Asking Questions of Judaism

[JohnMartin]

Questions on Judaism

I have recently been listening to a Jewish apologist, Tovia Singer. I have placed these comments/questions on his discussion forum here in response to his video entitled Did God Destroy the Second Temple Because Jews Rejected Jesus? - and now place them at Tweb for further comment.


Some questions and comments for the Jews at Tweb to consider ("you" in the comments below refers primarily to Tovia Singer) –

If you believe the Jews have a covenant with God, what then must God take away from the Jews for the Mosaic covenant to come to an end? If God did end the Mosaic covenant, then God would take away the means to continue the Levitical sacrifices, the Day of Atonement sacrifice, the line of Davidic kings, and remove the many laws, which cannot be kept apart from a functioning temple?

If the Mosaic covenant has ended, what more need God take away from the Jews to demonstrate to them that He has done just that - taken away the Mosaic covenant? If God has not taken away the Mosaic covenant, why then did God take away so much (temple, liturgy, sacrifices, festivals, means to keep all the laws) from the Jews in 70AD and kept these things away from them for so long?

Why did God take away so much from the Jews around about the time that Christianity was born through the Christ event? After all Christian claim Jesus was God, and hence Jesus was the incarnate temple of God. How do Jews explain these historical coincidences, which we all arranged by God’s providence?

If you believe the Jews still have a covenant with God and yet cannot keep the law and do not have a functioning priesthood, what value within the Mosaic covenant was the temple and the functioning priesthood in the OT? If the temple was central to the Mosaic covenant, why is the temple not central to the ongoing functioning of the Mosaic covenant after 70AD? If the temple was NOT central to the Mosaic covenant (you would have to establish this fact), why was the loss of the temple then the occasion for the Rabbis to so radically revise the Jewish understanding of the OT?

If post temple, Rabbinic Judaism has reinterpreted the OT to account for the destruction of the temple, what covenant value was there in the pre 70AD understanding of the OT scriptures? What authority did the Rabbis have to re-interpret the OT after 70AD? If a reinterpretation of the OT scriptures occurred after 70AD, what value can be placed upon any interpretation of the texts, that may be subsequently revised when historical events do not subsequently support a past or present understanding of the OT texts? If we have witnessed Judaism radically re-understand the OT, based upon historical events in Jerusalem, what confidence can we have with Rabbinic claims concerning their understanding of any OT texts?

The OT contains the theology of the broken covenant. When a covenant is broken, it must be renewed for the covenant to become functioning again. If the loss of the temple has brought about a broken covenant, when will the Mosaic covenant be restored and how? If the loss of the temple has NOT brought about a broken covenant, why not?

Also if the Jews cannot keep the Torah, why is the Mosaic covenant not broken? What would it take for modern Judaism to teach the Mosaic covenant is broken? If the Mosaic covenant cannot be broken after the temple, or because of the loss of some part of the Mosaic covenant, why then was the Mosaic covenant broken in the OT and not ever after the loss of the temple in 70AD?

Furthermore, your claim that we can hear the footsteps of the Messiah also is inconsistent with the standard Jewish apologetic that the suffering servant is Israel. If Israel suffers to redeem men from sin, is then Israel the Messiah, who will suffer and rebuild the temple? Also, what then is this ever close Messiah going to do with regard to sin that Israel has not yet done? Will he also suffer sin and if so, why does he have to suffer for sin if Israel has already done so in the past?

Some comments about modern Jewish apologetics.

According to the modern apologetic Jews, they do and don't need the temple, they do and don't need the sacrifices, they do and don't need the festivals, they do and don't need to keep all the Torah laws. They do when they can and don't when they cannot. Such alternating emphasizes and non emphasizes on these topics indicates the Jews really cannot explain what God has done with the Mosaic covenant. As the Rabbis cannot clearly and consistently explain God’s dealings with the Jews, then nobody really knows what going on in Judaism. As nobody knows, then Judaism is fundamentally agnostic about the value of the Mosaic covenant.

The Jewish post 70AD narrative is full of problems, which make the Jewish apologetic very weak. Apparently there has been no prophetic voice for the Jews since Christ to teach them how the temple will be restored. Indeed the occupying Muslim mosque in Jerusalem is a strong prevention against the temple ever being rebuilt again. Evidently God’s providence in placing a Mosque in the vicinity of the temple shows the world and the Jews that He simply does not want the temple to be rebuilt in Jerusalem. Why? Because the Mosaic covenant has end and the Christian covenant is the only functioning covenant through which men can obtain union with God.

Please note that I have nothing personal against the Jewish people. I believe as a whole, they are God fearing, law abiding people who what to please God. The above comments and questions are only directed at Jewish theology in the modern age and at least deserve to be given some thought. If any Jewish person is willing to engage some of the above statements, it would be appreciated. I intend to engage Jewish responses respecting the Jewish history and the great contribution Jews have made to humanity throughout the ages. I look forward to engaging people of a faith had in common with Christians, for the benefit of all involved.

JM

 

[visionary]

Think of the temple as a symbolic of the true. As Paul pointed out, we are the temple of God. Just as the snake on the stick that was suppose heal all who would look at it in the desert, so also must the temple be removed as the object of worship. It wasn't so much as taking away a covenant as the covenant was moved [renewed] to the heart.

 

[Na Nach Oi!]

Did God Destroy the Second Temple Because Jews Rejected Jesus?

The Jews was given 40 years to repent (i.e. to receive Jesus as their Jewish Messiah). It was shown by the anomalies that happened in the Temple in this 40-years period, and it meant that their sacrifices weren't received anymore (because it had been fulfilled by Jesus' death)

Our Rabbis taught: During the last forty years before the destruction of the Temple (30-70 AD) the lot [‘For the Lord’] did not come up in the right hand; nor did the crimson-coloured strap become white; nor did the westernmost light shine; and the doors of the Hekal would open by themselves, until R. Johanan b. Zakkai rebuked them, saying: Hekal, Hekal, why wilt thou be the alarmer thyself? I know about thee that thou wilt be destroyed, for Zechariah ben Ido has already prophesied concerning thee: Open thy doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour thy cedars.

Talmud Bavli, Yoma 39b.​

 

[Na Nach Oi!]

Think of the temple as a symbolic of the true. As Paul pointed out, we are the temple of God. Just as the snake on the stick that was suppose heal all who would look at it in the desert, so also must the temple be removed as the object of worship. It wasn't so much as taking away a covenant as the covenant was moved [renewed] to the heart.

Just for note, Paul said that our bodies are Temples when the Second Temple was still erected.

Paul didn't mean to replace the function of the Temple building.

He still went to the Temple when he was in Jerusalem if we read the Acts.

 

[Meowzltov]

oops

 

[Meowzltov]

If you believe the Jews have a covenant with God, what then must God take away from the Jews for the Mosaic covenant to come to an end?

God's Covenant with Israel is PERPETUAL. Obviously you can tell from my signature that this is an important issue for me. The whole point of the book of Hosea is that God is faithful to Israel despite her unfaithfulness just as Hosea is faithful to his wife despite her prostitution. And God will discipline his children, even harshly -- it doesn't mean he doesn't love us. He sent us into a 2000 year diaspora which culminated in 1/3 of our numbers being incinerated during the holocaust -- and yet He still loves us. The covenant holds--it is the Torah that holds the Jewish people together.

There is a portion of the covenant that is conditional, I'll discuss this a bit later down.

If God did end the Mosaic covenant, then God would take away the means to continue the Levitical sacrifices, the Day of Atonement sacrifice, the line of Davidic kings, and remove the many laws, which cannot be kept apart from a functioning temple?

Taking away temple sacrifice is no evidence of the covenant ending. After all, in Babylon there was no temple, and yet the covenant held -- Daniel kept the covenant. He prayed three times a day -- the same three times that sacrifices were normally offered. You see, when there is no temple, "the words of our lips (prayers) shall be as bullocks (sacrifices)." Hosea 14:2

If the Mosaic covenant has ended, what more need God take away from the Jews to demonstrate to them that He has done just that - taken away the Mosaic covenant?

This is circular. It's like saying, "I can prove that Martians live on Mars with the following evidence: Martians live on Mars."

You need to back up and say, "It appears to me that your covenant is ended because God took away your temple, and so you are not able to fulfill your covenant obligations. Furthermore, he exiled you for 2000 years. That's a pretty mind boggling punishment. Given all that, why do you think you still have a covenant?" THEN LISTEN TO THEM ANSWER.

If God has not taken away the Mosaic covenant, why then did God take away so much (temple, liturgy, sacrifices, festivals, means to keep all the laws) from the Jews in 70AD and kept these things away from them for so long?

Before I answer, let me just clarify that Jews still have plenty of liturgy and festivals. I just had a rockin' time during Purim. I'm looking forward to Pesach.

Why did God take away so much from the Jews around about the time that Christianity was born through the Christ event? After all Christian claim Jesus was God, and hence Jesus was the incarnate temple of God. How do Jews explain these historical coincidences, which we all arranged by God’s providence?

Good question. The Christian answer is that it is discipline for having either crucified Christ (that's the old answer) or for having rejected the Messiah (more common today). I do not personally hold to either of these. First, because I think the idea of punishing all Jews for a roomful killing Christ is an antisemitic idea. Second, I think it is unreasonable to connect the destruction of the Temple with something that happened a half a century earlier.

The Jewish answer is that just prior to the destruction of the temple, the amount of Jews hating fellow Jews had grown notorious. SCANDALOUS. PUtting it into my own words, they had simply stopped loving their neighbor as themselves on a large scale, small scale, everything scale. They hated unconditionally. Rabbinical Jews say that when they have learned to love unconditionally, the Messiah will come.

If you believe the Jews still have a covenant with God and yet cannot keep the law and do not have a functioning priesthood, what value within the Mosaic covenant was the temple and the functioning priesthood in the OT? If the temple was central to the Mosaic covenant, why is the temple not central to the ongoing functioning of the Mosaic covenant after 70AD? If the temple was NOT central to the Mosaic covenant (you would have to establish this fact), why was the loss of the temple then the occasion for the Rabbis to so radically revise the Jewish understanding of the OT?

I don't think we can keep the law perfectly, we can certainly keep the law in part, and this is worth something. It brings us closer to God, since it is his will. It makes us happier people, since we are living more the way we are designed to live. And it helps to create a better, more harmonious society. Most importantly, as it says in 1 John, keeping the commands of the Lord are our way of showing our Love for Hashem.

There *is* a functioning priesthood. The Kohanim know exactly who they are. In Israel, there is a priesthood prepared should the Temple be rebuilt. The high priest is chosen. Even the vestments have been custom made.

The Temple was central in that it gave Israel a visible, tangible sacred location and sacred acts with which to worship God. IOW it gave us religion. God doesn't need religion, but we as human beings do. Throughout the Babylonian Captivity, Hashem showed us that although we had lost one sacred space, we could build as many sacred spaces as we needed -- the synagogues. And through his prophets, such as Hosea, He taught us that the sacrifice he really desired was the one that came from our hearts -- prayer. Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednigo, and all the rest of the Jews of the Babylonian Captivity kept the Torah without any Temple at all. And so, when the second temple was destroyed as well, we already knew what to do.

I have no idea what you mean by "the Rabbis revised the understanding of the OT."

If post temple, Rabbinic Judaism has reinterpreted the OT to account for the destruction of the temple, what covenant value was there in the pre 70AD understanding of the OT scriptures? What authority did the Rabbis have to re-interpret the OT after 70AD? If a reinterpretation of the OT scriptures occurred after 70AD, what value can be placed upon any interpretation of the texts, that may be subsequently revised when historical events do not subsequently support a past or present understanding of the OT texts? If we have witnessed Judaism radically re-understand the OT, based upon historical events in Jerusalem, what confidence can we have with Rabbinic claims concerning their understanding of any OT texts?

You are going to have to explain what you mean. As far as I know, the Rabbis after 70 AD interpret the Tanakh the same was as the Rabbis before 70 AD. If you believe otherwise, please provide evidence, and cite your sources.

The OT contains the theology of the broken covenant.

There is a PART of the covenant that is CONDITIONAL. While owning the Land is perpetual and unconditional, actual LIVING on the land is conditional upon obeying the laws of the Torah. To break these laws is referred to in Scripture as "breaking my covenant." It is why Israel was sent into Captivity, and it is why we had a 2000 year long diaspora. These punishments are not permanent, as you can see from history, since Israel can repent. It doesn't have to be "renewed" in any formal sense.

When a covenant is broken, it must be renewed for the covenant to become functioning again. If the loss of the temple has brought about a broken covenant, when will the Mosaic covenant be restored and how? If the loss of the temple has NOT brought about a broken covenant, why not?

The conditional part of the covenant has been restored -- we know because we are back living in the Promised Land again.

Also if the Jews cannot keep the Torah, why is the Mosaic covenant not broken? What would it take for modern Judaism to teach the Mosaic covenant is broken? If the Mosaic covenant cannot be broken after the temple, or because of the loss of some part of the Mosaic covenant, why then was the Mosaic covenant broken in the OT and not ever after the loss of the temple in 70AD?

I think I've already dealt with this, but just to make sure:
The covenant as a whole is PERMANENT, IRREVOCABLE. There is one part that is conditional, and that pertains to living on the promised land : we must obey the Laws to have the right to actually living in the Promised Land (although even when we are not living in it, it is still ours). You can insist a thousand times that the covenant was broken, and I'm just gonna keep disagreeing with you. You haven't even offered any proof.

Furthermore, your claim that we can hear the footsteps of the Messiah also is inconsistent with the standard Jewish apologetic that the suffering servant is Israel. If Israel suffers to redeem men from sin, is then Israel the Messiah, who will suffer and rebuild the temple? Also, what then is this ever close Messiah going to do with regard to sin that Israel has not yet done? Will he also suffer sin and if so, why does he have to suffer for sin if Israel has already done so in the past?

Messiah simply means anointed. Remember that when you ask Orthodox Jews about the Messiah, they will ask you, Which Messiah? After all, David was a messiah, Cyrus was a messiah, Israel is itself a messiah.

I'm not going to reply line by line to your comments about Jewish apologetics, but I do have a couple of things to say. Obviously, being a Christian, I find that their arguments are insufficient. However, I do not find their arguments stupid. Indeed they raise extremely good points. Many of the Christian arguments are based on the lack of understanding of Judaism and a history of Second Temple Judaism. Christians are woefully unaware that the many messianic prophecies we speak of are written on a dual level -- their primary level is not messianic at all. They often speak of Israel, for example. A Jew can quite easily object that this is not a messianic prophecy at all. Finally, virtually all the prophecies are of the kingly Messiah that is yet to come -- Yeshua has not fulfilled them yet. Does it seem unreasonable that Jews would be skeptical of a man who claims to be the Messiah yet did not fulfill the prophecies? IOW, I think Christians need to come down from their high horse and deal rationally with a rational people who do respect the Word, AND who many times are much more educated. And don't be surprised when you don't make headway. Paul says you are not going to -- it's for the sake of the Gentiles coming in. So be humble and be grateful.