, the 'son of man,' who stands 'at the throne of God' in heaven, existed 'before the sun and the stars were created' (I En. 46:1–3); he will bring salvation at the end of the ages, when he will be enthroned as king of the world (IV Ezra 13:26)." [Eschatology, www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org]
Jesus clearly identified himself as this Son of Man.
Mark 14:61-64 English Standard Version (ESV)
61 But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” 62 And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” 63 And the high priest tore his garments and said, “What further witnesses do we need? 64 You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?” And they all condemned him as deserving death.
So, here Jesus is not beating around the bush, he says flat out he is the Messiah.
The Resurrection of the Christ
Rabbi Singer also claims that "Paul Quoted a Nonexistent Prophecy of Jesus’s Death and Resurrection" in the following verses.
The Resurrection of the Christ
Rabbi Singer also claims that "Paul Quoted a Nonexistent Prophecy of Jesus’s Death and Resurrection" in the following verses.1 Corinthians 15:3-4 English Standard Version (ESV)
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,
Rabbi Singer assumes, as most have since the late 19th century, that Paul has to be talking about some Old Testament prophecy on the basis that Paul's letters are supposedly the oldest parts of the New Testament. However, 1 Timothy 5:18 directly quotes Luke 10:7 calling the gospel of Luke "Scripture". [St Paul Quoted the Gospel of Luke] Almost all Christian Biblical scholars accept First Timothy as an authentic Pauline letter. (Some secular scholars disagree.)
According to Christian scholars, First Timothy was written "either about the year 58 or 59, or about the year 64 or 65 AD". [wikipedia] "Luke was written before 63 A.D., based on the ending of the book of Acts.... Luke says that many others had written these things down (Luke 1:1)" [Mark and the Synoptic Gospels] Of course, everybody accepts that Luke had Mark as a source. First Corinthians was written not long before First Timothy, "in the range of AD 53–57". [wikipedia] So, it would seem entirely plausible that Paul had already included the gospel of Mark in his definition of "Scripture" when he was writing his first letter to the Corinthians.
But even if we accept the New Testament dating of secular scholars we can still find support for 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 in the Old Testament. "If it be asked what Scriptures of the O. T. are meant, we may refer to Psalms 22.; Isaiah 53., as well as to Genesis 22.; Deuteronomy 9:24-26; Zechariah 12:10. For the same words in the next verse see Psalm 16:10; Isaiah 53:10; Hosea 6:2; Jonah 2:10. This latter passage having been applied to the Resurrection by Christ Himself (St Matthew 12:40; Matthew 16:4), may not unnaturally be conceived to be among those St Paul had in his mind here." [Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, on https://biblehub.com]
Rabbi Singer disagrees with the interpretation of Jonah that it is a sign of the Christ, but that is irrelevant, because Paul is naturally going to agree with Jesus on his interpretation if he was aware of what Jesus said.
Physical vs spiritual bodies
Singer also says that Paul "...conveys a concept of the resurrection of the dead that was strictly Greek and not Jewish." The Greeks and Romans did not believe in the physical resurrection of the dead, and Rabbi Singer contends that Paul agreed with the Greeks and Romans. He gets this from his interpretation of the same chapter in Corinthians.
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures,
Rabbi Singer assumes, as most have since the late 19th century, that Paul has to be talking about some Old Testament prophecy on the basis that Paul's letters are supposedly the oldest parts of the New Testament. However, 1 Timothy 5:18 directly quotes Luke 10:7 calling the gospel of Luke "Scripture". [St Paul Quoted the Gospel of Luke] Almost all Christian Biblical scholars accept First Timothy as an authentic Pauline letter. (Some secular scholars disagree.)
According to Christian scholars, First Timothy was written "either about the year 58 or 59, or about the year 64 or 65 AD". [wikipedia] "Luke was written before 63 A.D., based on the ending of the book of Acts.... Luke says that many others had written these things down (Luke 1:1)" [Mark and the Synoptic Gospels] Of course, everybody accepts that Luke had Mark as a source. First Corinthians was written not long before First Timothy, "in the range of AD 53–57". [wikipedia] So, it would seem entirely plausible that Paul had already included the gospel of Mark in his definition of "Scripture" when he was writing his first letter to the Corinthians.
But even if we accept the New Testament dating of secular scholars we can still find support for 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 in the Old Testament. "If it be asked what Scriptures of the O. T. are meant, we may refer to Psalms 22.; Isaiah 53., as well as to Genesis 22.; Deuteronomy 9:24-26; Zechariah 12:10. For the same words in the next verse see Psalm 16:10; Isaiah 53:10; Hosea 6:2; Jonah 2:10. This latter passage having been applied to the Resurrection by Christ Himself (St Matthew 12:40; Matthew 16:4), may not unnaturally be conceived to be among those St Paul had in his mind here." [Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, on https://biblehub.com]
Rabbi Singer disagrees with the interpretation of Jonah that it is a sign of the Christ, but that is irrelevant, because Paul is naturally going to agree with Jesus on his interpretation if he was aware of what Jesus said.
Physical vs spiritual bodies
Singer also says that Paul "...conveys a concept of the resurrection of the dead that was strictly Greek and not Jewish." The Greeks and Romans did not believe in the physical resurrection of the dead, and Rabbi Singer contends that Paul agreed with the Greeks and Romans. He gets this from his interpretation of the same chapter in Corinthians.1 Corinthians 15:44 English Standard Version (ESV)
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
But Rabbi Singer is missing the point because he is not reading the verse in context. Paul is not saying that there is no physical resurrection. He is just saying that the person must be transformed.
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
But Rabbi Singer is missing the point because he is not reading the verse in context. Paul is not saying that there is no physical resurrection. He is just saying that the person must be transformed.
1 Corinthians 15:53 English Standard Version (ESV)
53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.
Paul doesn't say we discard the physical body, but the physical body must be changed or else it will still be mortal. Yes, Paul may be speaking in terms that a Greek audience can appreciate.
53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.
Paul doesn't say we discard the physical body, but the physical body must be changed or else it will still be mortal. Yes, Paul may be speaking in terms that a Greek audience can appreciate.
The Trinity
Of course, Rabbi Singer is very much against the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. I do believe that he is genuinely concerned for Christians who he believes have fallen into idolatry as a result of this doctrine. Rabbi Singer says, "Yes... if you want to get answers... it's not like Christians don't try to answer this... you go to a bookstore, a Christian bookstore, they have shelves with books this thick.. 50 books and guys with 40 PhD's cause you need 40 PhD's to explain this."However, you don't need a PhD, because there is no Christian church that will make understanding the Trinity a requirement of membership. It is enough to know that there is one God, not three, even in Trinitarian doctrine. Most Christians don't overthink it.
The Trinity in the Bible
"While scripture does not contain the word Trinity, an indication of three distinct persons can be found in 1 John 5:7 for the validity of which exist a controversy known as Johannine Comma. Early Christian belief in the deity of Jesus Christ existed since the first century in the writings of John the Apostle (John 1:1, 20:28), Paul the Apostle (Titus 2:13, Romans 9:5, Hebrews 1:8-10), Peter the Apostle (2 Peter 1:1), as well as in the writings of Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of John who was born about the beginning of the Apostolic age (c. 35). Jesus is also quoted as attesting to being one with and equal with the Father, sharing in the glory of the Father before the world began (John 8:58, 10:30, 17:5)." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity]1 John 5:7 King James Version (KJV)
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
Definitely 1 John 5:7 nicely sums up the idea of the Trinity (depending on what translation you are reading). The three persons of the Trinity are also mentioned together in Matt 28:19.Matthew 28:19-20 English Standard Version (ESV)
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
Footnotes:
- Matthew 28:19 Or into
One with the Father
Jesus went further than just identifying himself as the Son of Man, the Messiah, but declared himself to be one with the Father.John 10:27-38 English Standard Version (ESV)
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.29 My Father, who has given them to me,[a] is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”
31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” 33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? [Psalm 82:6] 35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken— 36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; 38 but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”
Footnotes:
- John 10:29 Some manuscripts What my Father has given to me
Notice that Jesus said "I and the father are one." He did not say "I am one god, and the Father is another god." That would truly be idolatry. But in what sense did he mean that he and the Father were one? In John 17:11 he also says "that they may be one" as in "unified", or as Rabbi Singer words it, "in accord" with one another, not as in literally one substance.
John 17:11 English Standard Version (ESV)
11 And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.
So, I would concede Singer makes a good point that it does not seem clear from the context exactly what Jesus meant when he said he is one with the Father, whether he meant literally or as in he is "in accord" with God.
"I am"
However, Jesus did seem to more specifically claim to be God.John 8:58 English Standard Version (ESV)
58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
Jesus here appears to be saying that even though he was born in some sense he always existed. But beyond that he specifically uses the phrase God identified himself with in Exodus.
"I AM, is the name of God, Ex 3:14; it speaks his self-existence; he is the First and the Last, ever the same, Re 1:8." [Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary on https://biblehub.com]
"I am! is an explicit claim to deity. Although each occurrence of the phrase “I am” in the Fourth Gospel needs to be examined individually in context to see if an association with Exod 3:14 is present, it seems clear that this is the case here (as the response of the Jewish authorities in the following verse shows)." [study note, https://netbible.org]
Exodus 3:14 English Standard Version (ESV)
14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am.”[a] And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘I am has sent me to you.’”
Footnotes:
- Exodus 3:14 Or I am what I am, or I will be what I will be
Rabbi Singer's Mis-translation
Rabbi Singer says "I Am Who I Am" should instead be "I Will Be With You as I Shall Be With You." He contends that the Christian Bibles get the translation wrong. Singer said you don't even need to know Hebrew, that you can see it for yourself, so I took the challenge and looked it up for myself on https://netbible.org and found out he was clearly wrong. When you look at the Hebrew, the word for "with" (עמך) is not in verse 14. In verse 12, "be with you" is "For confirmation, Exodus 3:14 from the Jewish Bible, A Hebrew - English Bible According to the Masoretic Text and the JPS (Jewish Publication Society) 1917 Edition:
And God said unto Moses: 'I AM THAT I AM'; and He said: 'Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel: I AM hath sent me unto you.' [https://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0203.htm]And another Jewish translation, The Jewish Bible with a Modern English translation & Rashi's commentary:
God said to Moses, "Ehyeh asher ehyeh (I will be what I will be)," and He said, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'Ehyeh (I will be) has sent me to you.'" [https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9864/jewish/Chapter-3.htm]And the Targum Jonathan of Exodus 3:14 (Aramaic translation translated into English) from a Jewish web site:
And the Lord said unto Mosheh, He who spake, and the world was; who spake, and all things were. And He said, This thou shalt say to the sons of Israel, I AM HE WHO IS, AND WHO WILL BE, hath sent me unto you. [https://www.sefaria.org/Targum_Jonathan_on_Exodus.3.13?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en]
So, that is three English translations from Jewish sources that all contradict Rabbi Singer's translation of this verse. So, clearly we cannot trust Rabbi Singer's translation of the Hebrew, and we cannot believe him when he claims Christian Bible translations are wrong!
Finally, the Septuagint Translation by Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton (Greek translation translated into English):
And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am THE BEING; and he said, Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, THE BEING has sent me to you. [http://ecmarsh.com/lxx/Exodus/index.htm]I include this because we have been talking a lot about the Septuagint and it is an interesting translation relevant because it is probably the translation quoted by the New Testament writers.
Forgiveness of Sins
Rabbi Singer says that Jesus doesn't really forgive sins but rather just says "your sins are forgiven" as in proclaiming it has already taken place.Mark 2:9-11 English Standard Version (ESV)
9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise, take up your bed and walk’? 10 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he said to the paralytic— 11 “I say to you, rise, pick up your bed, and go home.”
Clearly, Jesus is claiming to have the authority to forgive sins and Rabbi Singer's objection is just a matter of semantics.The Holy Spirit
Jesus also said the Spirit proceeds from the Father.John 15:26 English Standard Version (ESV)
26 “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me.
According to one source cited on wikipedia (Anglican priest Maxwell Staniforth in his Introduction to the 1964 edition of the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius), there is perhaps some influence from Stoicism on the Christian idea of the Holy Spirit. The Meditations is an important work of philosophy which I enjoy reading, but I think this idea of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit somehow coming from Greek philosophy is bogus. The Spirit of God is mentioned throughout the Bible, Old and New Testaments, so there's no reason to appeal to pagan ideas as a source of inspiration.
Why not Oneness?
"Modalism is also known as Modalistic Monarchianism or Sabellianism and that is the root theology/doctrine that formed the modern term used by modalistic organizations: Oneness. At the core, Oneness is the abstract rejection of the triune nature of God, known today as the Trinity... The most basic definition of Modalism is that God appeared to humanity in different modes, such as a persona or avatar at different times that are not manifested simultaneously and that each manifestation is not distinct or a co-existent person." [What is the Oneness Doctrine: Modalism]When Jesus said he was "one with the Father" he didn't mean he was the same person as the Father. The Father and Son must be different persons and exist simultaneously or it would make no sense for the Son to pray to the Father nor would it make sense for him to be seated at the right hand of the Father.
Conclusions
This has gotten to be a very long blog post. If you got this far I am impressed. I wrote this mostly for myself, but if you find it interesting please let me know in the comments.
My main point here is not to insult Rabbi Singer. I just want to suggest that when somebody starts pointing out difficulties with the Bible, whether they be atheists or religious people trying to defend their own faiths, you really should not just accept what they say at face value without checking it out for yourself. I know that I have heard Rabbi Singer say something similar, but I would go a step further to suggest that when anyone starts proposing conspiracy theories it should be a red flag that there might be more to the story.
I ran across this quote from Theodore Roosevelt: "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
I ran across this quote from Theodore Roosevelt: "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
I haven't given any links to Rabbi Singer's stuff, but you can find him easily enough (from his web site or Youtube channel), and I did provide links for enough of the quotes I gave that you should be able to verify everything I stated above.
Comments
Post a Comment