Menu

57 Sermon Illustrations on Judaism

57 illustrations Page 1 of 2

Judaism in Christian preaching often addresses the historical and spiritual roots of the Christian faith, highlighting the Jewish background of Jesus and the early church. Illustrations typically use images of Jewish traditions, festivals like Passover, and the tension between Jewish identity and Christian evangelism, underscoring the fulfillment of Old Testament promises in Christ (Romans 1:16, Romans 11:26).

Living (the) Bible

1 Corinthians 13:5

A.J. Jacobs is the editor-at-large for Esquire magazine. He grew up as a secular Jew and describes himself as an agnostic. He knew next to nothing about religion or the Bible. He thought, How can this 2,000- to 3,000-year-old book have any relevance to my life?

For a special assignment, he decided to find out if the teachings of the Bible could be followed literally, every jot and tittle. He spent one year eating Kosher, going to synagogue and resting on the Sabbath, growing a beard, and reading the Bible and praying every day. The result was the book THE YEAR OF LIVING BIBLICALLY.

He said it was the most fascinating year of his life. It also changed him in profound ways. He learned from the Bible to be much more thankful. He became more community-minded as opposed to individual-minded because the Bible is all about being a part of community.

One of his hardest lessons was forgiveness. For A.J., forgiveness is a really hard thing. Even when he did forgive, he forgave with an asterisk. He read in the New Testament where Paul says love does not keep score (1 Corinthians 13:5). He disobeyed this literally because, before his year, he had been keeping score of his wife’s arguments with him. Any time he would win an argument or she would make a mistake, A.J. would always jot those down in his Palm Pilot so that he could remember them.

The Bible taught him to get rid of that. He showed his wife the list, and she just laughed at him. Her response was amusement mixed with pity that he would even need to keep such a list. It took a commitment to a Bible-centered life to change this trait in him.

What could the Bible change in you?

________

Adapted from Christianity Today International/LEADERSHIP Journal. Winter 2008, Vol. XXIX, No. 1, Page 17; copyright © 2008

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #2107]

from www.christianitytoday.com; Leadership Journal · adapted by David Holwick via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database judaism

Have Yourself A Very Jewish Christmas

Luke 1:54

Being Jewish is no reason not to celebrate Christmas, says the writer Howard Jacobson - although he draws the line at putting up a tree.

________

“What does Christmas mean to you?” was the title of an essay we were asked to write in our final year of primary school. I wrote that it meant seeing my father dressed as Santa Claus, getting stuck coming down the chimney. My teacher thought I must have made that up. “Isn’t your family, er...?” she asked.

“Yes,” I replied. “We are, er... But my father likes dressing up.”

I didn’t, however, want her to think we had abandoned our faith. “The reason he got stuck,” I explained, “was that he was carrying a Chanukah candelabra.”

“That should be candelabrum, singular, assuming he was carrying only one,” she said, still eyeing me suspiciously.

In for a penny, in for a pound. “Actually, he was carrying three,” I said. Before adding, “and the right word is menorah.”

Don’t cheek your teacher, my parents rebuked me when I told them about this. Shows how long ago it was.

Remembering our mongrel Christmases reminds me of the Tokyo department store which erected on its roof a giant Santa on a cross. Don’t laugh - we can all get our wires crossed. And who’s to say the store wasn’t crucifying Santa as a gesture of multicultural goodwill?

One shouldn’t be purist about these things. Given that Christmas was grafted on to other festivals - some of them self-evidently pagan - and that Jesus was a Jew with no desire to start a new religion, the question of Christmas’s authenticity is moot. Let’s rejoice in the eclecticism, I say, and find in the varieties of ways people choose to mark or miss the point of Christmas the universal love that is its message. We might lose thereby some of the solemnity that once attached to a sacrificial rite, but those who want that can still find it in a place of worship. Let the fervid pursue their fervour and let the half-hearted make merry. If Jesus didn’t quite say that, he said something similar.

I was exaggerating only slightly to my primary school teacher. One way or another my family did acknowledge Christmas, even if, though we knew the difference well enough, we sometimes allowed it to merge with Chanukah, the Jewish festival of lights, which falls about the same time. Hardly surprising - scratch one ancient winter festival and you find another. We’re all hoping for the return of the sun. “Chanumas”, some of my friends called this melange, by way of cheerfully accepting its ecumenical character. Others sternly opted to keep Christ out of it by referring to it as Xmas. We never cared for Chanumas or Xmas. We called Christmas Christmas, took from it selectively, but drew the line at a tree.

A Christmas tree, considered superficially, is just an evergreen, and who can object to the idea of eternal greenery when there is otherwise not a leaf to be seen? But what if - I only say what if - another sort of symbolism was at work and we were meant to be reminded of that tree from which the cross was fashioned, the cross for which Jews will be forever blamed. You can see why, all things considered, we didn’t want a mute, accusatory crucifix-in-waiting winking in the corner of our living room. Yes, the fairy on the top should have made it all right again, but somehow it never quite did.

Those parts of Christmas that were theologically neutral, however, we embraced enthusiastically. Hence my father, who was an amateur magician, dressing up as Santa Claus in a Tommy Cooper fez, wandering in and out of our bedrooms with a wizard’s wand in one hand and three menorahs (all right, one menorah) in the other.

We children saw through the subterfuge - my father was distinctively built, short and square - and it was too much of a coincidence that Santa should be built the same. But we still left requests, addressed to Father Christmas, Iceland, pinned to our Christmas stockings. Santa runs out of presents by the time he gets to Manchester, we’d been warned - which was a nice way of saying that a) he hadn’t made his own mind up about the rights and wrongs of giving Christmas gifts to Jewish children, and b) we were hard-up. Fair enough. Everyone we knew was hard-up. For all that, we passed this holiest of nights creeping downstairs to see if Santa needed a hand clambering out of the chimney.

Our requests invariably went astray. No train sets. No Meccano. No edition of Why I Am A Jew by Cecil Roth. Just the usual - a bar of Toblerone, an India rubber, a small compendium of games comprising Snakes and Ladders (and nothing else), a cardboard belt, and a tangerine with a bit of leaf sticking out of it. The last time I wrote about Christmas past my sister contested my account. Her tangerine, she insisted, came without the bit of leaf. I can’t explain that omission except by reference to an imaginary Talmudic ruling which says that girls below the age of puberty should not be given anything that grows. This, though, is unlikely as we knew as little of the Talmud as we did of Christology. Maybe it was feared the leaf evoked the tree that evoked the cross. But in that case, why did my brother and I get one?

None of it added up. Why fruit at all, given that we didn’t like fruit, in particular the variety you have to peel, and rarely ate it the rest of the year? But the Snakes and Ladders board made a certain sense. It was preparing us for life’s disappointments. One minute you’ve reached the highest rung of the longest ladder, and the next you’re sliding down a snake. Whether that’s a Christian or a Jewish lesson, I remain grateful for it and never punch the air when a team I support goes ahead. The snake is always waiting.

We didn’t sit down to Christmas dinner - turkey felt a step in the direction of apostasy too far - but we listened to the Queen’s message on the wireless and watched Amahl And The Night Visitors on a six-inch black-and-green television. And though we didn’t sing carols, we were moved by them. My mother still loves Silent Night. I still love In The Bleak Midwinter.

Carols bear for me the melancholy of mixed belonging. They were sung at school assembly from the religious part of which Jewish boys were exempted. In an upstairs room a rabbi retold the story about the Jews holding out heroically against the Romans on Masada in the parched Judean desert. Pride stirred in my sandy chest, but the carols called to me of a competing heartland. The bleak midwinter of northern England where the earth stood hard as iron and the water like a stone - there I shivered, wrapped against the snow, my nose pressed to the window, on the other side of which Christian cherubim plumped up with Christmas pudding sang of giving joy to the world.

It would be wrong to call this exclusion, because it was more an enrichment than a deprivation. Had I knocked they’d have let me in. This was my school, my country, and they were singing in my language. But I enjoyed the equivocation of being half in and half out - loving the songs but not singing them. Same when it came to Christmas parties. I attended and I didn’t. I relished the mince pies but abhorred the paper hats. Though that was more about forced conviviality than Christmas, and also about not wanting to spoil my hair. I will, though, willingly pull a cracker, and be content even when a wooden baby Jesus in a crib falls out.

Mongrelism is a virtue in a world made dangerous by the pursuit of purity. But I’m not asking for Christmas to be relativised or apologised for. There is too much apologising. When I hear of Christmas being cancelled in order not to offend people of other faiths or no faith, or when someone wishes me “Happy Holidays” or sends me “Season’s Greetings” so as not to upset my sensibilities, I am seized with a most un-Christian anger. If you are sparing me, thank you, but it really isn’t necessary. A history has accrued to Christmas, a literature of feeling about it, and that is every bit as much my history as anyone else’s. And just because I am not religious, doesn’t mean I can’t peer into religious sentiment with curiosity, affection, and occasionally longing.

=============

Version in sermon by David Holwick:

Howard Jacobson loved Christmas as a child, and still does. A favorite memory was seeing his father dressed up as Santa Claus and getting stuck in the chimney. The reason his father got stuck is that he was carrying a Hanukkah menorah.

You see, the Jacobson family was Jewish. Not blended Jewish and Christian, just Jewish. And they loved Christmas. His mom thought “Silent Night” was a beautiful song. They put up Christmas stockings with notes to Father Christmas. They were English so their Santa was based in Iceland.

The Jacobsons did draw the line at having a tree - it was too closely related to a cross. (I thought that was interesting, because most Christians do not associate their tree with the crucifixion.) And while they enjoyed Christmas carols, they didn’t sing them. But otherwise they got into Christmas like everyone else.

Most modern people are just like this family. We have all the beloved traditions, but not the most important ingredient - Jesus.

Moshiach Is Coming

John 1:41

Followers of the Rebbi Schneerson in Morris County, New Jersey, have put up billboards exhorting Jews to be ready for the coming of “Moshiach” or Messiah. A picture of the Rebbi reading the Bible is on the board. The followers say the Rebbe told them before his death that he specifically wanted an all-out advertising campaign to prepare people, particularly Jews, for his resurrection. He had preached about spreading goodness and kindness through individual acts, and his followers believe that if enough people follow his message, the world will be better prepared to receive him, and his arrival will be speedier.

“The rebbe told us himself, five years ago, ‘The time has come for preparation.’ He said Moshiach is ready to come. The world is prepared, now we each have to prepare by doing good and kind things for one another,” says Shifra Chana Hendrie of Morristown. “In the Jewish faith, we believe in a balance between good and evil. It could be just one good deed done by you or me that tips the scales so that he returns.”

Morris county has an estimated 40,000 to 45,000 Jews. Most Jewish leaders disagree with the signs and believe it is inappropriate. “That is not what the rebbe wanted. He was not running for office,” Rabbi Moshe Herson says.

Passover In A Union Camp

Ezra 6:19

An account of an improvised Passover seder among Jews in a Union Army camp in West Virginia. They arranged for matzos and foraged for cider, a lamb, chickens and eggs. They did not know what part of the lamb to use so they ate the whole thing. They also did not have horseradish so they used a bitter local herb. When this was eaten, pandemonium broke out and they drank both kegs of cider rather than four cups apiece. As a result, one thought he was Moses, another Aaron, and still another had the audacity to call himself Pharaoh. Despite the irregularities it was the most meaningful Passover of Joseph Joel's life.

[from Rabbi Joel Soffin for Passover 1997]

from American Jewry And The Civil War · Joseph A. Joel via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database remember

Refuting Missionaries: the Myth of the Historical Jesus (part 1)

Mark 8:27

[This came from Yahoo and shows a radical Jewish rejection of the historical Jesus. - DH]

Disclaimer: This document for informational purposes only. Keep salt shaker handy and use many grains. Do not e-mail. No one will debate you.

REFUTING [CHRISTIAN] MISSIONARIES:

by Hayyim ben Yehoshua

PART 1: THE MYTH OF THE HISTORICAL JESUS

Much concern has been expressed in the Jewish media regarding the activity of "Jews for Jesus" and other missionary organizations who go out of their way to convert Jews to Christianity. Unfortunately, many Jews are ill-equipped to deal with Christian missionaries and their arguments. Hopefully this article will contribute to remedying this situation.

When countering Christian missionaries it is important to base one's arguments on correct facts. Arguments based on incorrect facts can easily backfire and end up strengthening the arguments of the missionaries.

It is rather unfortunate that many well meaning Jewish Studies teachers have unwittingly aided missionaries by teaching Jewish pupils incorrect information about the origins of Christianity. I can recall being taught the following story about Jesus at the Jewish day school which I attended:

"Jesus was a famous first century rabbi whose

Hebrew name was Rabbi Yehoshua. His father was a carpenter

named Joseph and his mother's name was Mary. Mary became

pregnant before she married Joseph. Jesus was born in a

stable in Bethlehem during a Roman census. Jesus grew up

in Nazareth and became a learned rabbi. He traveled all

over Israel preaching that people should love one another.

Some people thought that he was the Messiah and he did not

deny this which made the other rabbis very angry. He

caused so much controversy that the Roman governor Pontius

Pilate had him crucified. He was buried in a tomb and

later his body was found to be missing since it had

probably been stolen by his disciples."

A few years after being taught this seemingly innocent story, I became interested in the origins of Christianity and decided to do some further reading on the "famous Rabbi Yehoshua." Much to my dismay, I discovered that there was no historical evidence of this Rabbi Yehoshua. The claim that Jesus was a rabbi named Yehoshua and the claim that his body was probably stolen both turned out to be pure conjecture. The rest of the story was nothing more than a watered down version of the story which Christians believe as part of the Christian religion but which is not supported by any legitimate historical source. There was absolutely no historical evidence that Jesus, Joseph or Mary ever existed, let alone that Joseph was a carpenter or that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and lived in Nazareth.

Despite the lack of evidence for Jesus's existence many Jews have made the tragic mistake of assuming that the New Testament story is largely correct and have tried to refute Christianity by attempting to rationalize the various miracles that allegedly occurred during Jesus's life and after his death. Numerous books have been written which take this approach to Christianity. This approach however is hopelessly flawed and is in fact dangerous since it encourages belief in the New Testament.

When the Israelites were confronted with the worship of Baal they did not blindly accept the ancient West Semitic myths as history. When the Maccabees were confronted with Greek religion they did not blindly accept Greek mythology as history. Why do so many modern Jews blindly accept Christian mythology? The answer to this question seems to be that many Christians do not know themselves where the distinction between established history and Christian belief lies and they have passed their confusion on to the Jewish community. Browsing through the religion section of a local bookshop, I recently came across a book which claimed to be an objective biography of Jesus. It turned out to be nothing more than a summary of the usual New Testament story. It even included claims that Jesus's miracles had been witnessed but that rational explanations for them might exist. Many history books written by Christians take a similar approach. Some Christian authors will suggest that perhaps the miracles are not completely historical but they nevertheless follow the general New Testament story. The idea that there was a real historical Jesus has thus become entrenched in Christian society and Jews living in the Christian world have come to blindly accept this belief because they have never seen it seriously challenged.

Despite the widespread belief in Jesus the fact remains that there is no historical Jesus. In order to understand what is meant by an "historical Jesus," consider King Midas in Greek mythology. The story that King Midas turned everything he touched into gold is clearly nonsense, yet despite this we know that there was a real King Midas. Archaeologists have excavated his tomb and found his skeletal remains. The Greeks who told the story of Midas and his golden touch clearly intended people to identify him with the real Midas. So although the story of the golden touch is fictional, the story is about a person whose existence is known as a fact - the "historical Midas." In the case of Jesus, their is however, no single person whose existence is known as a fact and who is also intended to be the subject of the Jesus stories, i.e. there is no historical Jesus.

When confronted by a Christian missionary, one should immediately point out that *the very existence of Jesus has not been proven*. When missionaries argue they usually appeal to emotions rather than to reason and they will attempt to make you feel embarrassed about denying the historicity of Jesus. The usual response is something like _"Isn't denying the existence of Jesus just as silly as denying the existence of Julius Caesar or Queen Elizabeth?"_. A popular variation of this response used especially against Jews is _"Isn't denying the existence of Jesus like denying the Holocaust?"_ One should then point out that there are ample historical sources confirming the existence of Julius Caesar, Queen Elizabeth or whoever else is named, while there is no corresponding evidence for Jesus.

To be perfectly thorough you should take time to do some research on the historical personalities mentioned by the missionaries and present hard evidence of their existence. At the same time you should challenge the missionaries to provide similar evidence of Jesus's existence. You should point out that although the existence of Julius Caesar or Queen Elizabeth etc, is accepted worldwide, the same is not true of Jesus. In the Far East where the major religions are Buddhism, Shintoism, Taoism and Confucism, Jesus is considered to be just another character in Western religious mythology, on a par with Thor, Zeus and Osiris. Most Hindus do not believe in Jesus, but those who do consider him to be one of the many avatars of the Hindu god Vishnu. Muslims certainly believe in Jesus but they reject the New Testament story and consider him to be a prophet who announced the coming of Muhammed. They explicitly deny that he was ever crucified.

To sum up, there is no story of Jesus which is uniformly accepted worldwide. It is this fact which puts Jesus on a different level to established historical personalities. If the missionaries use the "Holocaust reply," you should point out that the Holocaust is well-documented and that there are numerous eyewitness reports. It should be pointed out that most of the people who deny the Holocaust have turned out to be antisemitic hate-mongers with fraudulent credentials. On the other hand, millions of honest people in Asia, who make up the majority of the world's population, have failed to be convinced by the Christian story of Jesus since there is no compelling evidence for its authenticity. The missionaries will insist that the story of Jesus is a well-established fact and will argue that there is "plenty of evidence supporting it"_. One should then insist on seeing this evidence and refuse to listen any further until they produce it.

If Jesus was not an historical person, where did the whole New Testament story come from in the first place? The Hebrew name for Christians has always been _Notzrim_. This name is derived from the Hebrew word _neitzer_ which means a shoot or sprout - an obvious Messianic symbol. There were already people called Notzrim at the time of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachyah (c. 100 B.C.E.). Although modern Christians claim that Christianity only started in the first century C.E., it is clear that the first century Christians in Israel considered themselves to be a continuation of the Notzri movement which had been in existence for about 150 years. One of the the most notorious Notzrim was Yeishu ben Pandeira, also known as Yeishu ha-Notzri. Talmudic scholars have always maintained that the story of Jesus began with Yeishu. The Hebrew name for Jesus has always been Yeishu and the Hebrew for "Jesus the Nazarene" has always been "Yeishu ha-Notzri." (The name Yeishu is a shortened form of the name Yeishua, not Yehoshua.) It is important to note that Yeishu ha-Notzri is not an historical Jesus since modern Christianity denies any connection between Jesus and Yeishu and moreover, parts of the Jesus myth are based on other historical people besides Yeishu.

We know very little about Yeishu ha-Notzri. All modern works that mention him are based on information taken from the Tosefta and the Baraitas - writings made at the same time as the Mishna but not contained in it. Because the historical information concerning Yeishu is so damaging to Christianity, most Christian authors (and even some Jewish ones) have tried to discredit this information and have invented many ingenious arguments to explain it away. Many of their arguments are based on misunderstandings and misquotations of the Baraitas and in order to get an accurate picture of Yeishu one should ignore Christian authors and examine the Baraitas directly.

The skimpy information contained in the Baraitas is as follows: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachyah once repelled Yeishu with both hands. People believed that Yeishu was a sorcerer and they considered him to be a person who had led the Jews astray. As a result of charges brought against him (the details of which are not known, but which probably involved high treason) Yeishu was stoned and his body hung up on the eve of Passover. Before this he was paraded around for forty days with a herald going in front of him announcing that he would be stoned and calling for people to come forward to plead for him. Nothing was brought forward in his favour however. Yeishu had five disciples: Mattai, Naqai, Neitzer, Buni, and Todah.

In the Tosefta and the Baraitas, Yeishu's father is named Pandeira or Panteiri. These are Hebrew-Aramaic forms of a Greek name. In Hebrew the third consonant of the name is written either with a dalet or a tet. Comparison with other Greek words transliterated into Hebrew shows that the original Greek must have had a delta as its third consonant and so the only possibilty for the father's Greek name is Panderos. Since Greek names were common among Jews during Hashmonean times it is not necessary to assume that he was Greek, as some authors have done.

The connection between Yeishu and Jesus is corroborated by the the fact that Mattai and Todah, the names of two of Yeishu's disciples, are the original Hebrew forms of Matthew and Thaddaeus, the names of two of Jesus's disciples in Christian mythology.

The early Christians were also aware of the name "ben Pandeira" for Jesus. The pagan philosopher Celsus, who was famous for his arguments against Christianity, claimed in 178 C.E. that he had heard from a Jew that Jesus's mother, Mary, had been divorced by her husband, a carpenter, after it had been proved that she was an adultress. She wandered about in shame and bore Jesus in secret. His real father was a soldier named Pantheras. According to the Christian writer Epiphanius (c. 320 - 403 C.E.), the Christian apologist Origen (c.185 - 254 C.E.) had claimed that "Panther" was the nickname for Jacob the father of Joseph, the stepfather of Jesus. It should be noted that Origen's claim is not based on any historical information. It is purely a conjecture aimed at explaining away the Pantheras story of Celsus. That story is also not historical. The claim that the name of Jesus's mother was Mary and the claim that her husband was a carpenter is taken directly from Christian belief. The claim that Jesus's real father was named Pantheras is based on an incorrect attempt at reconstructing the original form of Pandeira. This incorrect reconstruction was probably influenced by the fact that the name Pantheras was found among Roman soldiers.

Why did people believe that Jesus's mother was named Mary and her husband named Joseph? Why did non-Christians accuse Mary of being an adulteress while Christians believed she was a virgin? To answer these questions one must examine some of the legends surrounding Yeishu. We cannot hope to obtain the absolute truth concerning the origins of the Jesus myth but we can show that reasonable alternatives exist to blindly accepting the New Testament.

The name Joseph for Jesus's stepfather is easy to explain. The Notzri movement was particularly popular with the Samaritan Jews. While the Pharisees were waiting for a Messiah who would be a descendant of David, the Samaritans wanted a Messiah who would restore the northern kingdom of Israel. The Samaritans emphasized their partial descent from the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, who were descended from the Joseph of the Torah. The Samaritans considered themselves to be "Bnei Yoseph" i.e. "sons of Joseph," and since they believed that Jesus had been their Messiah, they would have assumed that he was a "son of Joseph." The Greek speaking population, who had little knowledge of Hebrew and true Jewish traditions could have easily misunderstood this term and assumed that Joseph was the actual name of Jesus's father. This conjecture is corroborated by the fact that according to the _Gospel of Matthew_, Joseph's father is named Jacob, just like the Torah Joseph. Later, other Christians, who followed the idea that the Messiah was to be descended from David, tried to trace Joseph back to David. They came up with two contradictory genealogies for him, one recorded in _Matthew _ and the other in _Luke_. When the idea that Mary was a virgin developed, the mythical Joseph was relegated to the position of simply being her husband and the stepfather of Jesus.

To understand where the Mary story came from we have to turn to another historical character who contributed to the Jesus myth, namely ben Stada. All the information we have on ben Stada again comes from the Tosefta and the Baraitas. There is even less information about him than about Yeishu: Some people believed that he had brought spells out of Egypt in a cut in his flesh, others thought that he was a madman. He was a beguiler and was caught by the method of concealed witnesses. He was stoned in Lod.

In the Tosefta, ben Stada is called ben Sotera or ben Sitera. Sotera seems to be the Hebrew-Aramaic form of the Greek name Soteros. The forms "Sitera" and "Stada" seem have arisen as misreadings and spelling mistakes (yod replacing vav and dalet replacing reish).

Since there was so little information concerning ben Stada, many conjectures arose as to who he was. It is known from the Gemara that he was confused with Yeishu. This probably resulted from the fact that both were executed for treasonous teachings and were associated with sorcery. People who confused ben Stada with Yeishu had to explain why he was also called ben Pandeira. Since the name "Stada" resembles the Aramaic expression "stat da," meaning "she went astray" it was thought that "Stada" referred to the mother of Yeishu and that she was an adultress. Consequently, people began to think that Yeishu was the illegitimate son of Pandeira. These ideas are in fact mentioned in the Gemara and are probably much older. Since ben Stada lived in Roman times and the name Pandeira resembled the name Pantheras found among Roman soldiers, it was assumed that Pandeira had been a Roman soldier stationed in Israel. This certainly explains the story mentioned by Celsus.

The Tosefta mentions a famous case of a woman named Miriam bat Bilgah marrying a Roman soldier. The idea that Yeishu had been born to a Jewish woman who had had an affair with a Roman soldier probably resulted in Yeishu's mother being confused with this Miriam. The name "Miriam" is of course the original form of the name "Mary." It is in fact known from the Gemara that some of the people who confused Yeishu with ben Stada believed that Yeishu's mother was "Miriam the women's hairdresser."

The story that Mary (Miriam) the mother of Jesus was an adultress was certainly not acceptable to the early Christians. The virgin birth story was probably invented to clear Mary's name. The early Christians did not suck this story out of their thumbs. Virgin birth stories were farely common in pagan myths. The following mythological characters were all believed to be have been born to divinely impregnated virgins: Romulus and Remus, Perseus, Zoroaster, Mithras, Osiris-Aion, Agdistis, Attis, Tammuz, Adonis, Korybas, Dionysus. The pagan belief in unions between gods and women, regardless of whether they were virgins or not, is even more common. Many characters in pagan mythology were believed to be sons of divine fathers and human females. The Christian belief that Jesus was the son of G-d born to a virgin, is typical of Greco-Roman superstition. The Jewish philosopher, Philo of Alexandria (c. 30 B.C.E - 45 C.E.), warned against the widespread superstitious belief in unions between male gods and human females which returned women to a state of virginity.

The god Tammuz, worshipped by pagans in northern Israel, was said to have been born to the virgin Myrrha. The name "Myrrha" superficially resembles "Mary/Miriam" and it is possible that this particular virgin birth story influenced the Mary story more than the others. Like Jesus, Tammuz was always called Adon, meaning "Lord." (The character Adonis in Greek mythology is based on Tammuz.) As we will see later, the connection between Jesus and Tammuz goes much further than this.

The idea that Mary had been an adultress never completely disappeared in Christian mythology. Instead, the character of Mary was split into two: Mary the mother of Jesus, believed to be a virgin, and Mary Magdalene, believed to be a woman of ill repute. The idea that the character of Mary Magdalene is also derived from Miriam the mythical mother of Yeishu, is corroborated by the fact that the strange name "Magdalene" clearly resembles the Aramaic term "mgadla nshaya" meaning "womens' hairdresser." As mentioned before, there was a belief that Yeishu's mother was "Miriam the women's hairdresser." Because the Christians did not know what the name "Magdalene" meant, they later conjectured that it meant that she had come from a place called Magdala on the west of Lake Kinneret. The idea of the two Marys fitted in well with the pagan way of thinking. The image of Jesus being followed by the two Marys is strongly reminiscent of Dionysus being followed by Demeter and Persephone.

The Gemara contains an interesting legend concerning Yeishu which attempts to elucidate the Beraita which says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachyah repelled Yeishu with both hands. The legend claims that when the Hashmonean king Yannai was killing the Pharisees, Rabbi Yehoshua and Yeishu fled to Egypt. When returning they came upon an inn. The Aramaic word "aksanya" means both "inn" or "innkeeper." Rabbi Yehoshua remarked how beautiful the "aksanya" was (meaning the inn). Yeishu (meaning the innkeeper) replied that her eyes were too narrow. Rabbi Yehoshua was very angry with Yeishu and excommunicated him. Yeishu asked many times for forgiveness but Rabbi Yehoshua would not forgive him. Once when Rabbi Yehoshua was reciting the Shema, Yeishu came up to him. He made a sign to him that he should wait. Yeishu misunderstood and thought that he was being rejected again. He mocked Rabbi Yehoshua by setting up a brick and worshipping it. Rabbi Yehoshua told him to repent but he refused to, saying that he had learned from him that anyone who sins and causes many to sin, is not given the opportunity to repent.

The above story, up to the events at the inn, closely resembles another legend in which the protagonist is not Rabbi Yehoshua but his disciple Yehuda ben Tabbai. In this legend, Yeishu is not named. One may thus question whether Yeishu really went to Egypt or not. It is possible that Yeishu was confused with some other disciple of either Rabbi Yehoshua or Rabbi Yehuda. The confusion might have resulted from the fact that Yeishu was confused with ben Stada who had returned from Egypt. On the other hand, Yeishu might have really fled to Egypt and returned, and this in turn could have contributed to the confusion between Yeishu and ben Stada. Whatever the case, the belief that Yeishu fled to Egypt to escape being killed by a cruel king, appears to be the origin of the Christian belief that Jesus and his family fled to Egypt to escape King Herod.

Since the early Christians believed that Jesus had lived in Roman times it is natural that they would have confused the evil king who wanted to kill Jesus with Herod, since there were no other suitable evil kings during the Roman period. Yeishu was an adult at the time that the rabbis fled from Yannai; why did the Christians believe that Jesus and his family had fled to Egypt when Jesus was an infant? Why did the Christians believe that Herod had ordered all baby boys born in Bethlehem to be killed, when there is no historical evidence of this? To answer these questions we again have to look at pagan mythology.

The theme of a divine or semi-divine child who is feared by an evil king is very common in pagan mythology. The usual story is that the evil king receives a prophecy that a certain child will be born who will usurp the throne. In some stories the child is born to a virgin and usually he is son of a god. The mother of the child tries to hide him. The king usually orders the slaying of all babies who might be the prophesied king. Examples of myths which follow this plot are the birth stories of Romulus and Remus, Perseus, Krishna, Zeus, and Oedipus. Although Torah literalists will not like to admit it, the story of Moses's birth also resembles these myths (some of which claim that the mother put the child in a basket and placed him in a river). There were probably several such stories circulating in the Levant which have been lost. The Christian myth of the slaughter of the innocents by Herod is simply a Christian version of this theme. The plot was so well known that one Midrashic scholar could not resist using it for an apocryphal account of Abraham's birth.

The early Christians believed that the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem. This belief is based on a misunderstanding of Micah _ 5.2 which simply names Bethlehem as the town where the Davidic lineage began. Since the early Christians believed that Jesus was the Messiah, they automatically believed that he was born in Bethlehem. But why did the Christians believe that he lived in Nazareth? The answer is quite simple. The early Greek speaking Christians did not know what the word "Nazarene" meant. The earliest Greek form of this word is "Nazoraios," which is derived from "Natzoriya," the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew "Notzri." (Recall that "Yeishu ha-Notzri" is the original Hebrew for "Jesus the Nazarene.") The early Christians conjectured that "Nazarene" meant a person from Nazareth and so it was assumed that Jesus lived in Nazareth. Even today, Christians blithely confuse the Hebrew words "Notzri" (_ Nazarene_, _Christian_), "Natzrati" _Nazarethite_) and "nazir" (_nazarite_), all of which have completely different meanings.

The information in the Talmud (which contains the Baraitas and the Gemara), concerning Yeishu and ben Stada, is so damaging to Christianity that Christians have always taken drastic measures against it. When the Christians first discovered the information they immediately tried to wipe it out by censoring the Talmud. The Basle edition of the Talmud (c. 1578 - 1580) had all the passages relating to Yeishu and ben Stada deleted by the Christians. Even today, editions of the Talmud used by Christian scholars lack these passages!

During the first few decades of this century, fierce academic battles raged between atheist and Christian scholars over the true origins of Christianity. The Christians were forced to face up to the Talmudic evidence. They could no longer ignore it and so they decided to attack it instead. They claimed that the Talmudic Yeishu was a distortion of the "historical Jesus." They claimed that the name "Pandeira" was simply a Hebrew attempt at pronouncing the Greek word for virgin - "parthenos." Although there is a superficial resemblance between the words, one should note that in order for "Pandeira" to be derived from "parthenos," the "n" and "r" have to be interchanged. However, the Jews did not suffer from any speech impediment which would cause this to happen! The Christian response is that possibly the Jews purposefully altered the word "parthenos" to either the name "Pantheras" (found in Celsus's story) or to "pantheros" meaning a panther, and "Pandeira" is derived from the deliberately altered word. This argument also fails since the third consonant of both the altered and unaltered "parthenos" is theta. This letter is always transliterated by the Hebrew letter tav, whose pronunciation during classical times most closely resembled that of the Greek letter. However, the name "Pandeira" is never spelled with a tav but with either a dalet or a tet which show that the original Greek form had a delta as its third consonant, not a theta. The Christian argument can also be turned on its head: maybe the Christians deliberately altered "Pantheras" to "parthenos" when they invented the virgin birth story. It should also be noted that the resemblance between "Pantheras" (or "pantheros") and "parthenos" is actually much less when written in Greek since in the original Greek spelling their second vowels are completely different.

The Christians also did not accept that Mary Magdalene was connected to Miriam the alleged mother of Yeishu in the Talmud. They argued that the name "Magdalene" does mean a person from Magdala and that the Jews invented "Miriam the women’s hairdresser _mgadla nshaya_)" either to mock the Christians, or out of their own misunderstanding of the name "Magdalene." This argument is also false. Firstly, it ignores Greek grammar: the correct Greek for "of Magdala" is "Magdales" and the correct Greek for a person from Magdala is "Magdalaios." The original Greek root of "Magdalene" is "Magdalen-" with a conspicuous "n" showing that the word has nothing to do with Magdala. Secondly, Magdala only got its name after the Gospels were written. Before that it was called Magadan or Dalmanutha. (Although "Magadan" has an "n," it lacks an "l" and so it cannot be the derivation of "Magdalene.") In fact, the ruins of this area were renamed Magdala by the Christian community because they believed that Mary Magdalene had come from there.

The Christians also claimed that the word "Notzri" means a person from Nazareth. This is of course false since the original Hebrew for Nazareth is "Natzrat" and a person from Nazareth is a "Natzrati." The name "Notzri" lacks the letter tav from "Natzrat" as so it cannot be derived from it. The Christians argue that perhaps the Aramaic name for Nazareth was "Natzarah" or "Natzirah" (like the modern Arabic name) which explains the missing tav in "Notzri." This is also nonsense since the Aramaic word for a person from Nazareth would then be "Natzaratiya" or "Natziratiya" (with a tav since the feminine ending "-ah" would become "-at-" when the suffix "-iya" is added), and besides, the Aramaic form would not be used in Hebrew. The Christians also came up with various other arguments which can be dismissed since they confuse the Hebrew words "Notzri" and "nazir" or ignore the fact that "Notzri" is the earliest form of the word "Nazarene."

To sum up, all the Christian arguments were based on impossible phonetic changes and grammatical forms, and were consequently dismissed. Moreover, although the legends in the Gemara cannot be taken as fact, the evidence in the Baraitas and Tosefta concerning Yeishu can be traced back directly to Yehoshua ben Perachyah, Shimon ben Shetach and Yehuda ben Tabbai and their disciples who were contemporaries of Yeishu, while the evidence in the Baraitas and Tosefta concerning ben Stada can be traced to Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus and his disciples who were ben Stada's contemporaries. Consequently the evidence can be regarded as historically accurate. Therefore modern Christians no longer attack the Talmud but instead deny any connection between Jesus and Yeishu or ben Stada. They dismiss the similarities as pure coincidence. However, one must still be aware of the false attacks on the Talmud since many Christian books still mention them and they can and do resurface from time to time.

Many parts of the Jesus story are not based on Yeishu or ben Stada. Most Christian denominations claim that Jesus was born on 25 December. Originally the eastern Christians believed that he was born on 6 January. The Armenian Christians still follow this early belief while most Christians consider it to be the date of the visit of the Magi. As pointed out already, Jesus was probably confused with Tammuz born of the virgin Myrrha. We know that in Roman times, the gods Tammuz, Aion and Osiris were identified. Osiris-Aion was said to be born of the virgin Isis on the 6 January and this explains the earlier date for Christmas. Isis was sometimes represented as a sacred cow and her temple as a stable which is probably the origin of the Christian belief that Jesus was born in a stable. Although some might find this claim to be farfetched, it is known as a fact that certain early Christian sects identified Jesus and Osiris in their writings. The date of 25 December for Christmas was originally the pagan birthday of the sun god, whose day of the week is still known as *Sun*_day. The halo of light which is usually shown surrounding the face of Jesus and Christian saints, is another concept taken from the sun god.

The theme of temptation by a devil-like creature was also found in pagan mythology. In particular the story of Jesus's temptation by Satan resembles the temptation of Osiris by the devil-god Set in Egyptian mythology.

We have already hinted that there was also a connection between Jesus and the pagan god Dionysus. Like Dionysus, the infant Jesus was wrapped in swaddling clothes and placed in a manger; like Dionysus, Jesus could turn water into wine; like Dionysus, Jesus rode on an ass and fed a multitude in the wilderness; like Dionysus, Jesus suffered and was mocked. Some early Christians claimed that Jesus had in fact been born, not in a stable, but in a cave - just like Dionysus.

Where did the story that Jesus was crucified come from? It appears to have resulted from a number of sources. Firstly there were three historical characters during the Roman period who people thought were Messiahs and who were crucified by the Romans, namely. Yehuda of Galilee (6 C.E.), Theudas (44 C.E.) and Benjamin the Egyptian (60 C.E.). Since these three people were all thought to be the Messiah, they were naturally confused with Yeishu and ben Stada. Yehuda of Galilee had preached in Galilee and had collected many followers before being crucified by the Romans. The story of Jesus's ministry in Galilee appears to be based on the life of Yehuda of Galilee. This story and the belief that Jesus lived in Nazareth in Galilee, reinforced each other. The belief that some of Jesus's disciples were killed in c. 44 C.E. by Agrippa appears to be based the fate of Theudas's disciples. Since ben Stada had come from Egypt it is natural that he would have been confused with Benjamin the Egyptian. They were probably also contemporaries. Even some modern authors have suggested that they were the same person, although this is not possible since the stories of their deaths are completely different. In the New Testament book of _Acts_, which uses Josephus's book _ Jewish Antiquities_ (93 - 94 C.E.) as a reference, it is made clear that the author considered Jesus, Yehuda of Galilee, Theudas and Benjamin the Egyptian, to be four different people. However, by that time it was too late to undo the confusions which had already taken place before the New Testament was written, and the idea of Jesus's crucifixion had become an integral part of the myth.

Secondly, the idea arose that Jesus had been executed on the eve of Passover. This belief is apparently based on Yeishu's execution. Passover occurs at the time of the Vernal Equinox, an event considered important by astrologers during the Roman Empire. The astrologers thought of this time as the time of the crossing of two astrological celestial circles, and this event was symbolized by a cross. Thus there was a belief that Jesus had died on "the cross." The misunderstanding of this term by those who were not initiated into the astrological cults, was another factor contributing to the belief that Jesus was crucified. In one of the earliest Christian documents (the _Teaching of the Twelve Apostles_) there is no mention of Jesus being crucified yet the sign of a cross in the sky is used to represent Jesus's coming. It should be noted that the centre of astrological superstition in the Roman Empire was the city of Tarsus in Asia Minor - the place where the legendary missionary Paul came from. The idea that a special star had heralded the birth of Jesus, and that a solar eclipse occured at his death, is typical of Tarsian astrological superstition.

The third factor contributing to the crucifixion story is again pagan mythology. The theme of a divine or semi-divine being sacrificed against a tree, pole or cross, and then being resurrected, is very common in pagan mythology. It was found in the mythologies of all western civilizations stretching from as far west as Ireland and as far east as India. In particular it is found in the mythologies of Osiris and Attis, both of whom were often identified with Tammuz. Osiris landed up with his arms stretched out on a tree like Jesus on the cross. This tree was sometimes shown as a pole with outstretched arms - the same shape as the Christian cross. In the worship of Serapis (a composite of Osiris and Apis) the cross was a religious symbol. Indeed, the Christian "Latin cross" symbol seems to be based directly on the cross symbol of Osiris and Serapis. The Romans never used this traditional Christian cross for crucifixions, they used crosses shaped either like an X or a T. The hieroglyph of a cross on a hill was associated with Osiris. This heiroglyph stood for the "Good One," in Greek "Chrestos," a name applied to Osiris and other pagan gods. The confusion of this name with "Christos (= Messiah, Christ)" strengthened the confusion between Jesus and the pagan gods.

At the Vernal Equinox, pagans in northern Israel would celebrate the death and resurrection of the virgin born Tammuz-Osiris. In Asia Minor (where the earliest Christian churches were established) a similar celebration was held for the virgin born Attis. Attis was shown as dying against a tree, being buried in a cave and then being resurrected on the third day. We thus see where the Christian story of Jesus's resurrection comes from. In the worship of Baal, it was believed that Baal cheated Mavet (the god of death) at the time of the Vernal Equinox. He pretended to be dead but later appeared alive. He accomplished this ruse by giving his only son as a sacrifice.

The occurence of Passover at the same time of year as the pagan "Easter" festivals is not coincidental. Many of the Pessach customs were designed as Jewish alternatives to pagan customs. The pagans believed that when their nature god (such as Tammuz, Osiris or Attis) died and was resurrected, his life went into the plants used by man as food. The matza made from the spring harvest was his new body and the wine from the grapes was his new blood. In Judaism, matza, was not used to represent the body of a god but the poor man's bread which the Jews ate before leaving Egypt. The pagans used the paschal sacrifice to represent the sacrifice of a god or his only son, but Judaism used it to represent the meal eaten before leaving Egypt. Instead of telling stories about Baal sacrificing his first born son to Mavet, the Jews told how _mal'ach ha-mavet_ (the angel of death) slew the first born sons of the Egyptians. The pagans ate eggs to represent the resurrection and rebirth of their nature god, but the egg on the seder plate represents the rebirth of the Jewish people escaping captivity in Egypt. When the early Christians noticed the similarities between Pessach customs and pagan customs, they came full circle and converted the Pessach customs back to their old pagan interpretations. The seder became the last supper of Jesus, similar to the last supper of Osiris commemorated at the Vernal Equinox. The matza and wine once again became the body and blood of a false god, this time Jesus. Easter eggs are again eaten to commemorate the resurrection of a "god" and also the "rebirth" obtained by accepting his sacrifice on the cross.

The Last Supper myth is particularly interesting. As mentioned, the basic idea of last supper occuring at the Vernal Equinox comes from the story of the last supper of Osiris. In the Christian story, Jesus is present with twelve apostles. Where did the story of the twelve apostles come from? It appears that in its earliest version, the story was understood to be an allegory. The first time that twelve apostles are mentioned is in the document known as the _Teaching of the Twelve Apostles_. This document apparently originated as a sectarian Jewish document written in the first century C.E., but it was adopted by Christians who altered it substantially and added Christian ideas to it. In the earliest versions it is clear that the "twelve apostles" are the twelve sons of Jacob representing the twelve tribes of Israel. The Christians later considered the "twelve apostles" to be allegorical disciples of Jesus.

In Egyptian mythology, Osiris was betrayed at his last supper by the evil god Set, whom the Greeks identified with Typhon. This seems to be the origin of the idea that Jesus's betrayer was present at his last supper. The idea that this betrayer was named "Judas" goes back to the time when the twelve apostles were still understood to be the sons of Jacob. The idea of Judas (= Judah, Yehuda) betraying Jesus (the "son" of Joseph) is strongly reminiscent of the story of the Torah Joseph being betrayed by his brothers with Yehuda as the ringleader. This allegory would have been particularly appealing to the Samaritan Notzrim who considered themselves to be sons of Joseph betrayed by mainstream Jews (represented by Judas/Yehuda).

However, the story of the twelve apostles lost its original allegorical interpretation and the Christians began to think that the "twelve apostles" were twelve real people who followed Jesus. The Christians attempted to find names for these twelve apostles. Matthew and Thaddaeus were based on Mattai and Todah, two of Yeishu's disciples. One or both of the apostles named Jacobus (James) is possibly based on Jacob of Kfar Sekanya, an early Christian known to Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, but this is just a guess. As we have seen, the character of Judas is mostly based on the Judah of the Torah but there might also be a connection with Yeishu's contemporary, Yehuda ben Tabbai the disciple of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachyah. As already mentioned, the idea of the betrayer at the last supper is derived from the mythology of Osiris who was betrayed by Set-Typhon. Set-Typhon had red hair and this is probably the origin of the claim that Judas had red hair. This idea has led to the Christian stereotypical portrayal of Jews as having red hair, despite the fact that in reality, red hair is far more common among Aryans than among Jews.

Judas is often given the nickname "Iscariot." In some places where English New Testaments have "Iscariot," the Greek text actually has "apo Kariotou" which means "from Karyot." Karyot was the name of a town in Israel, probably the modern site known in Arabic as Karyatein. We thus see that the name Iscariot is derived from the Hebrew "ish Karyot" meaning "man from Karyot." This is in fact the accepted modern Christian understanding of the name. However, in the past, the Christians misunderstood this name and legends arose that Judas was from the town of _Sychar_, that he was a member of the extremist party known as the _Sicarii_ and that he was from the tribe of _Issacher_. The most interesting misunderstanding of the name is its early confusion with the word _scortea_ meaning a leather money bag. This led to the New Testament myth that Judas carried such a bag, which in turn led to the belief that he was the treasurer of the apostles.

The apostle Peter appears to be a largely fictitious character. According to Christian mythology, Jesus chose him to be the "keeper of the keys to the kingdom of heaven." This is clearly based on the Egyptian pagan deity, Petra, who was the door-keeper of heaven and the afterlife ruled over by Osiris. We must also doubt the story of Luke "the good healer" who was supposed to be a friend of Paul. The original Greek for "Luke" is "Lykos" which was another name for Apollo, the god of healing.

John the Baptist is largely based on an historical person who practiced ritual immersion in water as a physical symbol for repentance. He did not perform Christian style sacramental baptisms to cleanse people's souls - such an idea was totally foreign to Judaism. He was put to death by Herod Antipas who feared that he was about to start a rebellion. John's name in Greek was "Ioannes" and in Latin "Johannes." Although these names were usually used for the Hebrew name Yochanan, it is unlikely that this was John's actual Hebrew name. "Ioannes" closely resembles "Oannes" the Greek name for the pagan god Ea. Oannes was the "God of the House of Water." Sacramental baptism for magically cleansing souls, was a practice which apparently originated in the worship of Oannes. The most likely explanation of John's name and its connection with Oannes is that John probably bore the nickname "Oannes" since he practiced baptism which he had adapted from the worship of Oannes. The name "Oannes" was later confused with "Ioannes." (In fact, the New Testament legend concerning John provides a clue that his real name might have been Zacharia.) It is known from Josephus's writings that the historical John rejected the pagan "soul-cleansing" interpretation of baptism. The Christians, however, returned to this original pagan interpretation.

The god Oannes was associated with the constellation Capricorn. Both Oannes and the constellation Capricorn were associated with water. (The constellation is supposed to depict a mythical sea-creature with the body of a fish and the foreparts of a goat.) We have already seen that Jesus was given the same birthday as the sun god (25 December), when the sun is in the constellation of Capricorn. The pagans thought of this period as one where the sun god is immersed in the waters of Oannes and emerges reborn. (The Winter Solstice, when days start getting longer, occurs near 25 December.) This astrological myth is apparently the origin of the story that Jesus was baptized by John. It probably started as an allegorical astrological story, but it appears that the god Oannes later became confused with the historical person nicknamed Oannes (John).

The belief that Jesus had met John contributed to the belief that Jesus's ministry and crucifixion occurred when Pontius Pilate was procurator of Judaea. It should be noted that most dates for Jesus quoted by Christians are completely nonsense. Jesus was partly based on Yeishu and ben Stada who probably lived more than a century apart. He was also based on the three false Messiahs, Yehuda, Theudas and Benjamin, who were crucified by the Romans at various different times. Another fact that contributed to confused dating of Jesus was that Jacob of Kfar Sekanya and probably other Notzrim as well, used expressions like "thus was I taught by Yeishu ha-Notzri," even though he had not been taught by Yeishu in person. We know from the Gemara that Jacob's statement led Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus to incorrectly conclude that Jacob was a disciple of Yeishu. This suggests that there were rabbis who were unaware of the fact that Yeishu had lived in Hashmonean times. Even after Christians placed Jesus in the first century C.E., confusion continued among non-Christians. There was a contemporary of Rabbi Akiva named Pappus ben Yehuda who used to lock up his unfaithful wife. We know from the Gemara that some people who confused Yeishu and ben Stada, confused the wife of Pappus with Miriam the unfaithful mother of Yeishu. This would place Yeishu more than two centuries after he actually lived!

The New Testament story confuses so many historical periods that there is no way of reconciling it with history. The traditional year of Jesus's birth is 1 C.E. Jesus was supposed to be not more than two years old when Herod ordered the slaughter of the innocents. However, Herod died before 12 April 4 B.C.E. This has led some Christians to redate the birth of Jesus in 6 - 4 B.C.E. However, Jesus was also supposed have been born during the census of Quirinius. This census took place after Archelaus was deposed in 6 C.E., ten years after Herod's death. Jesus was supposed to have been baptized by John soon after John had started baptizing and preaching in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberias i.e. 28 - 29 C.E., when Pontius Pilate was governer of Judaea i.e. 26 - 36 C.E. According to the New Testament, this also happened when Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene and Annas and Caiaphas were high priests. But Lysanias ruled Abilene from c. 40 B.C.E until he was executed in 36 B.C.E by Mark Antony, about 60 years before the date for Tiberias and about 30 years before the supposed birth of Jesus! Also, there were never two joint high priests, in particular, Annas was not a joint high priest with Caiaphas. Annas was removed from the office of high priest in 15 C.E after holding office for some nine years. Caiaphas only became high priest in c. 18 C.E, about three years after Annas. (He held this office for about eighteen years, so his dates are consistent with Tiberias and Pontius Pilate, but not with Annas or Lysanias.) Although the book of _Acts_ presents Yehuda of Galilee, Theudas and Jesus as three different people, it incorrectly places Theudas (crucified 44 C.E.) before Yehuda who it correctly mentions as being crucified during the census (6 C.E.). Many of these chronological absurdities seem to be based on misreadings and misunderstandings of Josephus's book _Jewish Antiquities _which was used as reference by the author of _Luke_ and _Acts_.

The story of Jesus's trial is also highly suspicious. It clearly tries to placate the Romans while defaming the Jews. The historical Pontius Pilate was arrogant and despotic. He hated the Jews and never delegated any authority to them. However, in Christian mythology, he is portrayed as a concerned ruler who distanced himself from the accusations against Jesus and who was coerced into obeying the demands of the Jews. According to Christian mythology, every Passover, the Jews would ask Pilate to free any one criminal they chose. This is of course a blatant lie. Jews never had a custom of freeing guilty criminals at Passover or any other time of the year. According the myth, Pilate gave the Jews the choice of freeing Jesus the Christ or a murderer named Jesus Barabbas. The Jews are alleged to have enthusiastically chosen Jesus Barabbas. This story is a vicious antisemitic lie, one of many such lies found in the New Testament (largely written by antisemites). What is particularly disgusting about this rubbish story is that it is apparently a distortion of an earlier story which claimed that the Jews demanded that Jesus Christ be set free. The name "Barabbas" is simply the Greek form of the Aramaic "bar Abba" which means "son of the Father." Thus "Jesus Barabbas" originally meant "Jesus the son of the Father," in other words, the usual Christian Jesus. When the earlier story claimed that the Jews wanted Jesus Barabbas to be set free it was referring to the usual Jesus. Somebody distorted the story by claiming that Jesus Barabbas was a different person to Jesus Christ and this fooled the Roman and Greek Christians who did not know the meaning of the name "Barabbas."

Lastly, the claim that the resurrected Jesus appeared to his disciples is also based on pagan superstition. In Roman mythology, the virgin born Romulus appeared to his friend on the road before he was taken up to heaven. (The theme of being taken up to heaven is found in scores of pagan myths and legends and even in Jewish stories.) It was claimed that Apollonius of Tyana had also appeared to his disciples after having been resurrected. It is interesting to note that the historical Apollonius was born more or less at the same time as the mythical Jesus was supposed to have been born. In legends people claimed that he had performed many miracles which were identical to those also ascribed to Jesus, such as exorcisms of demons and the raising to life of a dead girl.

When confronted with Christian missionaries one should point out as much information as possible about the origins of Christianity and the Jesus myth. You will almost never succeed in convincing them that Christianity is a false religion. You will not be able to prove beyond all doubt that the story of Jesus arose in the way we have claimed it has, since most of the evidence is circumstantial. Indeed we cannot be certain about the precise origin of many particular points in the story of Jesus. This does not matter. What is important is that you yourself realize that logical alternatives exist to blind belief in Christian myths and that reasonable doubt can be cast on the New Testament narrative.

(part 2 at #4441)

#4440

*

from Internet: Yahoo · Hayyim Ben Yehoshua via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

Refuting Missionaries: the Myth of the Historical Jesus (part 2)

Mark 8:27

(Radical Jewish rejection of historical Jesus. Part 1 at #4440)

REFUTING MISSIONARIES:

PART 2: THE LACK OF HISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR JESUS

The usual Christian response to those who question the historicity of Jesus is to palm off various documents as "historical evidence" for the existence of Jesus. They usually start with the canonical gospels of "Matthew", "Mark", "Luke" and "John". The usual claim is that these are "eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus made by his disciples." The reply to this argument can be summed up in one word - *pseudepigraphic*. This term refers to works of writing whose authors conceal their true identities behind the names of legendary characters from the past. Pseudepigraphic writing was particularly popular among the Jews during Hashmonean and Roman periods and this style of writing was adopted by the early Christians.

The canonical gospels are not the only gospels. For example, there are also gospels of "Mary", "Peter", "Thomas" and "Philip". These four gospels are recognized as being pseudepigraphic by both Christian and non-Christian scholars. They provide no legitimate historical information since they were based on rumors and belief. The existence of these obviously pseudepigraphic gospels makes it quite reasonable to suspect that the canonical gospels might also be pseudepigraphic. The very fact that early Christians wrote pseudepigraphic gospels suggests that this was in fact the norm. It is thus the missionaries' claim that the canonical gospels are *not* pseudepigraphic which requires proof.

The "Gospel of Mark" is written in the name of Mark, the disciple of the mythical Peter. (Peter is largely based on the pagan god Petra, who was door-keeper of heaven and the afterlife in Egyptian religion.) Even in Christian mythology, Mark was not a disciple of Jesus, but a friend of Paul and Luke. "Mark" was written before "Matthew and "Luke" (c. 100 C.E.) but after the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. which it mentions. Most Christians believe it was written in c. 75 C.E. This date is not based on history but on the belief that an historical Mark wrote the gospel in his old age. This is not possible since the style of language used in "Mark" shows that it was written (probably in Rome) by a Roman convert to Christianity whose first language was Latin and not Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic. Indeed, since all the other gospels are written in the name of legendary characters from the past, "Mark" was probably written long after any historical Mark (if there was one) had died. The contents of "Mark" is a collection of myths and legends put together to form a continuous narrative. There is no evidence that it was based on any reliable historical sources. "Mark was altered and edited many times and the modern version probably dates to about 150 C.E. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 C.E. - c. 215 C.E.) complained about the alternative versions of this gospel which were still circulating in his lifetime. (The Carpocratians, an early Christian sect, considered pederasty to be a virtue and Clement complained about their versions of "Mark" which told of Jesus's homosexual exploits with young boys!)

The "Gospel of Matthew" was certainly not written by the apostle Matthew. The character of Matthew is based on the historical person named Mattai who was a disciple of Yeishu ben Pandeira. (Yeishu, who lived in Hashmonean times, was one of several historical people upon whom the character Jesus is based.) The "Gospel of Matthew" was originally anonymous and was only assigned the name "Matthew" some time during the first half of the second century C.E. The earliest form was probably written at more or less the same time as the "Gospel of Luke" (c. 100 C.E.) since neither seems to know of the other. It was altered and edited until about 150 C.E. The first two chapters, dealing with the virgin birth, were not in the original version and the Christians in Israel of Jewish descent preferred this earlier version. For its sources it used "Mark" and a collection of teachings referred to as the "Second Source" (or the "Q Document"). The "Second Source" has not survived as a separate document, but its full contents are found in "Matthew" and "Luke". All the teachings contained in it can be found in Judaism. The more reasonable teachings can be found in mainstream Judaism, while the less reasonable ones can be found in sectarian Judaism. There is nothing in it which would require us to suppose the existence of a real historical Jesus. Although "Matthew" and "Luke" attribute the teachings in it to Jesus, the "Epistle of James" attributes them to James. Thus "Matthew" provides no historical evidence for Jesus.

The "Gospel of Luke" and the book of "Acts" (which were two parts of a single work) were written in the name of the Christian mythological character Luke the healer (who was probably not an historical person but a Christian adaptation of the Greek healer god Lykos). Even in Christian mythology, Luke was not a disciple of Jesus but a friend of Paul. "Luke" and "Acts" use Josephus's "Jewish Antiquities" as a reference, and so they could not have been written before 93 C.E. At this time, any friend of Paul would be either dead or well into senility. Indeed, both Christian and non-Christian scholars agree that the earliest versions of the two books were written by an anonymous Christian in c. 100 C.E and were altered and edited until c. 150 - 175 C.E. Besides Josephus's book, "Luke" and "Acts "also use the "Gospel of Mark", and the "Second Source" as references. Although Josephus is considered to be more or less reliable, the anonymous author often misread and misunderstood Josephus and moreover, none of the information about Jesus in "Luke" and "Acts" comes from Josephus. Thus "Luke "and "Acts" is of no historical value.

The "Gospel of John" was written in the name of the apostle John the brother of James, son of Zebedee. The author of Luke used as many sources as he could get hold of but he was unaware of "John". Thus "John could not have been written before "Luke (c. 100 C.E.) Consequently "John" could not have been written by the semi-mythical character John the Apostle who was supposed to have been killed by Herod Agrippa shortly before his own death in 44 C.E. (John the Apostle is apparently based on an historical disciple of the false Messiah Theudas who was crucified by the Romans in 44 C.E. and whose disciples were murdered.) The real author of the "Gospel of John" was in fact an anonymous Christian from Ephesus in Asia Minor. The oldest surviving fragment of "John" dates to c. 125 C.E. and so we can date the gospel to c. 100 - 125 C.E. Based on stylistic considerations many scholars narrow down the date to c. 110 - 120 C.E. The earliest version of "John" did not contain the last chapter which deals with Jesus appearing to his disciples. Like the other gospels, "John" probably only attained its present form around 150 - 175 C.E. The author of "John" used "Mark" sparingly and so one suspects that he did not trust it. He either had not read "Matthew" and "Luke" or he did not trust them since he does not use any information from them which was not found in "Mark". Most of "John" consists of legends with obvious underlying allegorical interpretations and one suspects that the author never intended them to be history. "John" does not contain any information from reliable historical sources.

Christians will claim that the "Gospel of John "itself states that it is an historical document written by John. This claim is based on the verses "John 19.34 - 35 and "John" 21.20 - 24. "John" 19.34 - 35 does not claim that the gospel was written by John. It claims that the events described in the immediately preceding verses were accurately reported by a witness. The passage is ambiguous and it is not clear whether the witness is supposed to be the same person as the author. Many scholars are of the opinion that the ambiguity is deliberate and that the author of "John" is trying to tease his readers in this passage as well as in the passages which tell miraculous stories with allegorical interpretations. "John" 21.20 - 24 also does not claim that the author is John. It claims that the disciple mentioned in the passage is the one who witnessed the events described. It is again notably ambiguous as regards the question of whether the disciple is the same person as the author. It should be noted that this passage is in the last chapter of "John "which was not part of the original gospel but was added on as an epilogue by an anonymous redactor. One should beware the fact that many "easy to understand" translations of the New Testament distort the passages mentioned so as to remove the ambiguity found in the original Greek. (Ideally one needs to be familiar with the original Greek text of the New Testament in order to avoid biased and distorted translations used by fundamentalist Christians and missionaries.)

In order to back up their claims that the gospels of "Mark" and "Matthew" were written by the "real" apostles Mark and Matthew and that Jesus is an historical person, missionaries often point to the so-called "testimony of Papias." Papias was the bishop of Hierapolis(near Ephesus) during the middle of the second century C.E. None of his writings have survived but the Christian historian Eusebius (c. 260 - 339 C.E.) in his book, "Ecclesiastical History (written c. 311 - 324 C.E.) paraphrased certain passages from Papias's book "Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord "(written c. 140 - 160 C.E.). In these passages, Papias claimed that he had known the daughters of the apostle Philip and also reported several stories which he claimed came from people named Aristion and John the Elder, who had still been alive during his own lifetime. Eusebius appears to have thought that Aristion and John the Elder were disciples of Jesus. Papias claimed that John the Elder had said that Mark had been Peter's interpreter and had written down accurately everything that Peter had to tell about Jesus. Papias also claimed that Matthew had compiled all the "oracles" in Hebrew and everyone had interpreted them as best they could. None of this, however, provides any legitimate historical evidence of Jesus nor does it back up the belief that "Mark" and "Matthew" were really written by apostles bearing those names. Papias was a name dropper and it is by no means certain that he was honest when he claimed that he had met Philip's daughters. Even if he had, this would at most prove that the apostle Philip in Christian mythology was based on an historical person. Papias never explicitly claimed that he had met Aristion and John the Elder. Moreover, just because Eusebius in the 4th century believed that they were disciples of Jesus does not mean that they were. Nothing at all is known about who on earth Aristion actually was. He is certainly not one of the disciples in the usual Christian tradition. I have seen books in which certain fundamentalist Christians claim that John the Elder was the apostle John the son of Zebedee and that he was still alive when Papias was young. They also claim that Papias lived in c. 60 - 130 C.E. and that he wrote his book in c. 120 C.E. These dates are not based on any legitimate evidence and are complete nonsense: Papias was bishop of Hierapolis in c. 150 C.E and as already mentioned his book was written sometime in the period c. 140 - 160 C.E. Pushing the date for Papias back to 60 C.E. still does not place him during the lifetime of the apostle John who according to standard Christian legends was killed in 44 C.E. Besides, it is unlikely that John the Elder had anything to do with John the Apostle. According to Epiphanius (c. 320 - 403 C.E.), an early Christian named John the Elder had died in 117 C.E. We will have more to say about him when we discuss the three epistles named after John. Whatever the case, the stories which Papias collected were being told at least a decade after the gospels and "Acts" had been written and reflect unfounded rumours and superstition about the origins of these books. In particular, the story about Mark obtained from John the Elder, is nothing more than a slight elaboration of the legend about Mark found in "Acts" and so it tells us nothing about the true origins of the "Gospel of Mark". The story about Matthew writing the "oracles" is simply a rumour, and besides, it does nothave anything to do with the "Gospel of Matthew ". The term "oracles" can only be understood as a reference to the collection of writings known as the "Oracles of the Lord" which is referred to in the title of Papias's book and which in all likelyhood is the same thing as the "Second Source", not the "Gospel of Matthew".

Besides the canonical gospels and "Acts , missionaries also try to use the various Christian epistles as proof of the Jesus story. They claim that the epistles are letters written by Jesus's disciples and followers. However, epistles (from the Greek: epistol q "e", meaning message or order) are books, written in the form of letters (usually from legendary characters from the past), which expound religious doctrines and instructions. This form of religious writing was used by the Jews in Greco-Roman times. (The most famous Jewish epistle is the "Epistle of Jeremiah , which is a lengthy condemnation of idolatry written during the Hellinistic period in the form of a letter from the prophet Jeremiah to the people of Jerusalem just before they were exiled to Babylon.) As in the case of the gospels, there are Christian epistles not contained in the New Testament which both Christian and non-Christian scholars agree are pseudepigraphic and of no historical value since they expound beliefs and not history. The existence of pseudepigraphic epistles and indeed the whole concept of an epistle, suggests that epistles were normally pseudepigraphic. Thus again it is the claims by missionaries and Christian fundamentalists, that the canonical epistles are genuine letters, which requires proof.

The "Epistle of Jude" is written in the name of Jude (Judas) the brother of James. According to "Mark" and "Matthew", Jesus had brothers named Judas and James. Comparison with other writings shows that the "Epistle of Jude" was written in c. 130 C.E. and so it is obviously pseudepigraphic. There is no evidence however that its author used any legitimate historical sources as regards Jesus.

Two of the canonical epistles are written in the name of Peter. Since Peter is a mythical Christian adaptation of the Egyptian pagan deity Petra, these epistles were certainly not written by him. The style and character of the "First Epistle of Peter alone shows that it could not have been written earlier than c. 80 C.E. Even according to Christian legend, Peter was supposed to have died following the persecutions instigated by Nero in c. 64 C.E. and so he could not have written the epistle. The author of "Luke" and "Acts" used all written sources he could get hold of and tended to use them indiscriminately, however he did not mention any epistles by Peter. This shows that the "First Epistle of Peter" was probably written after "Luke" and "Acts" (c. 100 C.E.). No references to Jesus in the "First Epistle of Peter" are taken from historical sources but instead reflect beliefs and superstition. The "Second Epistle of Peter" speaks out against the Marcionists and so it must have been written c. 150 C.E. It is thus clearly pseudepigraphic. The "Second Epistle of Peter uses as sources: the story of Jesus's transfiguration found in "Mark", "Matthew" and "Luke" , the "Apocalypse of Peter "and the "Epistle of Jude". The non-canonical "Apocalypse of Peter" (written some time in the first quarter of the second century C.E.) is recognized as being non-historical even by fundamentalist Christians. Thus the "Second Epistle of Peter" also does not use any legitimate historical sources.

We now turn to the epistles supposedly written by Paul. The "First Epistle of Paul to Timothy" warns against the Marcionist work known as the "Antithesis". Marcion was expelled from the Church of Rome in c. 144 C.E. and the "First Epistle of Paul to Timothy" was written shortly afterwards. Thus we again have a clear case of pseudepigraphy. The "Second Epistle of Paul to Timothy" and the "Epistle of Paul to Titus" were written by the same author and date to about the same period. These three epistles are known as the "pastoral epistles." The ten remaining "non-pastoral" epistles written in the name of Paul, were known to Marcion by c. 140 C.E. Some of them were not written in Paul's name alone but are in the form of letters written by Paul in collaboration with various friends such as Sosthenes, Timothy, and Silas. The author of "Luke" and "Acts", went out of his way to obtain all sources available and tended to use them indiscriminately, but he used nothing from the Pauline epistles. We can thus conclude that the non-pastoral epistles were written after "Luke" and "Acts" in the period c. 100 - 140 C.E. The non-canonical "First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians" (written c. 125 C.E.) uses the "First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians" as a source and so we can narrow down the date for that epistle to c. 100 - 125 C.E. However, we are left with the conclusion that that all the Pauline epistles are pseudepigraphic. (The semi-mythical Paul was supposed to have died during the persecutions instigated by Nero in c. 64 C.E.) Some of the Pauline epistles appear to be have been altered and edited numerous times before reaching their modern forms. As sources they use each other, "Acts", the gospels of "Mark", "Matthew" and "Luke" and the "First Epistle of Peter" . We may thus conclude that they provide no historical evidence of Jesus.

The "Epistle to the Hebrews" is a particularly interesting epistle since it is not pseudepigraphic but completely anonymous. Its author neither reveals his own name nor does he write in the name of a Christian mythological character. Fundamentalist Christians claim that it is another epistle by Paul and in fact call it the "Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews . This idea, apparently dating to the late fourth century C.E., is not accepted by all Christians however. As a source for its information on Jesus it uses material common to "Mark , "Matthew" and "Luke , but no legitimate sources. The author of the "First Epistle of Clement" used it as a source and so it must have been written before that epistle (c. 125 C.E.) but after at least the "Gospel of Mark" (c. 75 - 100 C.E.).

The "Epistle of James" is written in the name of a servant of Jesus called James(or Jacobus). However, in Christian mythology there were two apostles named James and Jesus also had a brother named James. It is not clear which James is intended and there is no agreement among Christians themselves. It quotes sayings from the "Second Source" but unlike "Matthew" and "Luke" it does not attribute these sayings to Jesus but presents them as sayings of James. It contains an important argument against the doctrine of "salvation through faith" expounded in the "Epistle of Paul to the Romans". We can thus conclude that it was written during the first half of the second century C.E., after "Romans" but before the time that "Matthew" and "Luke" were accepted by all Christians. Thus regardless of which James is intended, the "Epistle of James" is pseudepigraphic. It says almost nothing about Jesus and there is no evidence that the author had any historical sources for him.

There are three epistles named after the apostle John. None of them are in fact written in the name of John and were probably only ascribed to him some time after they had been written. The "First Epistle of John" , like the "Epistle to the Hebrews", is completely anonymous. The idea that it was written by John arises from the fact that it used the "Gospel of John" as a source. The other two epistles named after John are written by a single author who instead of writing in the name of an apostle, chose simply to call himself "the Elder." The idea that these two epistles were written by John arose from the beliefs that "the Elder" referred to John the Elder and that he was the same person as the apostle John. In the case of the "Second Epistle of John" this belief was reinforced by the fact that that epistle also uses the "Gospel of John "as a source. We can thus conclude that the first two epistles ascribed to John were written after the "Gospel of John" (c. 110 - 120 C.E.). Consequently none of the three epistles could have been written by the apostle John. It should be pointed out that it is quite possible that the pseudonym "the Elder" does refer to the person named John the Elder, but if this is so, he is certainly not the apostle John. The first two John epistles use only the "Gospel of John" as a source for Jesus; they do not use any legitimate sources. The "Third Epistle of John" barely mentions "Christ" and there is no evidence that it used any historical sources for him.

Besides the epistles named after John, the New Testament also contains a book known as the "Revelation to John . This book combines two forms of religious writing, that of the epistle and that of the apocalypse. (Apocalypses are religious works which are written in the form of revelations about the future made by a famous character from the past. These revelations usually describe unfortunate events occurring at the time of writing and also offer some hope to the reader that things will improve.) It is not certain how much editing the "Revelation to John" underwent and so it is difficult to date it precisely. Since it mentions the persecutions instigated by Nero we can say with certainty that it was not written earlier than 64 C.E. Thus it cannot have been written by the "real John." The first few verses form an introduction which is clearly not intended to be by John and which provides a vague admission that the book is pseudepigraphic even though the author feels that his message is inspired by G-d. The style of writing and the references to the practice of kriobolium (baptism in sheep’s blood) suggests that the author was one of those people of Jewish descent who mixed Judaism with pagan practices. There were many such "pagan Jews" during Roman times and it was these people who become the first converts to Christianity, established the first churches, and who were probably also responsible for introducing pagan myths into the story of Jesus. (They are also remembered for their ridiculous belief that "Adonai" Tzevaot" was the same as the pagan god "Sebazios.") The references to Jesus in the book are few and there is no evidence that they are based on anything but belief.

Besides the epistles accepted in the New Testament and besides the epistles which are unanimously recognized as being of no value (such as the "Epistle of Barnabas"), there are also several epistles which although not accepted in the New Testament, are considered of value by some Christians. Firstly there are the epistles named after Clement. In Christian legend, Clement was the third in succession of Peter as bishop of Rome. The "First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians" is not in fact written in the name of Clement but in the name of the "Church of God which sojourns in Rome." It refers to a persecution which is generally thought to have occurred in 95 C.E. under Domitian, and it refers to the dismissal of the elders of the Church of Corinth in c. 96 C.E. Christians believe that Clement was bishop of Rome during this time and this is apparently the reason why the epistle was later named after him. Fundamentalist Christians believe that the epistle was in fact written in c. 96 C.E. This date is not possible since the epistle refers to bishops and priests as separate groups; a division which had not taken place yet. Stylistic considerations show that it was written in c. 125 C.E. As references it used the "Epistle to the Hebrews" and The "First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians" but no legitimate historical sources. The "Second Epistle of Clement" is by a different author to the first and was written later. We may thus conclude that it was also not written by Clement. (There is no evidence that either of these epistles were named after Clement before their incorporation into the collection of books known as the "Codex Alexandrinus , in the fifth century C.E.) As sources for Jesus, the "Second Epistle of Clement" uses the "Gospel of the Egyptians", a document which is rejected by even the most fundamentalist Christians, and also the New Testament books which we have shown to be valueless. Thus again we have no legitimate evidence of Jesus.

Next we have the epistles written in the name of Ignatius. According to legend, Ignatius was the bishop of Antioch who was killed under Trajan's rule c. 110 C.E. (Although he is probably based on a real historical person the legends about his martyrdom are largely fictional.) There are fifteen epistles written in his name. Of these, eight are unanimously recognized as being pseudepigraphic and of no value as regards Jesus. The remaining seven each have two forms, a longer and a shorter. The longer forms are clearly altered and edited versions of the shorter forms. Fundamentalist Christians claim that the shorter forms are genuine letters written by Ignatius. The "Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans" mentions the threefold ordering of bishops, priests and deacons which had not yet taken place by Ignatius's death which occurred no later than 117 C.E. and which probably took place c. 110 C.E. All seven shorter epistles attack various Christian beliefs, now considered heretical, which only became prevalent c. 140 - 150 C.E. The shorter "Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans" contains a quote from the writings of Irenaeus, written after 170 C.E. and published c. 185 C.E. We can thus conclude that the seven shorter epistles are also pseudepigraphic. The shorter "Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans" was certainly written after 170 C.E. (In fact, if it was not written by Irenaeus then it was probably written after c. 185 C.E.) and the other six were written no earlier than the period c. 140 - 150 C.E. if not later. There are no sources for Jesus in the Ignatian epistles other than the New Testament books and the writings of Irenaeus which only use the New Testament. Thus they contain no legitimate evidence of Jesus.

There are two more epistles which Christians claim are genuine letters, namely the "Epistle of Polycarp" and the "Martyrdom of Polycarp". The Ignatian epistles and the epistles concerning Polycarp have always been closely associated. It is quite possible that they were all written by the Christian writer Irenaeus and his disciples. There certainly was a real historical early Christian named Polycarp. He was bishop of Smyrna and was killed by the Romans sometime in the period 155 - 165 C.E. When Irenaeus was a boy he knew Polycarp. Fundamentalist Christians claim that Polycarp was the disciple of the apostle John. However, even if we accept the legend that Polycarp lived to the age of 86, he could not have been born earlier than 67 C.E and therefore could not have been a disciple of John. (It is possible that he was a disciple of the enigmatic John the Elder.) Since Irenaeus had known Polycarp they also assume that Irenaeus was in fact his disciple, a claim for which there is no evidence. "The Epistle of Polycarp" uses most New Testament books and the Ignatian epistles as references but it uses no legitimate sources for Jesus. Those Christians who reject the Ignatian epistles but believe the "Epistle of Polycarp" is a genuine letter, claim that the references to the Ignatian epistles are a later interpolation. This idea is based on personal bias not on any genuine evidence. Based on the blind belief that this epistle is a genuine letter, some Christians date it to around the middle of the second century C.E. shortly before Polycarp's death. However, the references to the Ignatian epistles suggest that it was in fact written some time in the last few decades of the second century C.E., at least about a decade after Polycarp's death if not later.

The "Martyrdom of Polycarp" is written in the name of "the Church of G-d that sojourns in Smyrna." It starts off in the form of a letter but its main body is written in the form of an ordinary story. It tells the tale of Polycarp's martyrdom. Like the "Epistle of Polycarp", it was written some time during the last few decades of the second century C.E. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that it used any reliable sources for its story, only rumours and hearsay. The story in fact appears to be highly fictionalized. The references to Jesus are not taken from any reliable source.

We have thus seen that the epistles used by missionaries as "evidence" are just as spurious as the gospels. Again, the reader should beware "easy to understand" translations of the New Testament since they call the epistles, "letters," thereby incorrectly implying that they are really letters written by the people after whom they are named.

Now, besides the books of the New Testament, and besides the epistles relating to Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp, there is only one more Christian religious work which Christians claim as historical evidence of Jesus, namely the "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" also known as the "Didache". All other early Christian religious works are either wholly rejected by modern Christians or are least recognized as not being primary sources as regards Jesus. The "Didache" began as a sectarian Jewish document, probably written during the period of turmoil in c. 70 C.E. Its earliest form consisted of moral teachings and predictions of the destruction of the current world order. This earliest version, which obviously did not mention Jesus, was taken over by Christians who heavily edited and altered it, adding a story of Jesus and rules of worship for early Christian communities. Scholars estimate that the earliest Christian version of the "Didache" could not have been written much later than 95 C.E. It probably only reached its final form around c. 120 C.E. It appears to have served an isolated Christian community in Syria as a "Church Order" during the period c. 100 - 130 C.E. However, there is no evidence that its story of Jesus was based on any reliable sources, and as we have mentioned, the earliest Jewish version had nothing to do with Jesus. In fact, this document provides evidence that the myth of Jesus grew gradually. Like the "Gospel of Mark and the early versions of "Gospel of Matthew , the Jesus story in the "Didache" makes no mention of a virgin birth. It makes no mention of the fantastic miracles which were later attributed to Jesus. Although Jesus is referred to as a "son" of G-d, it appears that this term is being used figuratively. The evidence we have concerning the origin of the crucifixion myth suggests that one of the things leading to this myth was the fact that the cross was the astrological symbol of the Vernal Equinox which occurs near Passover, when Jesus was believed to have been killed. It is thus not surprising to find that the story in the "Didache" makes no mention of Jesus being crucified, although it mentions a cross in the sky as a sign of Jesus. The twelve apostles mentioned in the full title of the "Didache" do not appear as twelve real disciples of Jesus and the term clearly refers to the twelve sons of Jacob representing the twelve tribes of Israel. Thus the "Didache" provides vital clues concerning the growth of the Jesus myth, but it certainly does not provide any evidence of an historical Jesus.

Since none of the Christian religious texts provide any acceptable evidence of Jesus, missionaries turn next to non-Christian texts. Christians claim that several reliable historians recorded information about Jesus. Although some of these historians are more or less accepted, we shall see that they do not provide any information about Jesus.

Firstly, Christians claim that the Jewish historian Josephus recorded information about Jesus in his book "Jewish Antiquities" (published c. 93 - 94 C.E.) It is true that this book contains information about the three false Messiahs, Yehuda of Galilee, Theudas and Benjamin the Egyptian, and it is true that the character of Jesus appears to be based on all of them in part, but none of them can be regarded as the historical Jesus. Moreover, in the book of "Acts", these people are mentioned as being different people to Jesus and so modern Christianity actually rejects any connection between them and Jesus. In the Christian edited versions of the "Jewish Antiquities" there are two passages dealing with Jesus as portrayed in Christian religious works. Neither of these passages are found in the original version of the "Jewish Antiquities" which was preserved by the Jews. The first passage (XVII,3,3) was quoted by Eusebius writing in c. 320 C.E. and so we can conclude that it was added in some time between the time Christians got hold of the "Jewish Antiquities" and c. 320 C.E. It is not known when the other passage (XX,9,1) was added in. Neither passage is based on any reliable sources. It is fraudulent to claim that these passages were written by Josephus and that they provide evidence for Jesus. They were written by Christian redactors and were based purely on Christian belief.

Next the Christians will point to the "Annals "by Tacitus. In the "Annals" XV,44, Tacitus describes how Nero blamed the Christians for the fire of Rome in 64 C.E. He mentions that the name "Christians" originated from a person named Christus who had been executed by Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberias. It is certainly true that the name "Christians" is derived from Christ or Christus (=Messiah), but Tacitus' claim that he was executed by Pilate during the reign of Tiberias is based purely on the claims being made by the Christians themselves and appearing in the gospels of "Mark", "Matthew "and "Luke" which had already been widely circulated when the "Annals" were being written. (The "Annals" were published after 115 C.E. and were certainly not written before 110 C.E.) Thus, although the "Annals" contains a sentence in which "Christus" is spoken of as a real person, this sentence was based purely on Christian claims and beliefs which are of no historical value.It is quite ironic that modern Christians use Tacitus to back up their beliefs since he was the least accurate of all Roman historians. He justifies hatred of Christians by saying that they committed abominations. Besides "Christus" he also speaks of various pagan gods as if they really exist. His summary of Middle East history in his book the "Histories" is so distorted as to be laughable. We may conclude that his single mention of Christus cannot be taken as reliable evidence of an historical Jesus.

Once Tacitus is dismissed, the Christians will claim that one of the younger Pliny's letters to the emperor Trajan provides evidence of an historical Jesus. ("Letters" X,96.) This is nonsense. The letter in question simply mentions that certain Christians had cursed "Christ" to avoid being punished. It does not claim that this Christ really existed. The letter in question was written before Pliny's death in c. 114 C.E. but after he was sent to Bithynia in 111 C.E., probably in the year 112 C.E. Thus it provides nothing more than a confirmation of the trivial fact that around the beginning of the twelfth decade C.E. Christians did not normally curse something called "Christ" although some had done it to avoid punishment. It provides no evidence of an historical Jesus.

Christians will also claim that Suetonius recorded evidence of Jesus in his book "Lives of the Caesars" (also known as "The Twelve Caesars"). The passage in question is "Claudius" 25, where he mentions that the emperor Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome (apparently in 49 C.E.) because they caused continual disturbances at the instigation of a certain Chrestus. If one blindly assumes that "Chrestus" refers to Jesus then, if anything, this passage contradicts the Christian story of Jesus since Jesus was supposed have been crucified when Pontius Pilate was procurator (26 - 36 C.E.) during the reign of Tiberias and moreover, he was never supposed to have been in Rome! Suetonius lived during the period (c. 75 - 150 C.E.) and his book, "Lives of the Caesars", was published during the period 119 - 120 C.E. having been written some time after Domitian's death in 96 C.E. Thus the event he describes occurred at least 45 years before he was writing about it and so we cannot be certain of its accuracy. The name Chrestus is derived from the Greek "Chrestos" meaning "good one" and it is not the same as Christ or Christus which are derived from the Greek "Christos" meaning "anointed one/Messiah." If we take the passage at face value it refers to a person named Chrestus who was in Rome and who had nothing to do with Jesus or any other "Christ." The term Chrestos was often applied to pagan gods and many of the people in Rome called "Jews" were actually people who mixed Jewish beliefs with pagan beliefs and who were not necessarily of Jewish descent. Thus it is also possible that the passage refers to conflicts involving these pagan "Jews" who worshipped a pagan god (such as Sebazios) titled Chrestos. On the other hand, the words Chrestos and Christos were often confused and so the passage might even be referring to some conflict involving Jews who believed that some person was the Messiah, but this person may or may not have actually been in Rome and for all we know, he may not have been a real historical person. One should bear in mind that the described event took place just several years after the crucifixion of the false Messiah Theudas in 44 C.E. and the passage may be referring to his followers in Rome. Christians claim that the passage refers to Jesus and conflicts arising after Paul brought news of him to Rome and that Suetonius was only mistaken about Jesus himself being in Rome. However, this interpretation is based on blind belief in Jesus and the myths about Paul and there is nothing to suggest that it is the correct interpretation. Thus we may conclude that Suetonius also fails to provide any reliable evidence of an historical Jesus.

All other writers who mention Jesus, from Justin Martyr in the second century C.E. to the latest expounders of Christian myth in the twentieth century, have all based their references to Jesus on the sources we have discredited above. Consequently their claims are worthless as historical evidence. We are thus left with the conclusion that there is absolutely no reliable and acceptable historical evidence of Jesus. All references to Jesus are derived from the superstitious beliefs and myths of the early Christian community. The majority of these beliefs only came into existence after the persecution by Nero and the tragedy of 70 C.E. Many of these beliefs are based on the pagan legends about the gods Tammuz, Osiris, Attis, Dionysus and the sun god Mithras. Other myths about Jesus appear to be based on various different historical people such as the convicted criminals Yeishu ben Pandeira and ben Stada, and the crucified false Messiahs Yehuda, Theudas and Benjamin, but none of these people can be regarded as an historical Jesus.

*FURTHER READING*

1) J. Allegro, "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth ", Prometheus Books, reprinted 1991. (Examines how ancient myths were misused by the early church and misrepresented as history.)

2) J. Campbell, "Occidental Mythology", Penguin Books, reprinted 1985. (An exposition of religious mythology in western civilization. Includes important evidence concerning the borrowing of pagan myths by Christianity.)

3) E.D. Cohen, "The Mind of the Bible-Believer", Prometheus Books, reprinted 1991. (Uncovers the psychological ploys around which the New Testament is built and exposes the adverse effects of Christian fundamentalism.)

4) R. Helms, "Gospel Fictions", Prometheus Books, reprinted 1991. (Exposes the gospels as being largely fictional documents composed as a culmination to an extensive mythological tradition.)

5) S. Levine, "You Take Jesus and I'll Take God: How to Refute Christian Missionaries", revised edition, Hamoroh Press, Los Angeles, 1980. (Exposes the tricks used by missionaries and the misquotations of the Tanach in the New Testament.)

6) J.M. Robertson, "A Short History of Christianity", 2nd Ed., Watts & Co., London 1913. (One of the first serious academic investigations into the origins of Christianity. Exposes the elements of the Jesus story borrowed from pagan myths.)

7)"The Talmud", should be compulsory reading for all Jews although it is unfortunately neglected in modern times!

#4441

*

from Internet: Yahoo · Hayyim Ben Yehoshua via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database apologetics

Mohler Defends Outreach To Jews on CNN 'Larry King Live' Panel

Acts 2:14

Southern Baptist efforts to evangelize Jews are not based on anti-Semitism or intolerance but on a mandate from Jesus Christ, R. Albert Mohler Jr. told a national audience Jan. 12, 2000.

Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., was one of four guests on CNN's "Larry King Live" talk show who lively debated the issue of recent Baptist evangelism efforts, especially to Jews.

"In this endeavor, Southern Baptists are about what we've always been about from the beginning, and that is sharing the gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ to all persons, Jew and Gentile, rich and poor, young and old," Mohler said. "Our prayer is that all persons would hear the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and respond in faith. We believe that the gospel is for all persons, regardless of any kind of ethnic identity."

Joining Mohler on the program were two Jewish rabbis -- Marvin Hier, founder and dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and Schmuley Boteach, executive director of the Oxford L'Chaim Society -- and David Brickner, executive director of Jews for Jesus.

Hier's main problem with the Southern Baptists was not their efforts to proselytize, but their methodology. He claimed Baptists were being deceptive, pointing to the use of Jewish symbols in the "Days of Awe" prayer guide published by the Southern Baptist Convention's International Mission Board.

"If you have something to sell, be straight about it," Hier said.

Mohler denied the charge of deception.

"We're very up-front about what we're doing," Mohler said. "And the prayer book you held up was intended for Baptist Christians to use in praying for their Jewish friends. It wasn't even intended to present to the Jewish people directly at all."

Brickner, an ethnic Jew who believes in Jesus as the Messiah, expressed support for Baptists. "I'm proud of them," Brickner told King. "I applaud their efforts, because they care enough to love my Jewish people. And the most loving thing that you can do is share the love of God in the Messiah, Jesus."

Boteach based most of his arguments against Southern Baptists on the classic liberal charge of "intolerance," and went so far as to brand Baptist actions as anti-Semitic.

"Who would have thought that in the new millennium we would once again see the prevalence of spiritual dictatorship and totalitarianism?" Boteach asked. "I am absolutely against any religion that says that one faith is superior to another. I don't see how that is anything different than spiritual racism. ... I thought I was living in an enlightened world where people respected each other and had tolerance."

An irritated Boteach interrupted Mohler, Brickner and even King on several occasions, drawing reprimands from King: "Don't interrupt!" and "You're interrupting again."

Mohler called Boteach's anti-Semitism charge "especially disappointing, since American evangelicals are the best friends in many ways that the Jewish people can have. We defend their right of religious liberty," Mohler said. Boteach and Hier each made several references to the Holocaust throughout the program.

King, however, confronted Boteach with that strategy.

"If someone has a sincere belief that Christ is the answer and wants to share that with you, why are you hanging the Holocaust around his neck?" King asked. "He wants to share a belief with you."

As far as sharing beliefs, Mohler and Brickner each had several opportunities to do exactly that.

"All I know is that the only way to heaven is through personal faith and belief in the Lord Jesus Christ the Savior," Mohler said. "No matter how good or bad by human estimation, the fact is before God we are all sinners in need of a Savior. There is not one who is good, no, not one, says the Scriptures."

The Jewish rabbis essentially said that being a good person is enough to get into heaven, regardless of religion or belief. But Mohler countered that viewpoint.

"It seems that the Jewish leadership in America will make great allowances for the fact that perhaps a majority of American Jews, according to polls, no longer believe in a personal God, but one can be an atheist and still be, supposedly, a good Jew," Mohler said. "But the moment a Jew believes that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, he is told he is no longer a Jew. I don't think that makes sense to very many people, and it certainly makes no sense regarding the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ."

King asked Mohler how the "campaign" to convert Jews was going. Mohler questioned the use of the word "campaign" because he said Southern Baptists aren't focusing on Jews any more than any other group.

Mohler said he has known several Jews who have come to faith in Christ.

"They still have a Jewish mother and a Jewish father. They still consider themselves ethnically Jewish," Mohler said. "But they know the faith of the Lord Jesus Christ. They know that he is the answer to their need. They know that he is the Lord of all and he is the Messiah the prophets of the Old Testament promised."

Being Jewish At Christmas

Matthew 2:13

I feel the most Jewish at Christmastime. Gold tinsel, store-bought imitation trees, Star Trek ornaments, electric lights strung along suburban rooftops, disturb my peace and spiritual equilibrium. Surprisingly, it is not the underlying materialism that shatters my connection to the larger American society. Materialism knows no boundaries in the post-modern culture; December might be its brightest month, but as both a philosophy and a way of life it lives on throughout the year in changing disguises. Hallmark has a card for every holiday, both secular and sacred, and new holidays are born each year.

No, it is not the crass commercialism surrounding the celebration of the birth of Christ that sets my soul on a course toward despondency and deeper reflection (I think best when I feel blue). Nor is it the physical impact of the season on the human psyche. Whereas others experience depression because of the advance of night over the daylight, I actually enjoy the whites and blacks of winter, and invite the retreat which falling temperatures bring upon my lifestyle. After all, one best enjoys a cup of hot chocolate after being out in the snow, and not in the heat of July. The winter night is the most beautiful as far as constellation gazing is concerned; life would be impoverished without brawny Orion hunting over us as Gemini arcs across the sky and the Pleiades sparkle only for those who have eyes to see.

No, it is the Christmas observance itself that promotes the ironic juxtaposition of darkness and light, sadness and joy, oppression and liberation, within my soul. It is the words of Matthew and Luke which make me feel alienated from others, and alien to the Christian church. It is the story’s narrative which unfailingly reminds me that I am Jewish, and taunts me with the awful truth that no matter how long I live among gentiles, I will forever be Jewish.

When I read of the engagement drama of Joseph and Mary, the years of waiting for the prophet Simeon to behold the Messiah in an existential way, the drivenness of the Persian astrologers to discover the meaning of a star which might unlock some valuable wisdom, the pained longing of Zechariah and Elizabeth as they wonder why their faithfulness has not brought them an heir, I feel the weight of their forlorn shoulders, the burden of hopes deferred, and wishes expressed only in secret to a God who hears the yearnings of humanity. But beyond their individual misery, I connect with (as they surely did) the collective journey of a people living under oppression, for as benevolent as the Romans could be, they nevertheless were imperialistic dominators of conquered people.

The stories of Jesus’ birth make no sense outside the context of Roman hegemony and might, and the resultant Jewish humility and periodic defiance. Matthew, a Jew writing about Jesus to Jewish Christians, records a dark story of Herod’s curiosity that leads to the catastrophic slaughter of young Jewish boys. Jesus was not only a Jew who died, but from the beginning of his life Jews died because of him even though they did not deserve such a fate. Every sympathetic character in Luke’s birth narrative expresses a yearning for God’s deliverance and salvation in light of the Jewish nation’s lack of freedom. The birth of Jesus represents God’s response to such pained pleas, just as the cries of the Jewish slaves caused Yahweh to reveal himself to Moses, and anoint him to deliver them from a gentile Pharaoh’s grip. Rather than symbolizing God’s turning his back on Jews, the Christmas story reaffirms the Lord’s steadfast solidarity with a nation and people He chose. He has not forgotten how to respond to their prayers. Though the night seems dark, God’s light still leaves heaven and journeys to earth to impart judgment upon the nations, and mercy upon a powerless people.

When Advent arrives and churches read the stories of the birth of Jesus, Matthew and Luke are not allowed to speak on their own terms. Their perspective is whitewashed or ignored. In place of elderly people doubting God’s abiding presence as they watch their grandchildren meet their destiny at the edge of a Roman spear, we stage elaborate pageants filled with cute children who fumble onstage and cause audiences of relatives to laugh. An antiseptic homeliness replaces the struggle of a people to survive while the odds are stacked against them. Jesus is adored as a baby (we like our gods to be cute and non-threatening), but the Jewish babies who prematurely suffer death soon after the Savior is born receive scarcely any attention – when was the last time you heard a preacher use Matthew 2:13-18 as an Advent season sermon text? These guileless innocents are sacrificed so that the Savior may live (in modern military prose, they are collateral civilian damage). Rather than laughing with children, the Christmas story urges us to cry with the mothers, the daughters of Rachel.

In contrast to the gentile custom of giving one another presents, in the original Jewish telling of Christmas, there is no gift giving, with the exception of the offerings brought to Jesus by the pagan astrologers. Today, we use God to meet one another’s desires, while in the first Christmas, only Jesus receives something material. Mary and Joseph, and Zechariah and Elizabeth, receive sons, while others receive spiritual consolation.

All the Jews in the narratives respond to Jesus’ birth with words, not material possessions. These words recount God’s deeds. They tell of dreams and visions received (and as Joel’s prophecy tells us, dreams and visions are symbolic of God’s communication with his people). God is still in touch and revealing himself in the midst of the misery of first century Jewish life. Their words also affirm hope; the messianic expectations represent an abiding confidence in a God who works through the journey of the Jewish people. Whatever celebration there is in the narrative – and there is not that much, angst and uncertainty are just as prominent – focuses on such spiritual concerns as forgiveness of sins and God’s blessing of the poor. Jewish faith and patience, not green wreaths and red bows, adorn the story with color and beauty.

I have no recollection of ever hearing the Christmas story as a child. In place of Santa Claus, we were nurtured on the miraculous story of Chanukah. How ironic it seems to me that this Jewish tale of God’s miraculous deliverance and miracle working power is closer in meaning to the Biblical Christmas than our modern substitutes (such as Dickens’ A Christmas Carol, which is really the spirit behind the Christmas most Westerners know).

My family was not orthodox, but our circle of friends was fairly constricted. When we moved from New York City to Farmingdale, Long Island in 1963 (when I was 7 years old), we were surrounded by gentile neighbors for the first time; only one other Jewish family lived on our block. None of these neighbors had any positive impact on my evolving spiritual consciousness (in the sense of teaching me about the Christian faith); in fact, quite the opposite was true.

The only childhood Christmas lesson my neighborhood provided me with was the fact that being Jewish meant that I was an outsider. This is, of course, implicit in the original Biblical presentation, but in that story, the Romans, and not Christians, are the teachers. That lesson was taught one Chanukah celebration, without the use of words. The instructional aid was a milk carton, filled with mud, which was strategically balanced on top of our front screen door and the side of our house. Responding to the ringing of our bell, I just missed being hit on the head by the milk carton and its brown contents. In the blackness outside, I heard children laughing.

During the daytime, no doubt some, if not all, of these youngsters acted as if they were my playmates. I learned early on that anti-semitism is often expressed not only by one’s enemies, but also by one’s friends. The majority culture wants minorities (both racial and religious) to know their place, and that place is not in the inner circle, no matter how one is treated superficially or in public. Most anti-semites know better than to express their prejudice to a Jew’s face; most people prefer more indirect ways to make their point.

My public school experience in Farmingdale also served to reinforce this lesson of being on the outside. I don’t recall enduring classroom prayer as a child, but I do remember my childhood anger when the school concert featured songs that were explicitly Christian. No doubt the intent was to affirm the religious nature of Christmas and to instill positive values, but I came away feeling disenfranchised and excluded. The conclusion I drew was that American society tolerated the presence of Jews, but that being fully Jewish and American at the same time was problematic, if not impossible.

Like David, Jeremiah and John the Baptist, I cannot remember a time when I lacked faith in the God of the Jews. It is not that I responded to teachings with a positive spirit, for I never attended Hebrew school and visited the synagogue with family on the rarest of occasions. My family did not belong to the temple (my father explained that we could not afford the membership fee). My older brother took elementary Hebrew lessons for a short time, and I remember looking at his simple book with jealousy and affection. But his lessons did not last long, and I had to wait until my seminary days to study the language of my own people. My faith in God functioned more like a presupposition; it was always there and embraced without question.

Two influences encouraged and supported the growth of this faith: books and the existence of Israel as an independent, fledgling nation.

Elie Wiesel recounts the key role the love of reading played in his childhood and ties this love to Jewish culture:

My father had books in his grocery store. While waiting for customers, he would open one and read - and smile. I shall never forget his smile. He was not alone in living with such passion for books; most Jews in my town, and in all Jewish towns, shared that passion. Idleness was the greatest of sins. You have nothing to do? A father would admonish his son: take a book - any book ... If I had to describe hell, it would be a place without books. What would life be without their appeal to our fantasy, without their power to change things simply by revealing their hidden message? (Kingdom of Memory, pages 40, 44-46)

If I’ve inherited anything from my father, it is the love of books – both owning them and reading them. During childhood the library was my playground. My taste was indiscriminate and wide-ranging, as long as the book was non-fiction. History, geography, every kind of science, philosophy, biography and psychology books piqued my interest the most. Books were literally my windows to the world, since my family never traveled outside of New York. I dreamed of traveling to distant places as I peeked at pictures of the Kremlin, the Eiffel Tower, Mt. Fuji, and the Egyptian pyramids. I tried to rise above my intellectual limits by tackling physics books replete with formulas that made no sense. Einstein was a hero, even if his math was incomprehensible! Plato and Aristotle, with their rival philosophies, battled for my allegiance, and taught me to never be satisfied with the first answer that comes to one’s mind. The physical universe and the human soul do not reveal their structure and essence without a fight; the lazy of mind do not ask either the right questions or guess the right answers to life’s mysteries. The explorer must search, the researcher must probe, and the wise must prove to lady wisdom that he is a worthy groom. I came to the conviction that the only intellectual failure a student of knowledge, or a seeker of wisdom, can make is to refuse to push past the cover of a book.

Of all the hundreds of books I devoured as a pre-adolescent, the astronomy texts held a near sacred place in my heart. It took me almost twenty years to complete my pilgrimage to Mt. Palomar from the time I first read about its huge mirror that held the power to see into the depths of space, but I fantasized about receiving the privilege to guide that awesome telescope toward unknown mysteries. The night sky mystified me. Its beauty dazzled my imagination. I knew the constellations were mere human projections from ancient cultures, but I could not help but be attracted to the mythological tales that accompanied the patterns found in each astronomical work. My love for discerning patterns in life stems from this childhood fascination with identifying constellations referred to in the star guides.

Staring at the night sky was akin to praying. Long after my peers were asleep in their homes, I would remain outside by myself and stare for hours at the slow movement of the white points of distant light. Their slow trek across the dark expanse spoke to me. I may be a small part of the universe, but as long as I perceive the flow, life would be profoundly meaningful. As a Jew, I never once gave credence to the pantheistic notion that nature is divine; the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had to be more than helium! But as the creator all of all things, the heavens demonstrated the mastery of God’s artistry; the beauty of the sky above my head invited me into a form of mysticism sanctioned by Psalm 19: “The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech, night after night they display knowledge.”

The point of this mystical experience is succinctly stated by Paul, who rightly condemns idolatry – the worshipping of creation or its parts instead of the creator God who stands behind it all: “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).

The mystic in me combined forces with the historian and lover of books. The God who in Genesis claims credit for creation is none other than the God who chooses the Jewish people in Exodus. The cosmic God is the God of human history, who manifests his character and power on behalf of an enslaved race. Furthermore, he is the author of a sacred book which records his ongoing concern for his people, which is expressed in the form of a covenant. The covenant calls for faithfulness and devotion from the chosen people, the Jews. In brief, this was the state of my Judaic understanding as a youth.

The historical and prophetic portions of the Old Testament defined the outlines of my conscious faith. The historical books provided me with a confidence in the ability of the Jewish God to defend his people from oppression and assimilation. This confidence expressed itself in a Zionist manner, especially in light of the six day war between Israel and its Arab neighbors in 1967. I initially learned of the outbreak of the war as I tinkered with an old tube short-wave radio. Fear filled my soul as I tuned into Radio Moscow and heard the newscast that announced the beginnings of conflict. Anxiety turned to pride as the war ended as quickly as it had begun, with Israel handing a stunning defeat to an enemy with superior numbers. In my youthful mind, there was no doubt that the God who delivered Israel from Pharaoh had pulled off a similar miracle in the modern age.

The prophets inspired hope. I believed in the future painted by Isaiah and Ezekiel. Israel would stand as an independent nation under God, and the nations of the world would realize that the Jewish God is also the universal sovereign. Ezekiel’s prophecies concerning the resurrection of the valley of dry bones (chapter 37) and God’s defeat of Israel’s enemies (chapters 38-39) were my personal favorites. Not only did Ezekiel introduce me to a new form of mysticism, but he also provided me with a messianic consciousness to go along with my Zionist political perspective.

Ezekiel’s mysticism is introduced as early as chapter one, which became the basis for a school of Jewish mysticism centered on discovering the glory of God. This heavenly throne mysticism is called Merkabah. Ezekiel picks up this theme again in chapters 40-48. In chapter 37, Ezekiel speaks of a mystical trip into “the middle of a valley” which enables him to participate in God’s redemptive activity. I took the chapter to refer to Israel’s re-emergence as a nation in 1948. I further understood verses 24-25 to refer to the hoped for Jewish messiah, whose identity was still unrevealed:

“My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd. They will follow my laws and be careful to keep my decrees. They will live in the land I gave to my servant Jacob, the land where your fathers lived. They and their children and their children’s children will live there forever, and David my servant will be their prince forever.”

The promised messianic age would be preceded by one last display of God’s power against Israel’s arrogant enemies (chapters 38-39): “And so I will show my greatness and holiness, and I will make myself known in the sight of many nations. Then they will know that I am the LORD” (38:23).

All of this came alive for me in a mystical way when I was about seven years old. I had a dream, no doubt inspired by my reading of Ezekiel’s vision. In the dream, I am transported to Israel, and stand on the mountains described in chapters 38-39. I vividly recall seeing the antagonist armies of the gentile nations – thousands upon thousands of men. Looking up toward the sky, I am amazed to see a man riding on a white war horse! Behind him are hosts of other angelic combatants who are following him earthward. I point to the one in front, and shout, “That’s my messiah!” The dream ended at that moment.

Most children have imaginative dreams that flow from the normal course of childhood experiences, but there was something about this dream that convinced me to view it as a spiritual communication. It felt sacred, numinous, and mystical. The dream transcended the ordinary in its intensity and authenticity. Instinctively, I decided not to tell anyone about it, and considered it a secret present from God.

Ezekiel’s vision of the restoration of Israel contained within it a problem that resonated with another side of my personal journey – the problem of sin and forgiveness. In the vision of the two sticks united together (Ezekiel 37:15-28), God declares, “I will save them from all their sinful backsliding, and I will cleanse them. They will be my people, and I will be their God.” Similarly, after the climactic battle described in the following two chapters, God judges Israel’s journey in rather startling terms: “And the nations will know that the people of Israel went into exile for their sin, because they were unfaithful to me” (Ezekiel 39:23).

A secret war waged in my soul as I made my way through elementary school and into junior high. My intellectual precociousness and sharp tongue convinced most peers to refrain from arguing with me, and so I turned my critical gaze to intellectual controversies (I spent hours debating both sides of issues as I walked through my neighborhood) and toward my own shortcomings. I was too young to be involved in what most people would call sinful behavior (drug and alcohol use, stealing, etc.), and honestly such activities held little interest for me. Even as a teenager, the most rebellious activity I embraced was growing my hair long! Gazing at issues energized me, but examining my shortcomings became quietly devastating. My personal standard was perfection, and nothing less was acceptable for me. If I received a 100% grade on a test, but missed the extra credit question, I considered the effort a complete failure. This competition was internal (the reality of my performance versus my assumed potential), and was not usually directed against others. By fifth grade, this purely self-imposed pressure (my parents never applied such unrealistic expectations) produced symptoms which made the doctor suspect I was developing a stomach ulcer. He told me to stop worrying, and I tried as hard as I could to be more relaxed about my grades (I never really succeeded).

There was a deeper worry connected to my perfectionism that was more spiritual in nature. I was acutely concerned about Ezekiel’s doctrine of sin, for both myself and for Israel. My personal sinfulness was manifest to me because I knew I was not perfect. If I could not be perfect, how then would God forgive my shortcomings? How could I forgive myself and be delivered from the perfectionist trap?

I sought for an answer from Torah. Reading the Law in a simplistic manner and without adult guidance, I came to see that Israel’s sin (both on personal and national levels) required sacrificial offerings to be forgiven:

“If the whole Israelite community sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the LORD’s commands, even though the community is unaware of the matter, they are guilty. When they become aware of the sin they committed, the assembly must bring a young bull as a sin offering and present it before the Tent of Meeting ... If a member of the community sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the LORD’s commands, he is guilty. When he is made aware of the sin he committed, he must bring as his offering for the sin a female goat without defect ... In this way the priest will make atonement for him, and he will be forgiven.”

(Leviticus 4:13-14, 27-28, 31)

Surprisingly, the answer to my spiritual uneasiness was rather simple. The Jewish solution to guilt and sin involves sacrificing perfect (unblemished) animals to God as a sign of inner contrition and remorse. If I couldn’t personally be perfect, God could communicate his sympathetic understanding of my predicament through such a ceremonial activity. Although all of the references to bloodletting seemed gory to me, I was willing to accept the solution at face value. I was particularly impressed by the Biblical passages regarding the Day of Atonement, because I was aware of that special day each fall:

This is to be a lasting ordinance for you: On the tenth day of the seventh month you must deny yourselves and not do any work – whether native-born or alien living among you – because on this day atonement will be made for you, to cleanse you. Then, before the LORD, you will be clean from all your sins. It is a sabbath of rest, and you must deny yourselves; it is a lasting ordinance. The priest who is anointed and ordained to succeed his father as high priest is to make atonement ... This is to be a lasting ordinance for you: Atonement is to be made once a year for all the sins of the Israelites.”

(Leviticus 16:29-32,34)

I remember how our family observed Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, when I was a little child – during the period when we lived in Far Rockaway. We did not have regular Sabbath observances, but on Yom Kippur, life was different. I could not play with the other children, and I had to wear stiff shoes instead of my more comfortable P.F. Flyers. The shoes indicated that the day was a form of mild torture for an active child; restraint overtook natural joy, and quiet replaced laughter. However, only the memory of this observance survived our move to Long Island. By the time I encountered Leviticus, such cursory acknowledgments of the Day of Atonement had been abandoned, and at best it was memorable because the Jews of Farmingdale were allowed to take the day off from school as a holiday. There were some advantages to being Jewish, even in a gentile world!

Yom Kippur troubled me. Leviticus asserts its ongoing validity for Israel’s spiritual sanctity, but its modern day observance, from my vantage point, seemed to mock its true meaning. Where were the Most Holy Place, the Tent of Meeting and the altar where the unblemished animals could atone for my imperfections? Gone. Where was the Temple conceived by David and built by Solomon (and then rebuilt following the exile)? Gone. Where was my sacrifice for sins? Gone. Where was forgiveness? Gone.

Relatives were of little use as I considered a vexing problem that increasingly appeared to be irresolvable. Since none of them were aware of my inner conflicts, they understood my questions concerning the Day of Atonement and the lack of animal sacrifices as curious but insignificant. I was always asking questions about every conceivable subject, and so I can imagine from their perspective that the Yom Kippur inquiries were just more of the same. This was not true.

The lack of a literal re-playing of the Day of Atonement rituals in contemporary Judaism destroyed my faith in its validity. At the age of ten, I felt cut off from the Biblical past and its promises. I never doubted the truthfulness of the Bible, nor its claim over my life, but I lost confidence in modern Judaism to convey its blessings and fulfill its promises. I remained a Zionist, I identified myself as a Jew (since I already had such a jaundiced view of gentiles), but the synagogue was no place for me. Fortunately, it was never offered as an option, and no outward rebellion was necessary.

My “bar mitzvah” at the age of thirteen was a sham and a shame. Since our family did not belong to the temple, I received no religious or language preparation for it. There was no service, no reading of sacred scrolls, and no authenticity to the day. As the time approached for the bar mitzvah party, I gingerly asked my parents about how they were going to explain away the absence of the religious service. How can one have a bar mitzvah party without a bar mitzvah? They assured me that people were told that the service was private, but this made no sense to me and I felt like a fraud. How could I take my place as a man in the Jewish community on such a basis? The only saving grace of the day was that enough cash gifts were given to enable me to buy a six-inch reflector telescope – a dream I had longed to fulfill since third grade and was told could become a reality on my thirteenth birthday. It arrived in June of that year.

After years of struggling with heart and other illnesses, my mother passed away in February, 1971, less than a year after I endured the charade of my bar mitzvah. I inherited from her certain characteristics: a fierce sense of independence, a love of the New York Mets and pizza, and a pretty sharp sense of humor. She respected my curiosity and willingness to take intellectual risks, and though she was never at a loss for an opinion, gave me wide latitude in charting my own course. In return, I tried to make her life transcend the physical limitations she coped with. She taught me how to do the laundry, shop for good food bargains, and cook a few standard meals.

Such independence prepared me well for her death. Saying good-bye was sad, but not debilitating. My hunger for learning, my immersion into the solitary world of reading, and my own dreams for my future (would I be an astronomer or a lawyer?) engaged my heart and soul. I was self-sufficient, self-motivated, achievement-oriented and confident. It probably didn’t hurt that I had already begun to take an interest in girls. When the heart begins to imagine what a pretty girl’s embrace would feel like, a hug from one’s mother becomes a little less necessary.

In an age that is so psychologically-oriented, it is only natural to wonder if there was a connection between my mother’s death and my conversion experience at the end of 1971. Did I feel a need to convert because I had lost such a powerful mother figure? Was accepting Jesus a way of filling a void? Such a thought never entered my mind when I was thirteen, and doesn’t ring true almost 30 years later. I missed having a mother to some extent, but the loss faded rather quickly. With or without a mother, my orientation to life came from within. Life’s challenges were only growing more attractive as I gained increased knowledge and studied fresh topics. I felt fully alive and eager for anything that might come, and on a conscious level felt no need to fill any void except for the one created by ignorance. Having come to the previously discussed conclusions regarding Judaism, I spent very little time after my bar mitzvah on specifically religious matters. The telescope needed to be pointed to the heavens, and with a presidential election year looming, I fell in love with political matters. Newsday and the New York Times received far more attention than the Bible.

My conversion experience caught me totally by surprise. No one else who knew me at that time saw it coming either. I didn’t ask for it, and was not searching for new religious input. I didn’t want to convert to an alien religion such as Christianity, and I felt no need to explore other religions. I did not quest for Jesus; Jesus descended to me, and without my assent. He came through a voice, and I encountered divine glory.

When most of the prophets tell of their experience of the kavod (glory) of God, they emphasize what they saw and heard. But not every vision actively engages both senses; sometimes one sees but does not hear the divine voice, while on other occasions God’s voice is heard but no representation of the invisible God is necessary. In my case, I heard a voice, and was reminded of my mystical dream inspired by Ezekiel’s prophecy.

In 1971, December 23 fell on a Thursday. I was by myself in the family’s living room, flipping through channels to find something acceptable to watch on our old black and white television. Although I made it a point never to watch Christmas related programs, that night I made an exception to the rule, out of boredom. A Christmas Carol was on one of the New York City stations, and I watched it with a sarcastic attitude; Scrooge impressed me far more than Tiny Tim and the rest. Following that movie, another version of the story (the English one) aired, and I decided to watch again.

During that movie, I felt a presence in my home. It was all around me, and my body responded to the presence by tingling. The sensation was akin to how one’s leg or arm feels when it “falls asleep.” It didn’t hurt and certainly didn’t feel ticklish. For some reason, I had an intuition that the source of the presence was upstairs, where my brother and I shared a bedroom (the other half of the second floor was an unfinished attic). I had no fear of this unknown intruder, but my curiosity was overwhelming. The mystery had to be solved.

When I entered my bedroom, I immediately turned on all of the lights to see if someone was hiding in the darkness. Seeing no one, I opened up the two closets and discovered nothing but clothes and games. Nevertheless, I knew I was on to something, for the presence and the attendant physical sensations had become much stronger. Whatever I sensed was right there with me in my room – that was for certain!

Standing in the small alcove area of the room, and confused about this mysterious intrusion into the normalcy of my night, I asked out loud and to no one in particular, “What should I do now?” To my complete astonishment, I heard a strong voice reply! I have wondered about the nature of that voice ever since. Its authority and spiritual power were undeniable. From my perspective, it did not come from within (like a thought or an interiorized spiritual voice) – I heard it with my ears. Would someone else have heard the voice if they were standing next to me in that room on that night?

At the exact moment the voice revealed itself to me, I was eyeing the corner of my brother’s bookshelf. A book that I did not recognize was lying flat on one of the shelves, and that struck me as odd. I thought it impossible for a book to enter my room without my knowing about it. The voice commanded, “Pick up that book!” – and I obeyed without any hesitation or thought.

Dusting the mysterious book off while sitting down on my bed, I was shocked to discover that it was a Bible containing both the Old and New Testaments. I had never seen a New Testament before, and I couldn’t understand why one would have invaded my room. Processing this strange turn of events as quickly as possible, I repeated my original question – and once again the voice responded! I was actually having a conversation with someone I could not see!

The invisible conversation partner ordered me to action: “Turn to the last pages of this book!” This was certainly a command, and not a suggestion, and I didn’t pause to contest. Paging toward the back of the Bible, my attention fell to this passage in Revelation, a piece of literature I had never heard of or read. I then proceeded to read my first passage from the New Testament:

I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.” He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

(Revelation 19:11-16)

What an incredible discovery! My mystical secret was not my own private possession; someone else was given the same dream two thousand years earlier. The titles given to the rider on the white horse indicated that the messiah was being described, but I was frustrated by the lack of a personal name. Who was this King of Kings and Lord of Lords, the Word of God who is Faithful and True? I sensed the author was using some kind of code to let only the initiated know the true identity of the rider, and I didn’t have the key to the translation of the text. With nothing to lose, I asked my unseen guide, “What should I do next?” What made me believe I would receive an answer?

The answer came immediately, and I knew from an increased sense of the presence that the stakes were high. The voice spoke to me one last time: “Turn to the first page of this New Testament!”

Where was the first page of the New Testament? The youngest children in Sunday school know that the gospel of Matthew begins the Christian revelation, but I was not familiar with either Matthew or anything else in the New Testament. Employing the table of contents in the front of the book, I found what page Matthew began on and turned to it. Experiencing shock and calmness at the same time, I started to read the gospel: “A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham . . .” (Matthew 1:1).

How many countless numbers of churchgoers have heard this simple introduction and never thought twice about its astounding claims? Although it is not even a complete sentence, I could read no further, due to my astonishment. Jesus Christ is Jewish? How could that be? In my mind, Jesus was not Jewish; he was a Christian! The god of gentiles was Jewish by birth – this was too amazing to be true! Speed-reading through Matthew’s genealogy, I came to the angelic announcement, for Joseph’s benefit, of Jesus’ birth. In the dream, Joseph hears: “She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21).

My mind raced to make logical connections. Jesus is a Jew. He is the rider on the white horse. He has been empowered to forgive sins. He is the Jewish Messiah. He is the one for whom I’ve been waiting.

Prayer carried my response to this collection of new ideas, which penetrated my heart with surprising ease. Uncharacteristically, I offered no resistance to their implications for my beliefs and life – I simply believed it all and required no further convincing. My prayer acknowledged Jesus as “my master and messiah” and sincerely promised to live out and fulfill his will for the rest of my life – with one spontaneous exception. The early 1970’s witnessed the expansion of the Jesus movement, whose adherents evangelized by handing out pamphlets to strangers. This confrontational style repelled me (as it does most Jews), and I concluded my prayer by making a point that I would not participate in such activities. However, within days I was sharing my new found faith in Christ with friends, fellow students and others (I informed my family of my conversion later). God had completely transformed my heart!

That’s the last thing I remember about that night. I have no memory of seeing family, returning downstairs, or going to sleep. It was as if that part of my life had come to an end, and a new one was just commencing. Christmas had invaded my life.

________

Lee Spitzer is the Senior Regional Pastor of the American Baptist Churches of New Jersey. He grew up in a Jewish family and became a Christian in high school.

Copyright (c) 1999. All rights reserved.

Explaining Talmud

"Rabbi," the man said, "Explain the Talmud to me."

"Very well," he said. "First, I will ask you a question. If two men climb up a

chimney and one comes out dirty, and one comes out clean, which one washes

himself?"

"The dirty one," answers the man.

"No. They look at each other and the dirty man thinks he is clean and the clean

man thinks he is dirty, therefore, the clean man washes himself.

"Now, another question. If two men climb up a chimney and one comes out dirty,

and one comes out clean, which one washes himself?"

The man smiles and says, "You just told me, Rabbi. The man who is clean washes

himself because he thinks he is dirty."

"No," says the Rabbi. "If they each look at themselves, the clean man knows he

doesn't have to wash himself, so the dirty man washes himself.

"Now, one more question. If two men climb up a chimney and one comes out

dirty, and one comes out clean, which one washes himself?"

"I don't know, Rabbi. Depending on your point of view, it could be either one."

Again the Rabbi says, "No. If two men climb up a chimney, how could one man

remain clean? They both are dirty, and they both wash themselves."

The confused man said, "Rabbi, you asked me the same question three times and

you gave me three different answers. Is this some kind of a joke?"

"This is not a joke, my son. This is Talmud."

from Oy Vey! (7/2/99) via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

The Conversion of A Chasidim Rabbi [2 versions]

Isaiah 53:5

Marcus Bergmann translated the Scriptures into Yiddish, which is understood by most European Jews. Mr. Bergmann's conversion, as told by himself, is exceedingly interesting. Born in Germany, his father belonged to the strictest sect of Jews, the Chasidim, and died when Marcus was but a year old. Six years after his father's decease, his mother and he went to reside with an uncle, the lad being brought up strictly.

At the age of twenty, Mr. Bergmann arrived in England, and established a small synagogue in the city of London, where he officiated for a time. Owing to an attack of illness, he went to the German hospital to be treated. One day he found a Hebrew Bible in the ward, and commenced to study it. Whilst reading the ninth chapter of the book of Daniel, his eye caught the prophecy contained in verse twenty-six: “And after three score and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for Himself.”

He had never noticed that expression, as the Rabbis discouraged the reading of the Messianic prophecies, the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah not being read in the synagogues. Mr. Bergmann threw down the Book saying to himself, “Oh, this is one of the mission Bibles.” But do what he might, he could not get rid of the words, “Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself.” Why, then, would He be “cut off?” Why should He die if not for Himself? And the thought was suggested by the Holy Spirit: “Might not Jesus of Nazareth be the Messiah?”

He did his utmost to get rid of the words, “Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself,” but they would not be buried. One morning he took up the Bible, and as he read part of the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, his eye fell on the words, “For He was cut off out of the land of the living; for the transgression of My people was He stricken” (v. 8). The soul-saving truth of the Gospel was laid hold of, and for the first time he understood that the Lord Jesus Christ was the promised Messiah; that “He was wounded for his transgressions and bruised for his iniquities, that the chastisement of (or with the view to) his peace was upon Him, and with His stripes he was healed” (Isa. 53:5).

===========

HOW A JEW DISCOVERED THAT JESUS WAS THE MESSIAH

This is the story of a valiant Jewish soldier of the Cross. Marcus S. Bergmann was born in Wieruszow, a town bordering Silesia, (a small European Country, bounded by Czechoslovakia, Germany and Poland), in 1846. His Jewish father, who was a strong Talmudist and a member of the Chassidim (also called Assideans or Hasidim -- a sect which was the most strict adherent of Judaism), did not long survive his infant son’s birth, and so the boy was reared by his uncle, Woolf Bergmann, who also belonged to the Chassidim. This mansaw to it that young Marcus studied the choicest Rabbinical and Talmudic writing, for he too was to become a rabbi to his people.

Marcus was barely twenty years old when a sudden disturbing restlessness came upon him, and he felt a spiritual burden quite strange to him. Disquieted in his thoughts, he was unable to concentrate on his studies, and he longed to leave his comfortable home and his country to wander he knew not where.

The puzzled young Jew could not understand this urge to pull up stakes and get going, but it was not long before God spoke to his troubled spirit, and Marcus actually heard these words: Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, unto a land that I will show thee! Day after day the words rang in his ears. No matter how he tried he could not still their clamour and he had no rest from their constantly compelling allurement. The words called to him even while he slept!

Finally he obeyed the Insistent voice, and he made preparations to leave behind him all the people he loved. Marcus Bergmann arrived in England in 1866, where he set up a small synagogue in London. He ministered there for a while without pay, living on monies from the inheritance bequeathed him by his father.

Although Marcus Bergmann had obeyed God by leaving Silesia and going to the land pointed out by His finger, he was not doing the will of God. Because he had not enquired of the Almighty concerning that which he should do, God’s hand struck heavily upon him, and he was laid low in grave illness. He was taken to a hospital, where he hovered between life and death for a period of six weeks.

While doctors and nurses tried to heal Marcus body, God undertook the healing of his soul. This required skilled surgery of the most desperate kind, for a great cancerous hatred of Jesus had to be cut out of it. Such an operation takes a long time to perform but the hands of God are creative and all-healing, and whosoever submits to the genius of His soul-saving operation lives forever!

Let Marcus Bergmann’s own words tell the story of God’s way with him. In later life he wrote an account of his conversion for “The Hebrew Christian” (New York) which was published in the September 1894 issue of that magazine.

After mentioning his weeks of illness, Mr. Bergmann wrote: ‘When feeling a little better I began to look into the Hebrew Bible, which was on the shelf in the ward. As a reader in the synagogue, I knew the letter of the whole of the Pentateuch, and other portions of the Old Testament by heart.

“The portion of Scripture that made a great impression on me at

the time of my illness was Daniel 9. Several verses of this

chapter (the confession of Daniel) are repeated each Monday and

Thursday by every Jew; but the latter part of this chapter, which

so plainly prophesies of the sufferings of the Messiah is never

read. In fact, the Rabbis pronounce a dreadful curse upon

everyone who investigates the prophecy of those seventy weeks.”

“They say: ‘Their bones shall rot who compute the end of the

time!”

“On remembering the anathema, it was with fear and trembling that

I read the passage about the seventy weeks and coming to verse

26; Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself — though we

Jews are most careful not to let a Hebrew book drop on the ground

— I threw that Hebrew Bible out of my hand, thinking in my

ignorance, that this was one of the missionaries’ Bibles.”

“But, although I threw the Bible away, yet I could not throw away

the words I had just read: Messiah shall be cut off, but not for

Himself. These words sank deeper and deeper into my soul, and

wherever I looked I seemed to see the words in flaming Hebrew

characters, and I had no rest for some time!”

God had plunged His scalpel into the soul of Marcus Bergmann, and had begun to excise the life-sapping cancer of his unbelief!

The second stroke of the knife was made on the morning Marcus again took up the Bible, and without looking for any particular passage, his eyes were held by the eighth verse in Isaiah 53:

‘He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall

declare His generation? for He was cut off out of the land of

the living: for the transgression of My people was He stricken!’

According to Marcus Bergmann, no Jew ever reads Isaiah 53. Regarding verse 8, he wrote: ‘This seemed to be the answer to the question that I was constantly asking myself during this time of soul-conflict: Messiah shall be cut off. but not for Himself. For whom was it? Here it was plainly revealed to me. For the transgression of My people, and surely I belonged to His (God’s) people, and therefore, Messiah was cut off from me”

God’s scalpel was cutting deeply now, and the cancer was being lifted up and away. This was revealed by Marcus Bergmann when he wrote: “Shortly after this I left the hospital and was again among my Jewish friends, but I could not banish from my mind those two passages!”

The wonderful operation upon the soul of Marcus Bergmann was still progressing the morning he put on his phylacteries and the talith (a Phylactery is a small square box containing a thin strip of parchment inscribed with a certain text from the law worn by pious Jews upon the forehead and left wrist. The talith is a scarf worn while at prayer) before he said his prayers. To his horror he found he could not utter a single word out of the orthodox Jewish prayer-book!

He could think of nothing except a passage from Psalm 119:

“Open Thou mine eyes, that I may behold the wondrous things out

of Thy law. I am a stranger in the earth: hide not Thy

commandments from me. My soul breaketh for the longing that it

hath unto Thy judgments at all times.”

This agonized prayer filled his mind, and he kept saying it over and over, as he strove to lessen the pain of his yearning after peace and tranquility.

“After laying aside the phylacteries and talith I left the house without tasting my food,” he wrote, “and as I walked along the streets I prayed again in the words of the Psalmists:” “Lead me in Thy truth and teach me: for Thou art the God of my salvation, on thee I do wait all the day!”

“My heart was burdened with a very great load, and yet I dared not open my mind to anyone. In this state I believe, the Spirit of God led me to Palestine-place. (Situated near the junction of Christchurch and Church Roads in Merton an outer suburb of London.) My heart failed me when I reached the door of the late Revd Dr Ewald.”

“After several vain attempts I ventured to knock, and was admitted to see that venerable servant of the Lord. To him I unburdened my soul and told him all that was in my heart. He asked me whether or not I was willing to come into his home for enquirers, in order to be instructed in the truth as it is exemplified in the Lord Jesus.”

“I told him that this was just what I needed, and I at once accepted his kindness. This was just one week before the Passover!”

While the members of Marcus Bergmann’s congregation at the synagogue kept the Feast of the Paschal lamb, he learned of the Lamb of God, who was sacrificed for the salvation of mankind, and the redemption of Israel, and he was comforted.

Not long afterward Marcus accepted our lord Jesus the Christ as his Saviour, and God’s operation upon his soul was finished. The cancerous core of hatred had been cut out, forever, and the Saviour’s healing love occupied the place where it had grown.

And then came the after-pain which follows all surgery performed upon the flesh.

When members of the synagogue discovered that Marcus had turned to Christ they raged and tore their beards. They pleaded with him to remain true to his Talmudic teachings, but Marcus was happy and secure in his Saviour and he could not be persuaded.

His refusal to return to Judaism whipped their fury to white heat, and they counselled together to plot his ruin. Craftily they framed a charge against him, and accused him of theft. They lodged a formal complaint with the police, had him arrested, and gloated over him when he was put in prison to await his trial.

Marcus Bergmann was arraigned before the lord Mayor of London at the Mansion House, and many were his accusers.

Police court procedure in Britain is totally dissimilar to police court procedure in the United States. In Britain witnesses for the prosecution and witnesses for the defence are kept apart, under guard, and no witness is allowed to hear testimony given by another. This prevents witnesses from making any secret agreements for fraudulent or evil purposes. It also helps the judge to decide which witnesses are making lying statements.

In the case of Marcus Bergmarn the criminal charges brought against him were proved to be false. Cross examination of his accusers and their supporting witnesses revealed that all of them had given false testimony. Time after time they contradicted each other’s evidence, and the prisoner was judged to be innocent.

The plotters were found guilty of perjury and after being obliged to listen to an ear-blistering discourse from the Bench. they were sentenced to serve terms in prison. So it turned out that these enemies of the Lord Jesus fell into the pit they had dug for Marcus Bergmann. It is hoped that they meditated on Ecclesiastes 10:8 while they were in prison.

After this shattering experience the Lord’s new servant became a devoted missionary to the Jews in London. He worked quietly among his people, spending long hours in revealing the truths in the New Testament, yet he found time to translate the Old Testament into Yiddish.

To his great joy the British and Foreign Bible society published his translation of the Pentateuch, and he began to circulate copies of it among the Jewish people he had brought to the feet of Christ. They loved it, because they could read the first five books of the Bible in their own language.

Marcus sent a copy of the translated Pentateuch to his Uncle Woolf, who wrote him a letter of appreciation and praise. Receipt of his uncle’s letter must have come as a surprise to Marcus because, although he had kept writing to this relative over a period of twenty-five years, Woolf Bergmann had never penned a single word in reply.

In writing to his nephew, Woolf Bergmann admitted he was very proud of Marcus’ translation, and that parts of it had been sent to the Rabbi Kalman and to Marcus’ cousin Nathan, who was Rabbi in Pitschen, Silesia. However, he warned Marcus not to expect to hear from them, for he had sinned against the God of their fathers by forsaking Him to follow after the Crucified One, as was the custom of the Gentiles. Therefore, his kinfolk thought of Marcus as someone who had died in disgrace and shame.

If Woolf Bergmann believed these harsh sentiments would coerce Marcus into blowing cold in his love for the Son of God, he was mistaken. Marcus was committed and dedicated, loving and beloved, and he could not turn back.

Naturally, Marcus was saddened by the coldness of his uncle’s letter, but the lord God of Israel comforted him by revealing to him the glorious knowledge of His Kingdom to come.

_______

Written by Mary Hughes of Kingdom Digest is reprinted from THY KINGDOM COME; http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/discovery.html

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #1378]

from Book: Twice-born Men (digital Edition 03/05/98 by Holiness Data Ministry) · Hy Pickering via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database conversion

Gentiles Have Responsibility To Evangelize Jews

Romans 1:16

Mitch Glaser was born a Jew and once was certain he would die a Jew. He didn't even believe in hell, until a Christian friend mustered the courage to tell him he was lost.

“I said, 'Oh, I don't have to go somewhere I don't believe in, and all I have to do is become a traitor?’ because that's what I was taught,” Glaser said.

Glaser recounted his journey from Orthodox Judaism to Christianity and challenged students to share the gospel with Jewish people in chapel at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Modern Christians too often leave the first group of people mentioned in Romans 1:16 out of their evangelistic efforts, Glaser said at the Fort Worth, Texas, seminary. A”My request and my prayer is that Jewish people in your life do not become the great omission from the Great Commission. I don't care in what way you put Jewish evangelism into your life, as long as you do it,” Glaser said. “The 15.5 million Jewish people around the world need to know the Lord.”

Glaser serves as president of the New York-based Chosen People Ministries, which coordinates outreach efforts and helps plant churches in the United States, Israel, Germany, Ukraine and other countries around the world. One of the ministry's most recent projects is a Messianic Jewish church plant on the heavily Jewish Upper West Side of New York City, a joint endeavor with the SBC.

Glaser was born to Jewish parents in Brooklyn and went through Orthodox childhood rituals, which culminated in his bar mitzvah at 13.

“At the age of 13-and-a-half, I bolted from the synagogue like every other Jewish kid I knew,” Glaser said. “There was no real intimacy or relationship with the living God.”

Disheartened by his family's move to New Jersey when he was 15, Glaser went back to the synagogue but found no peace. He instead turned to drugs. After high school, Glaser entered college, but promptly dropped out and moved to California at the height of the Vietnam War protest movement.

After a Christian friend confronted him about the possibility of spending eternity without Christ, Glaser studied the Old Testament to prove her wrong. Instead, he became more receptive to the gospel.

He eventually prayed and asked for a sign from God, wanting to know if God was real. That night he found a New Testament and began to read it.

“I discovered two things: first, that Jesus was Jewish. Second, he was clearly God's Son,” Glaser recounted.

Since his conversion and subsequent call to ministry, Glaser has preached around the world, but has maintained a desire to see God move among the 3 million Jews in New York City. He sees his ministry and mission as a biblical mandate.

“The Jewish people are God's chosen people, but chosen for what? We have been chosen to be God's vehicle of blessing for the world. ... God has not set aside the Jewish people because the Jewish leaders at the time of Christ rejected Jesus,” Glaser said, while teaching from Romans 11:1-4.

“The fact that there are Jewish people who believe in Jesus is living proof that God is faithful to his covenant promises.”

Glaser said Jews feel sometimes as if they have been “chosen” for persecution, but the real answer for the disproportionate sufferings of the Jewish people has a spiritual explanation.

“[God's] choice brings with it a heavy obligation and a whole host of heavenly enemies,” Glaser said. “Satan has it in for the Jews because he understands that God wants to bring blessing through the Jewish people.”

Glaser emphasized the importance of gentile outreach to God's “chosen people.” “God has prepared a remnant of Jewish people who are ready to hear and receive the message of the gospel,” Glaser said.

Just as salvation came to the gentiles through the Jews, he added, it is now the responsibility of gentiles to live and proclaim the gospel in such a way that makes the Jews realize their need for a relationship with Christ.

“There is a day coming when the promises of God to bless the world through the Jewish people, through Abraham, will be fulfilled in the most marvelous way. In other words, Paul is saying [in Romans 11:12], 'You ain't seen nothin' yet,'“ Glaser said.

“Wait until the end-time remnant embraces the Messiah - then all the prophecies will be fulfilled,” Glaser said.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #13057]

Things That Are Prohibited

Amos 8:5

Shalom Auslander was raised in the largely Orthodox Jewish town of Monsey, New York. Monsey was a pretty town where everything was forbidden. One was forbidden to drive on the Sabbath, one was forbidden to take four steps without a yarmulke, one was forbidden to eat meat with dairy. Having eaten meat, one had to abstain from dairy for six hours; having eaten dairy, one had to abstain from meat for three hours. One was always forbidden to eat pig, at least until the Messiah arrived – only then, Rabbi Goldfisher taught him in the fourth grade, would the wicked be punished, the dead be resurrected, and the pigs be kosher.

The people of Monsey were terrified of God, and they taught Shalom to be terrified of Him, too. He learned that Sarah would one day laugh at God, so God made her barren; that Job, completely ruined, had asked “Why?” and God had come down to earth, taken him by the collar, and howled, “Who the heck do you think you are?”

In early autumn*, when the leaves choked, turned colors, and fell to their deaths, everyone gathered together in synagogues across the town and wondered, aloud and in unison, how God was going to kill them: “Who by water and who by fire, who by sword, who by beast, who by famine, who by thirst, who by storm, who by plague, who by strangulation and who by stoning.”

________

*i.e., on Yom Kippur

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #2379]

from The New Yorker Magazine; article: Playoffs: Things That Are Prohibited · Shalom Auslander via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database fear of godlegalism

Old & New Testaments Unified On Saving Faith

Luke 1:31

Persons were saved during Old Testament times by the same means as those in the New Testament -- by grace through faith in Jesus Christ – according to Daniel Block, a professor of Old Testament interpretation at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

How were people saved before the time of Christ? Christ is the only way for all time. Some Christians falsely believe that Old Testament saints were saved by keeping the law. Others say they were saved by “doing the best they could.” Still others believe those who lived during Old Testament times were not saved at all, Block said.

One of the keys to understanding salvation through Christ as being consistent with Old Testament teaching is in seeing that Israel's covenant God “Yahweh” is the same eternal God as Jesus Christ.

“There is salvation by no other way than by the grace of God who revealed himself in person as Yahweh in the Old Testament and provided a way of forgiveness that was fulfilled and completed in the incarnate Son of God, Jesus Christ, in the New Testament,” Block said. “The two names refer to the same person.

“The question, 'What about before Christ?’ is an earthly question. With God, that question is irrelevant because there is no 'before.’ God lives in the eternal present, and Jesus Christ was sacrificed in the eternal present (1 Peter 1:17-21). Thanks be to God.”

The most frequent answer Block hears to the question is that people in the Old Testament age were saved through obedience to the law. Most Christians say this even while quoting the apostle Paul in Romans 4:1-3, which says Abraham was saved by faith, Block said.

“Many of us wouldn't believe [that Abraham was saved] unless it is affirmed in the New Testament. The witness of the Old Testament is rarely enough,” Block said.

When Scripture says “there is salvation in no name other than Jesus,” this does not mean the name “Jesus” by itself holds a mystical power that saves, Block said. Rather, it is the divine person behind the name -- God -- who saves. God is the same both in the Old Testament and New, he said.

A clue to seeing this truth is found in the meaning of the name of Jesus -- “Savior,” Block said. “Jesus” is the Greek form of the Hebrew name “Joshua,” which is short for “Yahweh has saved,” he said.

“But curiously the name is never used of God in the Old Testament. And when the angel tells Joseph that Mary's child shall be called 'Jesus,' he is in effect affirming the saving action of Yahweh, though now it is not a matter of saving his people from the sins of others in Egypt but from their own sins.”

That the names are the same is even more apparent in John 18, Block said. There, Judas and a group of soldiers come to arrest Jesus, and when the men tell Christ that they are seeking “Jesus of Nazareth,” the Lord replies, “I Am.”

Most English translations render this “I am he,” but the pronoun “he” is not part of the Greek construction, Block said. A more accurate reading is simply “I Am.” The soldiers drew back and fell to the ground because the Lord's answer echoes Yahweh's self-introduction in the Old Testament. Jesus hereby claims to be the “I Am” of Exodus 3-4, he said.

Block said the fact that Jesus is the same as Yahweh of the Old Testament seems to be Paul's point in Romans 10:1,8-10 where the apostle begins in verse 1 by writing, “Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for [the Jews] is that they may be saved,” and goes on to say in verse 12, “The same person is Lord of all, bestowing His riches on all who call on him. And whoever will call upon the name of the Lord [Yahweh] will be saved.”

How should readers of Scripture reconcile Old Testament sacrifices which individuals and priests carried out for the remission of sins with Hebrews 10:4 which says, “It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins”?

The sacrificial system took away sins by pointing to the true sacrifice, Christ, “the lamb slain before the foundation of the world,” Block said. While the sacrifices themselves did not remove sins, when they were brought in faith and by persons whose lives were pure and clean before God, God accepted them on the basis of Christ's atoning death, which was foreknown by God. As the Book of Hebrews insists, this is the only sacrifice that could actually take away sins, Block said.

“There is no contradiction here at all between [the Old Testament declarations and those in the New Testament],” Block said. “There's only one sacrifice for sin and that is the sacrifice of Christ slain before the foundation of the world.”

Christ came in New Testament times and both fulfilled and clarified the redemption typified in the tabernacle/temple ritual and anticipated in the Old Testament.

“For clarification we need to wait until the New Testament when the seed -- now capital 'S' -- of the woman defeats the devil and death itself on the cross,” Block said.

As in the New Testament, salvation was by faith alone, Block said. He pointed out that the law was given after the salvation of the Israelites when they miraculously crossed the Red Sea. God gave the law so that Israel might live as those set apart as the covenant people of God, he said.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #16539]

Isaiah 53 – The Forbidden Chapter

Isaiah 53

The 17th century Jewish historian, Raphael Levi, admitted that long ago the rabbis used to read Isaiah 53 in synagogues, but after the chapter caused “arguments and great confusion” the rabbis decided that the simplest thing would be to just take that prophecy out of the Haftarah readings in synagogues. That’s why today when we read Isaiah 52, we stop in the middle of the chapter and the week after we jump straight to Isaiah 54.

What happened to Isaiah 53, you might be wondering? That is exactly what this article is about.

In the Bible, in the book of Isaiah, chapter 53 the prophet prophesies about the Messiah that he would be rejected by his people suffer and die in agony and that God would see his suffering and death as an atonement for the sins of humanity. Isaiah lived and prophesied about 700 BCE. According to his prophecy in chapter 53 the leaders of Israel would recognize they had made a mistake at the end of days when they rejected the Messiah, so Isaiah put the prophecy in past tense and because he saw himself as part of the people of Israel he used third person plural (we).

At the end of chapter 52 Isaiah writes an introduction to chapter 53:

“Behold, my servant shall prosper...”

The term “servant” is supposed to connect back to sections earlier in the book that speak of “the Servant of the Lord” (for example, in chapters 42, 49 and 50, where the Messiah is described as a servant that suffers).

“He will be high and lifted up and greatly exalted.”

This is to emphasize the eminence of the Messiah who would in fact rise from the dead, and ascend to the heavens and sit next to the Father. His actions would give him a higher status that every human king or ruler.

“Just as many were appalled at You — His appearance was disfigured more than any man, His form more than the sons of men.”

Before the Messiah is exalted he would suffer and be humiliated. His body would be abused and tortured so badly that he would be completely disfigured and unrecognizable.

“So He will sprinkle many nations. Kings will shut their mouths because of Him, for what had not been told them they will see, and what they had not heard they will perceive.”

Despite the horrific suffering the day would come when even kings would come to look to him with reverence.

And now, let’s dive into chapter 53 itself...

“Who has believed our report?”

This is describing the lack of faith among the people of Israel who don’t believe what they’ve heard.

“To whom is the arm of Adonai revealed?”

Isaiah calls the Messiah the “Arm of the Lord”. Earlier, in chapter 40 Isaiah declares that the “Arm of the Lord” would rule for him. In chapter 51 the gentiles put their hope in the “Arm of the Lord”, and the “Arm of the Lord” would redeem. In chapter 52 the “Arm of the Lord” brings salvation. Now, in 53, Isaiah reveals to us that the “Arm of the Lord” is in fact the Messiah. The Messiah is very much part of God himself.

For He grew up before Him like a tender shoot,

like a root out of dry ground.

He had no form or majesty that we should look at Him,

nor beauty that we should desire Him.

He was a shoot in spiritually dry ground – there had been no word from God for 400 years.

“He had no beauty that we should desire Him”.

He was not appealing to us. We didn’t want him. His appearance wasn’t particularly glorious or impressive, and the way he showed up didn’t cause people to desire him. In contrast to what rabbinic Halacha teaches today, according to this prophecy, the Messiah would not be born to a prestigious rabbinic family or grow up in the grand residences of wealthy rabbis. We can say with near certainty that the external appearance of the Messiah was nothing extraordinary at all.

He was despised and rejected by men,

a man of sorrows, acquainted with grief,

One from whom people hide their faces.

He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.

The life of the Messiah was characterized by pain, rejection and suffering. He didn’t get the honor due to the Messiah, but was despised and rejected by the leaders of his people. We considered him some kind of social misfit – someone we might hide our faces from when we pass someone on the street that we are embarrassed to see.

We didn’t think he was the Messiah. We didn’t even register it could be him.

Surely He has borne our griefs

and carried our pains.

Yet we esteemed Him stricken,

struck by God, and afflicted.

The Messiah suffered in our place – he carried our sicknesses, our suffering, our pain ... and the sins we committed, while our people – while we – thought he was being punished, and that his suffering was God’s punishment for sins that he himself had committed. We didn’t understand that it was for OUR sin.

But He was pierced because of our transgressions,

crushed because of our iniquities.

The chastisement for our shalom was upon Him,

and by His stripes we are healed.

The Hebrew says wounded, pierced. He died. Like someone who has fallen wounded, or someone perforated with bullets – not for any fault of his own, but it was our wrongdoing. He was crushed because of our inequities, our sins – the punishment and discipline we deserved went to him. The “stripes” are hard blows that leave marks, and by his scars we are healed. In exactly this way, hundreds of years later, the prophecy was fulfilled. Yeshua was sent to the cross in order to take the death we deserved.

We all like sheep have gone astray.

Each of us turned to his own way.

So Adonai has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

The Hebrew talks of going astray like sheep wander off and get lost. We all, people of Israel, ignored him and went on our way, but despite this, God put all our sin and iniquity on him – on the Messiah.

He was oppressed and He was afflicted

yet He did not open His mouth.

Like a lamb led to the slaughter,

like a sheep before its shearers is silent,

so He did not open His mouth.

The Hebrew says he was exploited, abused ... his dignity and right to a fair trial were taken from him. The Hebrew says he was afflicted – tortured – but he didn’t open his mouth. This shows that he did not resist his unjust sentence. He didn’t try to rebel or escape, and he didn’t take legal representation in spite of the fact he was facing a death sentence, but he was led like a sheep to the slaughter, or to be sheared without resisting the injustices being done to him.

Because of oppression and judgment He was taken away.

As for His generation, who considered?

For He was cut off from the land of the living,

for the transgression of my people —

the stroke was theirs.

They arrested him and took his to trial. As a result of the trial he was “cut off from the land of the living”. A death sentence. Not for his own crimes, but those of his people. In the Scriptures, “My people” always means the people of Israel. The Messiah would die not for his own sin but for the sin of his people – the people who should be taking the punishment for their own sins – but the Messiah took it upon himself. He is the one who died.

His generation wouldn’t care to bring him up in conversation, but would rather sweep his existence under the carpet. So for the last 2000 years, Yeshua the Messiah has been the best kept secret in Judaism, and this is precisely why he was labelled “Yeshu” in Judaism, which stands for “May his name and memory be blotted out”.

His grave was given with the wicked,

and by a rich man in His death,

though He had done no violence,

nor was there any deceit in His mouth.

Even though he was taken out to be executed like a criminal, even though he did nothing wrong, and never lied, in his death he was to be buried in the fancy tomb of a rich man. Yeshua really was killed on the cross and was buried in the grave of a rich man a member of the Sanhedrin, Joseph of Arimathea. It’s a clear symbol of the ironic situation in which the Messiah receives honor for the noblest deed of them all – taking the death sentence we deserve on himself.

Yet it pleased Adonai to bruise Him.

He caused Him to suffer.

If He makes His soul a guilt offering,

He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days,

and the will of Adonai will succeed by His hand.

So who is responsible for the death of the Messiah? “The Jews”? As so many Catholics have accused us of in the past? Maybe the Romans? They were the ones who actually crucified him? No.

“God was pleased to bruise him”. God is the only one able to forgive and bring salvation to the world and he turned himself into a sacrifice. What kind of sacrifice? A guilt offering. The death of the Messiah was no accident – God used his own stiff-necked people as priests in order to bring about the forgiveness of sins not only for his people Israel, but for the whole of humanity. In contrast to the Yom Kippur sacrifice which was only valid until the following year and just ‘covered over’ sin, the atonement of the Messiah took away our sin once and for all! None of us as human beings are perfect – we are not able to be that perfect sacrifice. Only God himself could do that.

After that comes a very interesting statement:

“He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days,”

In spite of the fact he would be killed, he would also prolong his days. He would rise again from the dead and would see the “fruit of his seed”, planted in his resurrection. By the way, we also have a video on the resurrection of Yeshua.

As a result of the anguish of His soul

He will see it and be satisfied by His knowledge.

The Righteous One, My Servant will make many righteous

and He will bear their iniquities.

The Messiah would see and be satisfied by his labor, because many would be made righteous by the suffering he endured, as a righteous man when he took on himself the sins and iniquities of many. All who recognize him as the Messiah will be his “seed” in a spiritual sense.

Therefore I will give Him a portion with the great,

and He will divide the spoil with the mighty —

because He poured out His soul to death,

and was counted with transgressors.

For He bore the sin of many,

and interceded for the transgressors.

The Messiah was the one interceding for us an advocate for us as sinners before a holy God. The Messiah took on his shoulders the sin of all who believe in him. It’s an encouraging prophecy of hope and a future. God is not just interested in forgiveness expressed in words but also demonstrated in actions. That’s why he took on the appearance of a servant and took the punishment that we deserve on himself.

The Jewish Sages thought Isaiah 53 was about the Messiah

It’s important to understand we’re not just talking about a Christian interpretation here – the Jewish Sages of ancient times also always interpreted Isaiah 53 to be about the Messiah. In fact, the well-known term “Messiah ben Yosef” is actually from this very text.

In the ancient Jewish translation of Yonatan ben Uzziel (Targum Jonathan) from the first century opened the section with the words “The Anointed Servant” that is to say Ben Uzziel connected the chapter to the Messiah, the Anointed One.

Rabbi Yitzhak Abravanel who lived centuries ago admitted that “Yonatan ben Uzziel’s interpretation that it was about the coming Messiah was also the opinion of the Sages (of blessed memory) as can be seen in much of their commentary.”

The Book of the Zohar recognizes the principle of substitution that the suffering of the Messiah would come to take the suffering that others deserved for their sins. On the verse “Surely He has borne our griefs”, the Book of the Zohar says, “There is in the Garden of Eden a palace named the Palace of the Sons of Sickness. This palace the Messiah enters, and He summons every pain and every chastisement of Israel: All of these come and rest upon Him. And were it not that he had thus lightened them off Israel and taken them upon himself, there had been no man able to bear Israel’s chastisements for the transgression of the law.”

Midrash Konen in discussing Isaiah 53 puts the following words in the mouth of Elijah the prophet: “Thus says the Messiah: Endure the sufferings and the sentence your Master who makes you suffer because of the sin of Yisroel. Thus it is written, “He was wounded because of our transgressions, he was crushed because of our iniquities”, until the time the end comes.”

Tractate Sanhedrin in the Babylonian Talmud (98b), writes about the name of the Messiah: “His name is ‘the leper scholar,’ as it is written, “Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted”.

In Midrash Tanhuma it says, “Rabbi Nachman says, it speaks of no one but the Messiah, the Son of David of whom it is said, here a man called “the plant”, and Jonathan translated it to mean the Messiah and it is rightly said, “man of sorrows, acquainted with grief”.

Midrash Shumel says this about Isaiah 53: “The suffering was divided into three parts: One for the generation of the Patriarchs, one for the generation of Shmad, and one for the King Messiah”.

The prayers for Yom Kippur, the ones we all know also relates Isaiah 53 to the Messiah. The prayer added for Yom Kippur by Rabbi Eliezer around the time of the seventh century: “Our righteous Messiah has turned away from us we have acted foolishly and there is no one to justify us. Our iniquities and the yoke of our transgressions he bears and he is pierced for our transgressions. He carries our sins on his shoulder, to find forgiveness for our iniquities. By his wounds we are healed.”

The deeper we go into this prayer for Yom Kippur the more significant it gets. The prayer brings the sense that the Messiah left his people. “The righteous Messiah turned [away]”. That is to say, the Messiah has already come and left. Also, the Messiah suffered in the place of the people, and the sins of people were put on him then after the Messiah suffered, he left them that was the reason for their concern and so the people are praying for his return. A large part of this prayer is taken straight out of Isaiah 53, so from this we can prove that up to the 7th century the Jewish perception – also among the rabbis – was still that Isaiah 53 was about the Messiah.

In Genesis Rabbah, Rabbi Moshe haDarshan says that God enabled the Messiah to save souls but that together with that, he would suffer greatly. Also Maimonides relates Isaiah 53 to the Messiah in his Epistle to Yemen. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai wrote, “And Messiah of Ephraim died there and Israel mourns for him as it is written: ‘He is despised and rejected of men’, and he goes back into hiding, for it says: ‘and we hid, as it were, our faces from him’.”

Also in Tractate Sotah 14, Midrash Rabbah Parasha 5, Midrash Tanhuma, Midrash Konen, Yalkut Shimoni and actually the whole Talmud always related the chapter to the Messiah, as did all the rabbis until about a thousand years ago. Everyone agreed that Isaiah 53 prophesies about the Messiah.

Rashi’s revision in the Middle Ages

Rashi lived, as we know, in Spain, at a time when Jews and Christians lived together and so naturally, arguments arose between them. Christian friends and neighbors of Rashi tried to convince him that Biblical prophecy pointed to Yeshua. Among other prophecies, they of course showed him Isaiah 53. Because the prophecy in Isaiah 53 is so sharp and clear, Rashi had no choice. He obviously didn’t want to admit that Yeshua was the Messiah, so he had to try to reinterpret the prophecy so that it was no longer about the Messiah but instead about the people of Israel. Rashi’s claim was that the suffering servant is a metaphor of the people of Israel who suffered at the hands of the gentiles.[*]

Many different rabbis – Gaon Rabbi Saadia, Rabbi Naphtali ben Asher, and Rabbi Moshe Alshich adamantly opposed Rashi’s new interpretation, and demanded that the Sages of Israel should ignore him and return to the original interpretation, the most famous of among them was Mamonides, who categorically declared that Rashi was completely mistaken.

But today, it is Rashi’s interpretation that is accepted among the rabbis who also are not interested in admitting that Yeshua could have been the Messiah who was rejected, suffered and died exactly as Isaiah prophesied.

A good example comes from Rabbi Haim Rettig, who writes, “Is it possible that any Christian anywhere in the world could fit the description of the Servant of the Lord that is led like a sheep to the slaughter? It cannot be that Isaiah the prophet could prophesy about a Christian event rather than a Jewish one. The prophecy of Isaiah is talking about the people of Israel throughout the generations, the Israel has given itself to be the innocent lamb”. What irony! Despite the fact that rabbis twisted Yeshua’s name into “Yeshu the Christian”, changing his name didn’t turn him into a Christian. The official religion of Christianity was only established in the third century. Yeshua was in fact Jewish, from the line of David, who lived here in Israel.

Also, when Rabbi Rettig claims that the prophecy of Isaiah 53 is not about the Messiah but about Israel, that gave itself up as an innocent lamb, can we really say that the people of Israel could be described as “an innocent lamb”? Innocent lamb is a Biblical definition for one without sin, who is blameless, spotless, never does evil and would never sin, but is perfect, pure and clean from sin. Does the people of Israel really this description? It’s enough just to open the paper or listen to the news to get your answer.

And since we’re talking about Isaiah the prophet, we’ll let Isaiah answer this question as well. Notice the words to the people of Israel just six chapters after chapter 53:

“For your hands are defiled with blood and your fingers with iniquity. Your lips have spoken lies, your tongue mutters wickedness. No one sues justly, and none pleads a case honestly. Their feet run after evil. They rush to shed innocent blood. Their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity. Violence and ruin are on their highways. They do not know the path of peace, and there is no justice in their tracks. They have made their paths crooked. Whoever walks in them will not experience shalom.”

One thing’s for sure, as far as Isaiah’s concerned Israel was no “innocent lamb”!

Here are a few more reasons that make it impossible for the chapter to be about Israel

The Suffering Servant is consistently presented as an individual and not as a plurality or collective noun, like a people group. Verse 8 says, “For the transgressions of My people He was stricken”. What people was Isaiah part of? The people of Israel, of course. So “my people” refers to the people of Israel. Therefore Israel cannot be the Suffering Servant of the Lord. If the people of Israel was the Servant of the Lord here, who would be “my people”?

Moreover, the Servant of the Lord suffers willingly submissively and without objection. The people of Israel have never suffered willingly! According to the Torah, the suffering of Israel was a result of sin not because of their righteousness whereas the Servant of the Lord suffered as a righteous person not because he had sinned The Servant of the Lord was guiltless but according to the Torah the people of Israel were always punished and suffered because of their sin and the gentiles didn’t get healing from God because Jewish people were persecuted.

The Servant of the Lord died in our place as a sacrifice for our sin. The people of Israel, on the other hand, didn’t suffer for the gentiles but because of their wickedness.

The Servant rose from the dead, but the people of Israel were never “cut off” completely and so could not “rise from the dead”. If the Servant of the Lord is Israel and not the Messiah, the concept of “Messiah ben Yosef” suddenly disappears as if it never existed.

In summary, we did wrong, the Messiah was punished. We sinned, and he suffered. We deserve death, and he was crucified in our place. A perfect God took on the likeness of a Servant in order to reveal himself to us as one of us. He allowed us to humiliate him, reject him, and to torture him to death in order to take our sins upon himself. So it’s also up to us to suffer for the good of others who sin against us. If God who is perfect can forgive us, imperfect as we are, how much more should we forgive one another? This is the wonderful message of the Suffering Servant: The God who loves us has done for us what we could never do for ourselves!

________

[*] Holwick: This article gives the impression that Rashi invented the "national" interpretation for Isaiah 53, but it had already been encountered in the early centuries of Christianity. In Origen's "Contra Celsum," written in 248, he writes of Isaiah 53 [emphasis by Holwick]:

I remember that once in a discussion with some whom the Jews regard as learned (i.e. Rabbis) I used these prophecies. At this the Jew said that these prophecies referred to the whole people as though of a single individual, since they were scattered in the dispersion and smitten, that as a result of the scattering of the Jews among the other nations many might become proselytes. In this way he explained the text: "Your form shall be inglorious among men" and "those to whom he was not proclaimed shall see him" and "being a man in calamity". I then adduced many arguments in the disputation which proved that there is no good reason for referring these prophecies about one individual to the whole people. And I asked which person could be referred to in the text: "This man bears our sins and suffers pain for us" and "but he was wounded for our transgressions and he was made sick for our iniquities;" and I asked which person fitted the words "by his strips we were healed." Obviously, those who say this were once in their sins, and were healed by the passion of the Savior, whether they were of the Jewish people or of the Gentiles: the prophet foresaw this, and put these words into their mouths by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. But we seemed to put Him in the greatest difficulty with the words "because of the iniquities of my people he was led to death". If according to them the people are the subject of the prophecy, why is this man said to have been led to death because of the iniquities of the people of God, if He is not different from the people of God? Who is this if not Jesus Christ, by whose strips we who believe in Him were healed, when he put off the principalities and powers among us, and made a show of them openly on the cross?

A Shabbat Miracle

Mark 10:16

Living 10,000 miles away from my parents, we always looked forward to their yearly visits to Israel. Whenever they visited my family, we always got along wonderfully. That is, until Shabbat.

Long ago, my great-grandparents had decided to stop observing Shabbat, and my grandparents and parents had followed in their footsteps. We had grown up with very little awareness of or interest in Jewish rituals. After college I became more interested in Judaism and gradually began to learn Hebrew, study Jewish sources, and practice a more observant life style. This process culminated with my moving to Israel. Though my parents were always very proud of being Jews, my choices were alien to them. They felt that I had rejected the way they had raised me, and could not understand why what had been acceptable for three generations had to be changed. Endless talks had not been able to change these feelings that the unity of our family had been shattered.

We were often able to camouflage these feelings of loss during the week. But then Shabbat would inevitably arrive. All the rituals of Shabbat represented the change from how my parents had raised me to how I lived my life today. Starting with the Thursday night cooking, through the Friday cleaning, showering and getting into Shabbat clothes, the tension in the air would become more palpable with every passing moment.

By the time we sat down to eat, we could hardly look into each others' faces. My wife and I sat in our special Shabbat clothes, the kids all cleaned up, with white shirts and freshly scrubbed faces, opposite my parents, sitting in their regular clothes, looking excessively uncomfortable.

We would sing Shalom Aleikhem and then Eshet Hayil while my parents, knowing no Hebrew, would sit in painful silence. Then the children would come to my wife and me for the moving traditional Shabbat parent's blessing, and we would proceed with Kiddush, HaMotzee, and the meal. All the while trying to make conversation in attempts to cover up the true feelings of discomfort.

We proceeded like this for years, always dreading the approaching of Shabbat. Then, inexplicably, everything changed.

One Shabbat, after singing the seemingly interminably long songs of Shalom Aleikhem and Eshet Hayil, I sat waiting for the children to come for their blessings. Then, utterly unplanned and unanticipated, an uncontrollable force came over me. Without any awareness of what I was doing, I rose from my chair and took several steps to where my father was sitting.

For a moment I just stood next to him, in a daze, not really understanding what I had done. He looked at me and asked what I was doing. I looked at him and said, "Dad, give me a brakhah, a blessing." Bewildered, he said, "I don't know any Hebrew."

"So say whatever you want to."

He paused, then placed both hands on my head, paused for another moment, and then whispered, "I love you, son."

At this point, the children were all asking, "Why is Grammi crying?" I walked over to my mother, and amidst her tears of joy, I bent down for her to give me her blessing.

Then I returned to my seat and gave the kids their blessings. The tensions had all disappeared. The Shabbat experience that had once separated us, the Shabbat that had once shown how different we were, had now become the Shabbat of expressing our love for each other. It had become our Shabbat, for all of us. No longer was there a break in the generations.

Now, though still completely different in our life styles, we all look forward to sharing Shabbat together. Come Thursday nights, the excitement grows as we anticipate the moment of sharing our three generations of blessings.

_________

Rabbi Aryeh Ben David (c) 2001, from Chicken Soup for the Jewish Soul by Jack Canfield, Mark Victor Hansen and Rabbi Dov Peretz Elkins.

from Internet: Chicken Soup Of The Day · Rabbi Aryeh Ben David via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database sabbathjudaism

Leaders Urge Jews To Let Go of Suspicions About Christianity

Leading Jewish scholars and rabbis are urging Jews to let go of their suspicions about Christianity and recognize church efforts to reform its teaching about Judaism. Almost 170 representatives of all four main branches of Judaism have signed the statement “Abru Emet” — “speak truth,” in Hebrew — to be published as an advertisement in major newspapers this weekend.

The document’s most controversial point is its assertion that “Nazism was not a Christian phenomenon,” reported “The New York Times.” While Nazism “could not have taken hold” without the long history of Christian anti-Judaism and violence against Jews, “Nazism itself was not an inevitable outcome of Christianity,” it says.

The statement is being released by the Institute for Christian and Jewish Studies, whose Rabbi David F. Sandmel said that while there were historical and current reasons for Jews to be wary of Christians, “the Christian world today is very different than it was 50 or 100 or 500 years ago.”

David Novak of the University of Toronto, who helped draft the statement, told the “Times” that the move had been prompted by “major rethinking” by Christians about Judaism through the years, and statements by Christians groups urging respect for Judaism. “It seems to us to behoove Jewish thinkers to respond accordingly,” he said.

from Source not recorded · (unknown) via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

Scripture Mandates Evangelism To the Jew First

Acts 13:5

Despite the controversial nature of Jewish evangelism, Scripture rings clear that Christians are under a mandate to proclaim the Gospel to Jewish persons, R. Albert Mohler Jr. told a group of Messianic Jews.

While the notion of Jewish people being saved by faith in Christ is scandalous in contemporary society, the issue of preaching the Gospel to the Jews was not controversial during biblical times, said Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

The critical question in the debate is whether Scripture is seen as the absolute standard of truth and authority, he said.

Drawing on Romans 1:16 and several passages in Acts, Mohler said Jewish evangelism is not only commanded but is a priority because the Gospel is “the power of God unto salvation for the Jew first and then the Greek.”

“In the Book of Acts and in the apostolic age and in the opening chapter of Romans, you see there is no question about the necessity of Jewish evangelism,” Mohler said. “Not only that, but there is even a priority that is indicated in the text.”

If the authority of God's Word is rejected in regard to Jewish evangelism, it also is no longer binding on issues such as homosexuality, Mohler said. In fact, Jewish evangelism, homosexuality and the authority of Scripture are the three “trip wires” facing the evangelical church, he said.

This is particularly true because the first two hinge upon acceptance or rejection of the third -- the authority of Scripture, he said, noting, “The bottom-line question is this: Will we obey or disobey the Word of God?”

The foundation of Jewish evangelism is the claim of Jesus Christ to be the Messiah in fulfillment of Israel's expectation and the Old Testament prophets, Mohler said.

“It is clear from the biblical text, in the Gospels, that Jesus is claiming to be none other than the Messiah, the promised one of Israel,” he said. “[Christ's messiahship was] established by Himself and authenticated by His words and His deeds. It is centered in His substitutionary death and was vindicated by His Father in the resurrection.”

Evangelicals have failed the Jews by failing to faithfully proclaim the Gospel to them, Mohler said. Part of the problem is a related failure by Christians to understand what is fully meant by the name “Christ,” he said, pointing out that the name is a title and an absolute claim to be the Messiah.

The current debate over Jewish evangelism is framed by a postmodern rejection of absolute truth and also a false understanding of what it means to be a Jew, said Mohler, who has debated the issue numerous times on national radio and television.

Once, a person who claimed to be a Jew was establishing himself as an adherent to Judaism. Today, Mohler said, “Jewishness” is seen merely as an ethnic designation, and evangelism of Jews is viewed as aggressive imperialism or even “ethnic genocide.”

“Judaism has been turned into a folkway, a way of life, an ethnic identity, and it is now considered impossible in a postmodern society to address Jewish people theologically,” Mohler said.

Secularists now base their distaste for Jewish evangelism on political correctness and emotional arguments, not on claims of truth, he said. Still, the Scriptures are clear in places such as Acts 2 that the Gospel is for Jews as well as all persons, he said; in Acts 2, for example, Peter preached to scores of Jews and many were saved through faith in Christ.

Even some segments of the church reject Jewish evangelism because of a false interpretation of Scripture that argues for two covenants: one for Jews and another for other persons, Mohler said, describing it as merely a fanciful interpretational device to try and skirt the issue.

Post-Vatican II Roman Catholicism teaches the two-covenant view and Pope John Paul II has declared that all monotheists -- including Muslims, Christians and all monotheistic religions -- who are sincere about their faith are saved, Mohler said.

“Sincerity is now seen as the entire ground of salvation,” he said.

The Christian tradition is also beset with a legacy of anti-semitism, Mohler acknowledged. By faithfully proclaiming the Gospel to Jews, he said, Christianity can overcome this ignoble aspect of its history.

One action Christians must avoid, Mohler said, is a decision not to preach the Gospel to Jews aimed at overcoming anti-semitism. Scripture promises that Jews will respond to the Gospel and that there will be a great ingathering of Jews into the Christian faith in the future, he said.

“The great remarkable, magnificent conversion of Israel to the Gospel is going to be that inexplicable sign in history that the world cannot possibly explain other than by the sovereignty of God,” Mohler said.

He illustrated Jewish evangelism by comparing it to a medical doctor. A person with a potentially deadly tumor would want a doctor who would give them a truthful diagnosis, not one who would, in an effort to avoid offending them, tell them that all is well.

In the same way, Christians must tell unsaved Jews and all non-Christians the truth of the eternal danger they face and steer them to salvation in Christ, Mohler said, and thus proclaiming the Gospel is a genuine display of Christian love.

“The act of Christian truth-telling, telling the truth of the Gospel to an unbeliever, Jew or gentile, is the ultimate act of Christian love,” Mohler said.

“Evangelism is not driven by imperialism. It is not driven by nationalistic objectives. It is not driven by materialistic concerns,” he said.

Rather, evangelism is “the love of one sinner saved by grace to another sinner that is compelled by a greater love -- and that is the love of that sinner for his Lord,” Mohler said. “We love our Lord and thus we obey His commandments.”

*

from Baptist Press · Jeff Robinson via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

Who's Responsible? (for Killing Jesus)

John 19:6

“It is true that during certain historical periods, some factions of the Christian church hurt and killed Jews, but it is also true that in America, Christianity has not been a threat to Jews,” observes Rabbi Daniel Lapin in his book “America's Real War.”

He goes on to write, “While acknowledging the past, let us concede that obsession with a problem can indeed lead to paranoia.”

The problem to which Rabbi Lapin refers is anti-Semitism, a reality the Jewish people have endured for countless generations. Any rational person would agree that this antagonistic attitude is not only wrong, but it is an insidious evil.

However, as Rabbi Lapin points out, obsession with the problem of anti- Semitism can result in seeing hostility where it does not exist. Such is the case with Mel Gibson's new movie, “The Passion.”

The Oscar-winning film star's movie, set for release in early 2004, seeks to portray the last 12 hours of the life of Jesus Christ with as much biblical accuracy as possible. Gibson's script is based solely on the Gospel accounts of Christ's ordeal. In an effort to be historically accurate, he even had all the dialogue translated into Aramaic and/or Latin.

Some Jewish groups, like the Anti-Defamation League, are charging Gibson with promoting anti-Semitism. According to a variety of reports, Abraham Foxman, ADL national director has said, “The film unambiguously portrays Jewish authorities and the Jewish mob as the ones responsible for the decision to crucify Jesus.”

Foxman also added, “We are deeply concerned that the film, if released in its present form, will fuel hatred, bigotry and anti-Semitism that many responsible churches have worked hard to repudiate.”

Michael Medved, who like Foxman is Jewish, disagrees with the charges of anit-Semitism being hurled at Gibson. The movie critic and radio talk host recently wrote in USA Today, “Of course, even the most responsible, well-intentioned movie treatment of the last hours of Jesus will provoke concern in the Jewish community, because so many millions of Jews have suffered and died over the centuries due to Gospel-based charges that they are 'Christ killers.’ But the fact that persecutors and bigots have distorted teachings of the New Testament for their own cruel purposes doesn't mean that those Gospel texts, sacred to all Christians, must be scrapped, revised or ignored in a serious work of cinema.”

Medved is correct. The historical reality is that Jesus Christ was Jewish. His disciples were Jewish as were his detractors. The Gospel accounts reveal that Jesus was found guilty of blasphemy by Jewish religious counsels who then persuaded the Roman official, Pilate, to put him to death because they did not possess the authority to do so themselves.

I think it is accurate to say that Jesus Christ encountered Jews who loved him, Jews who hated him and Jews who were ambivalent toward him. However, it was first-century Jewish leaders, who at the very least felt threatened by him, in concert with Roman secular officials who were responsible for Jesus' crucifixion.

Are the Jews as a race responsible for the death of Jesus Christ? Are Germans as a race responsible for the Holocaust? Are Japanese people as a race responsible for Pearl Harbor? Are Caucasian people as a race responsible for American slavery? The answer to each previous question is a resounding no!

Do narrow-minded bigots seek to blame the aforementioned for atrocities committed by members of their race? Yes. Does that mean history should be revised, sanitized and ignored? No.

>From another perspective, the Jews as a race are responsible for the death of Jesus Christ. But so is every person of every race who has ever lived. Conservative Christians believe that Jesus was crucified because of the sins of the world. More specifically and personally, my sin brought about the death sentence of Jesus Christ. I am responsible for his crucifixion.

“I am not saying there is no such thing as anti-Semitism,” Rabbi Lapin writes. “I am only urging my fellow Jews to determine in a fair-minded manner exactly what we mean when we hurl that slur -- to be intellectually honest and carefully selective when we feel we must do so.”

Let's be fair-minded and intellectually honest. If Mel Gibson's movie, The Passion, is true to the Gospel accounts, then it won't convey anti- Semitism. What it will depict is God so loving the world that He sent His only begotten Son -- to die on the cross -- so whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.

*

The Passion Gap: How Christians and Jews Misunderstand Each Other

Mark 14:65

Mel Gibson’s THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST is reminding me more each day of the O.J. Simpson trial. Back then, white and black friends I deeply respected talked past each other, utterly unable to understand each other's viewpoints. The lenses through which most blacks and whites saw the trial were so very different that interracial conversations, even among friends, became difficult.

I fear something similar is happening with The Passion. Most of my Jewish friends have had violently different reactions from many of my Christian friends. Many Jews profess no interest in seeing the film at all. And on the message boards of Beliefnet, I see a widespread sense that the other faith simply “doesn’t get it.”

Perhaps we can improve this dynamic if we take stock of the differing world views involved.

What Jews tend not to understand about the Christian response:

1) Christ's suffering is important

Many Jews (and some Christians) have criticized the movie on the grounds that the violence is gratuitous, unspiritual, and misses the point of Christianity. “He virtually ignores the entire life of Jesus, preferring instead to tell us that what made Jesus special was not that he lived righteously and meekly, but that he died bloodily,” Rabbi Shmuley Boteach writes.

What Jews fail to realize is that for many Christians the death -- and the suffering -- is as important as the life of Christ. Christians believe that Jesus died so that sin wouldn’t destine humanity to hell. Three postings from Beliefnet members capture just how powerful that message is:

“Every time he was hit and beaten and spit upon, I flinched because I knew it should have been me those things were happening to but he took my place.”

-- ToGodThruJesus [these are internet names]

“I walked out of the theater with a tear-streaked face, a broken heart and a renewed purpose: to make sure that I do not let the blood that was shed for me be in vain.”

-- anointed prophetess

“Life has me down. I won’t go into details. We all have our ‘crosses’ to bear’. But that is just it. I do not truly bear a cross. Christ did that. For me.”

-- Dharmadel

The movie's violence brings many Christians into Jesus' world and helps show just how much he had to give up in order to give us the gift. In that sense, the violence is extremely spiritual.

2) Most of this really is in the Bible

Gibson certainly inflamed the situation by adding all sorts of new material, but the core elements of the movie -- including the parts that have been used against Jews in the past -- are, indeed, in the Bible. According to the Gospels:

• Caiaphas and the other Jewish priests did plot to kill Jesus.

• Pilate was, in fact, reluctant to crucify Jesus.

• The priests did strike Jesus. (Mark 14:65)

• The crowd did cry “crucify him!”

It is quite possible that much of what’s in the Bible is not historically accurate but Jews need to understand that when they say that this basic plotline is anti-Semitic they are saying the New Testament itself is anti-Semitic and hateful.

3) Most Christians don’t even entertain the question of blame

Most Christians believe that Jesus went to his death willingly, so the identity of the killers is utterly irrelevant. Jews are sensitive to being blamed because they have been, but they also need to realize that most modern American Christians view that as a peculiar sideshow. By expressing so much anxiety about being blamed, Jews give the impression that they think anti-Semitism is pervasive and always ready to explode.

Most Christians view Hitler and others who twisted Christianity to justify hatred as diabolical. As one Beliefnet member put it, “I find it frustrating to be told that my perceptions (and that of all us Christians who read this story every year in church) are no different from a deranged dictator or someone from the Middle Ages.”

Christians need to be able to love the movie without feeling that Jews will therefore view them as anti-Semitic.

4) Christians feel persecuted

This may be the hardest one of all for Jews to understand. How can the majority religion in a religiously free country feel persecuted just because people are raising questions about this movie? But any given individual Christian may feel like his or her personal relationship with Jesus -- that which gives them hope and strength -- is being challenged. When Jews criticize the movie, they need to realize that, unless carefully worded, their complaints will feel like not merely theological disputes but personal insults and attacks.

============================================

What most Christians tend to not understand about the Jewish reaction:

1) Mel Gibson is terrifying

Christians need to understand just how scary a person Mel Gibson is to Jews. The comments from his father Hutton Gibson don’t represent ordinary country-club anti-Semitism but David Duke, neo-Nazi anti-Semitism. Of the Holocaust, Hutton Gibson said, “It’s all -- maybe not all fiction -- but most of it is.” The Jews, he said, “weren’t killed, they simply got up and left! They were all over the Bronx and Brooklyn and Sydney and Los Angeles. They have to ... go where's there's money.” While no one expects the son to repudiate the father, it’s terrifying to many Jews that one of Gibson’s defenses of his dad was that “My father has never told me a lie.”

Gibson’s own comments have not been terribly reassuring. “Yes, of course. Atrocities happened. War is horrible. The Second World War killed tens of millions of people.” This “s--t happens” view makes Jews feel like Gibson still doesn’t get it.

Worse, Gibson seems to be actively inflaming matters by casting his critics as opponents of Christianity. Before the movie opened, Gibson said, “There is vehement anti-Christian sentiment out there, and they don't want it. It's vicious.” On Jay Leno he said he would try to forgive even “those who persecute you,” and said he was being “picked on.” That he would choose to cast criticism of his movie as “anti-Christian” is terrifying to Jews, who view that as a first step toward demonizing them.

2) This is not ancient history

Bill Donohue, the respected head of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, has said, “Those who are sounding the alarms over anti-Semitic violence are historically ignorant: the last time Jews were assaulted after the production of a Passion Play was in the Middle Ages.” A number of posts on Beliefnet’s message boards encouraged Jews to stop “whining” since the horrible misuse of Passion plays happened in the distant past.

But there are enough directly relevant examples of far more recent anti-Semitism to make Jews worry. “One of our most important tasks will be to save future generations from a similar political fate and to remain forever watchful in the knowledge of the menace of Jewry,” said Adolph Hitler on July 5, 1942. “For this reason alone it is vital that the Passion Play be continued at Oberammergau; for never has the menace of Jewry been so convincingly portrayed as in this presentation of what happened in the times of the Romans.”

Beliefnet member Shira writes, “My father could not go near a Catholic school around Easter because he knew he was going to get beaten up.” It wasn’t until 1965 that the Catholic Church officially declared that the entire Jewish people were not guilty of deicide. Moreover, anti-Semitism is right now on the rise in Europe and the Mideast.

Though the Passion has so far not led to violence or even widespread negative commentary against Jews, there’s been enough to make Jews nervous. A church sign went up soon after the opening saying “The Jews killed Christ. Settled.” Relatively few posts on Beliefnet have been anti-Semitic but the exceptions are chilling:

“The past cannot be changed, so those crying foul should deal with it and keep their accusations to themselves. Could it simply be because Hollywood is primarily Jewish controlled that these anti-Semitic cries are being heard?” Or, “Let’s give up the anti-Jew kick. The whole world is done with that. It has been shoved down our throats long enough.”

3) Christian support of Israel is irrelevant

On July 24, after seeing a screening of the film, the Rev. Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, commented: “There is a great deal of pressure on Israel right now, and Christians seem to be a major source of support for Israel. For the Jewish leaders to risk alienating 2 billion Christians over a movie seems shortsighted.” One Beliefnet member gently reassured Jews that Christians would not turn on Jews because “born again Christians are the best friend Israel and the Jew has.”

Obviously, supporting Israel does not give anyone a free pass to tolerate anti-Semitism in other realms. Besides, while most Jews delight in and appreciate Christian support for Israel they are also quite aware of their mixed motives. (Many evangelicals support Israel because they believe the nation is a necessary precondition for the apocalypse and the Second Coming of Jesus.)

The Passion has already exposed some deep, closeted misunderstandings between some Christians and Jews. Whether the movie will become a positive or negative force will depend largely on whether we keep talking past each other or attempt to actually see the film through the eyes of the other.

*

Gentiles Enriched By Fall of Israel

Romans 11:12

“Now if their fall [is] riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness! For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if by any means I may provoke to jealousy [those who are] my flesh and save some of them.” (Romans 11:12-14 NKJV)

Gentiles enriched by fall of Israel

• fall — apostasy

• be[is]…world — Isa 59:20, 60:3-5, 66:10-12, Mic 4:2 — be the occasion of unsearchable riches of Christ being preached to the world

• diminishing[failure] — the reduction of the faithful to a mere remnant

• fulness? — Zech 2:10-11, 8:7-8, 13, 22-23 — how much more their restoration? — “Whole body of nation, both as preachers and living witnesses of the truth of revelation” (Doddridge). “Full reception” (Stuart). “Restoration to the state in which they can again fulfil their destiny” (Kollner)

• Apostle…Gentiles — Acts 9:15, 22:21, Gal 1:15-16, 2:8 — though speaking much and often of the Jews, he does not forget his special commission

• magnify…office[ministry] — although a Jew, I glory in being a preacher to the Gentiles — “I omit nothing that may ennoble it” (Bengel). “Assert its dignity” (D. Brown) — Eph 3:8

• if by any, etc. — Heb 10:24 — his love to the Jews makes him the more zealous among the heathen

Necessaries to the ministerial office — Dr R. McAll

To be prepared for this office, we must–

I. Seek to possess ourselves with the most just and influential apprehensions of its nature and its high designs.

II. Cherish a devout persuasion of its efficacy.

III. Endeavour to imbibe and visibly to cultivate the spirit appropriate to its discharge.

IV. Give to its fulfilment the unreserved and constant dedication of our highest powers. This must appear under the form of–

1. Preparation;

2. Public labour;

3. Private assiduity.

V. Continue in the course thus described:

1. With patient perseverance and watchfulness, even to the end.

2. With a meek endurance of every trial and privation to which it may expose us;

3. With a cheerful making of every sacrifice necessary to its fulfilment;

4. Cultivate habitual and solemn anticipations of its issues.

Musical genius of the Jews — Who composed “II Barbière?” Rossini — a Jew! Who is there that admires not the heart-stirring music of the “Huguenots” and the “Prophète?” The composer is Meyerbeer — a Jew! Who has not been spell-bound by “Die Judin,” by Halevy — a Jew? Who has not been enchanted with the beautiful fictions of lyric poetry, and charmed with the graceful melodies, so to speak, of one of Israel’s sweetest singers, Heine — a Jew? Who has not listened with breathless ecstasy to the music of the “Midsummer Night’s Dream,” “Elijah,” “Paul,” and “Stephen?” Do you ask who created those wondrous harmonies? Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy, who also was a Jew! — Bentley

The Jews, an amazing race:

Amazing race! deprived of land and laws,

A general language, and a public cause;

With a religion none can now obey,

With a reproach that none can take away

A people still, whose common ties are gone;

Who, mixed with every race, are lost in none. — G. Crabbe

“It is better to be the credit of a mean post, than the shame of a high one.” — Leisure Hour

“It is said of Epaminondas that, when he was appointed by the opposite faction to some menial office at Thebes, he said, ‘It is the man that dignifies the office, not the office the man.’” — J. Lee

from The Biblical Museum (1883) - A Compendium of Quotations and Illustrations · James Comper Gray, Editor via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

A Newsmagazine, Mel Gibson & the Bible

John 10:11

Newsweek magazine has launched a frontal attack upon Mel Gibson's movie, “The Passion of The Christ,” but the real target of the magazine's article is the truthfulness of the Bible itself. In “Who Really Killed Jesus?: What History Teaches Us,” Newsweek's Feb. 16, 2004, cover story, writer Jon Meacham labels Gibson's movie “controversial,” “powerful” and “troubling.” More seriously, Meacham blasts the movie as anti-Semitic and potentially dangerous. Newsweek raises the specter of a new wave of anti-Semitism spreading across the world, directly due to the influence of Gibson's film.

The movie is to be released Feb. 25, Ash Wednesday. According to Meacham, the movie “is already provoking a pitched battle between those who think the film unfairly blames the Jewish people for Jesus' death and those who are instead focused on Gibson's emotional depiction of Jesus' torment.” Meacham concedes that Gibson “obviously reveres the Christ of faith” and then criticizes Gibson for “a literal-minded rendering of the most dramatic passages scattered throughout the four Gospels.”

Why would Meacham be surprised that Gibson turned to the Bible as the historical source for his movie? According to Newsweek, the Bible is simply not to be trusted. Mincing no words, Meacham describes the Bible as “a problematic source.” In his words: “Though countless believers take it as the immutable word of God, Scripture is not always a faithful record of historical events; the Bible is the product of human authors who were writing at particular times and places with particular points to make and visions to advance.”

Making this argument, Meacham reflects the trend of liberal biblical scholarship over the last half century. In the wake of the Holocaust and with the rise of modern sensitivities, liberal biblical critics have sought to distance themselves from the clear teachings of the Gospels. Furthermore, they have increasingly lambasted the Gospels as unreliable, anti-Semitic and largely fictional accounts intended to justify the early church's separation from Judaism.

Beyond this, such scholars argue that the Gospels have themselves fueled anti- Semitism throughout European history and that a literal presentation of the biblical material is inherently dangerous.

In the magazine's opening pages, editor Mark Whitaker justifies the cover story by claiming that Gibson's The Passion of The Christ raises “disturbing questions” about who killed Christ. Pressing his point, Whitaker argues that Gibson blames the Jews of Jerusalem, rather than the Roman leadership, for the death of Christ. In Whitaker's words, “we thought it was worth a clear-eyed review of the evidence.”

Unfortunately, Newsweek offered anything but a “clear-eyed review of the evidence.” Instead, the magazine took the opportunity to continue the slander of anti-Semitism against the Gospels and to fuel the very passions the magazine condemned.

Whitaker remarked that he had chosen managing editor Meacham to write this article because he is “an observant Episcopalian” who studied biblical history at the University of the South in Sewanee, Tenn., and “has remained a close follower of religious scholarship.”

Meacham may be a follower of religious scholarship, but his interest seems directed only at scholarship of a liberal bent. Whitaker stated that Meacham “dusted off his old textbooks and spoke to Christian and Jewish leaders and experts” in the development of his story. It is too bad he did not consult more conservative sources.

Leaving no room for doubt, Whitaker judges Gibson and the Gospels guilty of anti-Semitism. In his words, “Gibson based his highly emotional and violent account on literal readings of New Testament passages that have been most often used to imply Jewish culpability.”

In the actual cover story, Meacham blames the “errors” of Gibson's movie on the filmmaker's reliance on the Gospel materials. According to Meacham, “the roots of Christian anti-Semitism lie in overly literal readings -- which are, in fact, misreadings -- of many New Testament texts.”

Of course, Meacham presumes not only to judge the trustworthiness of the Gospel accounts, but also to be an expert in what would be a legitimate reading or misreading of the biblical text. In so doing, he advances the liberal argument that the only way to “read” the biblical text is to subvert its apparent meaning.

Without doubt, Gibson has based his movie on the New Testament accounts. He drew his narrative largely from the Gospels of John and Mark, though passages from Matthew and Luke also appear. The movie is a graphic account of the crucifixion and suffering of Christ, and the violence of the movie -- true to the biblical accounts -- has earned the film an “R” rating. Nevertheless, Meacham judges that Gibson's literal reading of the Gospel accounts will “give most audiences a misleading picture of what probably happened in those epochal hours so long ago.” Nevertheless, in order to make this judgment, Meacham must assume that historical sources apart from the Bible -- sparse as they are -- are more reliable than the Bible itself. Actually, Meacham bases most of his argument on speculative readings of the biblical texts and efforts by modern liberal historians to reconstruct the historical and religious context of first-century Judaism -- not even on actual historical texts.

Just in case we might misunderstand his view of the Bible, Meacham offers an extended explanation of his view of biblical inspiration. According to Meacham, “The Bible did not descend from heaven fully formed and edged in gilt. The writers of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John shaped their narratives several decades after Jesus' death to attract converts and make their young religion -- understood by many Christians to be a faction of Judaism -- attractive to as broad an audience as possible.” Of course, no one believes that the Bible descended from heaven complete with leather covers, but Christians have historically believed that the actual words of the Bible were directly inspired by God through the Holy Spirit. Meacham sees a political agenda behind the biblical text. Biblical Christians, however, understand the Bible to be the very Word of God, and thus our responsibility in interpretation is to understand the text -- not to correct it.

Given his view of the Bible, Meacham's view of Gibson's movie is quite understandable. He acknowledges the power of Gibson's film, even as he condescendingly explains that “in the New Testament, the implication is that the world is in the grip of evil, and Jesus has come to deliver us from the powers of darkness through his death and resurrection -- an upheaval of the very order of things.”

What about Christ? Meacham asserts that the titles “Son of God” and “Son of Man” were commonly used in the first century in reference to religious leaders. This contentious point misses the larger truth that the New Testament Gospels reveal Jesus claiming these titles for Himself, combining in His life and ministry the messianic expectation of the Old Testament and His identity as the very Son of God in human flesh.

Meacham does make some important historical arguments, but he weaves back and forth between criticism of the biblical text and an unsubstantiated argument from secular historical sources.

One controversial scene in the movie, in which a Jewish mob cries out, “His blood be on us and on our children!” ultimately cut from the film, prompted Meacham to allege that the source of the dialogue (the Gospel of Matthew) was “a partisan Gospel writer.”

As Meacham continued, “The Gospels were composed to present Jesus in the best possible light to potential converts in the Roman Empire -- and to put the Temple leadership in the worst possible light.”

Further, Meacham claims that “many scholars believe that the author of Matthew, which is the only Gospel to include the 'His blood be on us' line, was writing after the destruction of the Temple in [A.D.] 70 and inserted the words to help explain why such misery had come upon the people of Jerusalem. According to this argument, blood had already fallen on them and on their children.”

Here Meacham's subversion of the biblical text is most apparent. He projects the authorship of the Gospel of Matthew at least a generation after the crucifixion itself and attributes the shape and substance of the Gospel to an anonymous author's intention to push a political agenda and to explain the destruction of the Temple.

Gibson is a traditionalist Roman Catholic, and Meacham chides him for failing to take his filmmaking instructions from the Vatican. In the aftermath of Vatican II, the Catholic Church adopted guidelines that suggest how the passion narrative should be presented in any dramatic format. According to the Vatican's guidelines, “to attempt to utilize the four passion narratives literally by picking one passage from one Gospel and the next from another Gospel, and so forth, is to risk violating the integrity of the text themselves.” The guidelines also suggest avoiding the use of large Jewish crowds and any depiction of a Sanhedrin trial.

This is an example of political correctness infecting the Roman curia. As represented by these guidelines, the Gospels must be sanitized in order to be presented safely. The Sanhedrin trial, for example, is crucial to the passion narrative.

At the bottom of all of this lies antipathy toward the Christian Gospel, the four New Testament Gospels and the “scandal of particularity” that lies at the core of the Christian faith. The New Testament is very clear in presenting the death of Christ not as a tragedy of world history, but rather as the accomplishment of God's saving purpose.

The question, “Who killed Jesus?” should direct us to the historical reality, clearly presented in the Gospels, that complicity between the Jewish leaders and Roman authorities led to Christ's crucifixion. But the larger point -- and the essential theological point -- is that Christ died for our sins. Thus, the correct answer to the question, “Who killed Jesus?” is -- we did. Christ died for sinners. That is the central theme of the New Testament Gospel and it is the essential answer Christians must give not only in the face of this controversy, but as the essence of our Christian witness.

The death of Christ was not a tragedy that befell Him. As Christ declared, “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep” (John 10:11). Further, “No one takes it from me, but I lay it down at my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father” (John 10:18).

The cross does not represent defeat, but victory. Jesus Christ did not have his life taken from Him -- He gave it willingly for sinners. His death was not the end of his ministry, but its fulfillment. Christ willingly suffered and died in the place of sinners -- and God raised Him from the dead as the vindication of His earthly ministry.

Regrettably, Newsweek decided to use this release of Mel Gibson's The Passion of The Christ to level its attack upon the New Testament. The controversy over the movie will produce many opportunities for truth-telling in the midst of the confusion. It's up to us to tell the rest of the story.

*

from Baptist Press · Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr., President of Southern Baptist Seminary via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database crosscontroversy

More Harm Than Good

As Mel Gibson's “The Passion of The Christ” heads toward screens nationwide, online ticket merchants are reporting that up to half their total sales are for advance purchases for The Passion. One Dallas multiplex has reserved all 20 of its screens for The Passion. I am neither a prophet nor a movie critic. I am merely an Orthodox rabbi using ancient Jewish wisdom to make three predictions about The Passion.

One, Mel Gibson and Icon Productions will make a great deal of money. Those distributors who surrendered to pressure from Jewish organizations and passed on The Passion will be kicking themselves, while Newmarket Films will laugh all the way to the bank. Theater owners are going to love this film.

Two, The Passion will become famous as the most serious and substantive biblical movie ever made. It will be one of the most talked-about entertainment events in history; it already has been on the cover of Newsweek and Vanity Fair.

My third prediction is that the faith of millions of Christians will become more fervent as The Passion uplifts and inspires them. It will propel vast numbers of unreligious Americans to embrace Christianity. The movie will one day be seen as a harbinger of America's third great religious reawakening.

Those Jewish organizations that have squandered both time and money futilely protesting The Passion, ostensibly in order to prevent pogroms in Pittsburgh, can hardly be proud of their performance. They failed at everything they attempted. They were hoping to ruin Gibson rather than enrich him. They were hoping to suppress The Passion rather than promote it. Finally, they were hoping to help Jews rather than harm them.

Here I digress slightly to exercise the Jewish value of “giving the benefit of the doubt” by discounting cynical suggestions growing in popularity that the very public nature of their attack on Gibson exposed their real purpose -- fundraising. Apparently, frightening wealthy widows in Florida about anti- Semitic thugs prowling the streets of America causes them to open their pocketbooks and refill the coffers of groups with little other raison d'etre. But let's assume they were hoping to help Jews.

However, instead of helping the Jewish community, they have inflicted lasting harm. By selectively unleashing their fury only on wholesome entertainment that depicts Christianity in a positive light, they have triggered anger, hurt and resentment. Hosting the “Toward Tradition Radio Show” and speaking before many audiences nationwide, I enjoy extensive communication with Christian America and what I hear is troubling. Fearful of attracting the ire of Jewish groups that are so quick to hurl the “anti-Semite” epithet, some Christians are reluctant to speak out. Although one can bludgeon resentful people into silence, behind closed doors emotions continue to simmer.

I consider it crucially important for Christians to know that not all Jews are in agreement with their self-appointed spokesmen. Most American Jews, experiencing warm and gracious interactions each day with their Christian fellow-citizens, would feel awkward trying to explain why so many Jewish organizations seem focused on an agenda hostile to Judeo-Christian values. Many individual Jews have shared with me their embarrassment that groups, ostensibly representing them, attack The Passion but are silent about depraved entertainment that encourages killing cops and brutalizing women. Citing artistic freedom, Jewish groups helped protect sacrilegious exhibits such as the anti-Christian feces extravaganza presented by the Brooklyn Museum four years ago. One can hardly blame Christians for assuming that Jews feel artistic freedom is important only when exercised by those hostile toward Christianity. However, this is not how all Jews feel.

>From audiences around America, I am encountering bitterness at Jewish organizations insisting that belief in the New Testament is de facto evidence of anti-Semitism. Christians heard Jewish leaders denouncing Gibson for making a movie that follows Gospel accounts of the crucifixion long before any of them had even seen the movie. Furthermore, Christians are hurt that Jewish groups are presuming to teach them what Christian Scripture “really means.” Listen to a rabbi whom I debated on the Fox television show hosted by Bill O'Reilly last September. This is what he said, “We have a responsibility as Jews, as thinking Jews, as people of theology, to respond to our Christian brothers and to engage them, be it Protestants, be it Catholics, and say, look, this is not your history, this is not your theology, this does not represent what you believe in.”

He happens to be a respected rabbi and a good one, but he too has bought into the preposterous proposition that Jews will re-educate Christians about Christian theology and history. Is it any wonder that this breathtaking arrogance spurs bitterness?

Many Christians who, with good reason, have considered themselves to be Jews' best (and perhaps only) friends also feel bitter at Jews believing that The Passion is revealing startling new information about the crucifixion. They are incredulous at Jews thinking that exposure to the Gospels in visual form will instantly transform the most philo-Semitic gentiles of history into snarling, Jew-hating predators.

Christians are baffled by Jews who don't understand that President George Washington, who knew and revered every word of the Gospels, was still able to write that oft-quoted beautiful letter to the Touro Synagogue in Newport offering friendship and full participation in America to the Jewish community.

One of the directors of the American Jewish Committee recently warned that The Passion “could undermine the sense of community between Christians and Jews that's going on in this country. We're not allowing the film to do that.” No sir, it isn't the film that threatens the sense of community; it is the arrogant and intemperate response of Jewish organizations that does so.

Jewish organizations, hoping to help but failing so spectacularly, refute all myths of Jewish intelligence. How could their plans have been so misguided and the execution so inept?

Ancient Jewish wisdom teaches that nothing confuses one's thinking more than being in the grip of the two powerful emotions, love and hate. The actions of these Jewish organizations sadly suggest that they are in the grip of a hatred for Christianity that is only harming Jews.

Today, peril threatens all Americans, both Jews and Christians. Many of the men and women in the front lines find great support in their Christian faith. It is strange that Jewish organizations, purporting to protect Jews, think that insulting allies is the preferred way to carry out that mandate.

A ferocious Rottweiler dog in your suburban home will quickly estrange your family from the neighborhood. For those of us in the Jewish community who cherish friendship with our neighbors, some Jewish organizations have become our Rottweilers. God help us.

*

from Baptist Press · Rabbi Daniel Lapin via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

Christ's Passion and the Talmud

The ancient rabbinic text is clear about the punishment for those who twisted sacred law and misled the people of Israel.

Offenders would be stoned and then hung by their hands from two pieces of wood connected to form a “T.” The Talmud once included this example from the Sanhedrin:

"On the eve of Passover they hung Jesus of Nazareth,” said the

passage, which was censored in the 16th century to evade the

wrath of Christians. “The herald went out before him for 40 days

saying, 'Jesus goes forth to be stoned, because he has practiced

magic, enticed and led astray Israel. Anyone who knows anything

in his favor, let him come and declare concerning him.’ And they

found nothing in his favor."

If armies of Jewish and Christian scholars insist on arguing about Mel Gibson's explosive movie “The Passion of The Christ,” it would help if they were candid and started dealing with the hard passages in Jewish texts as well as the Christian scriptures.

At least, that's what David Klinghoffer thinks.

The Orthodox Jewish writer -- whose forthcoming book is titled “Why the Jews Rejected Christ” -- believes these lines from the Talmud are as troubling as any included in the Christian Gospels. They are as disturbing as any image Gibson might include in his controversial epic.

The Talmudic text seems clear. Jesus clashed with Jewish leaders, debating them on the meaning of their laws. They hated him. Many wanted him dead.

It is possible, Klinghoffer said, to interpret these documents as saying that Jesus' fate rested entirely with the Jewish court. The use of language such as “enticed and led astray” indicated that Jesus may have been charged with leading His fellow Jews to worship false gods.

There are more details in this confusing drama. Writing in 12th-century Egypt, the great Jewish sage Maimonides summed up the ancient texts.

“Jesus of Nazareth,” he proclaims, in his Letter to Yemen, “... impelled people to believe that he was a prophet sent by God to clarify perplexities in the Torah, and that he was the Messiah that was predicted by each and every seer. He interpreted the Torah and its precepts in such a fashion as to lead to their total annulment, to the abolition of all its commandments and to the violation of its prohibitions.

“The sages, of blessed memory, having become aware of his plans before his reputation spread among our people, meted out fitting punishment to him.”

Is that it? What role did the Romans play? In terms of historic fact, Klinghoffer emphasized, it's almost impossible to find definitive answers for such questions. But the purpose of the Jewish oral traditions that led to the Talmud was to convey religious belief, not necessarily historical facts.

“If you really must ask, 'Who is responsible for the death of Jesus?’ then you can only conclude that both the Gospels and the Talmud agree that the Jewish leaders did not have the power to execute Him,” Klinghoffer said.

“Did they influence the event? The religious texts suggest that they did, the historic texts suggest that they did not. It's hard to know. ... But if Gibson is an anti-Semite, then to be consistent you would have to say that so was Maimonides.”

Obviously, Klinghoffer is not spreading this information in order to fan the flames of hatred. His goal, he said, is to provoke Jewish leaders in cities such as New York and Los Angeles to strive harder to understand the views of traditional Protestants and Catholics. And it's time for liberal Christians to spend as much time talking with Orthodox Jews as with liberal Jews.

It's time for everyone to be more honest, he said.

“I don't see anything that is to be gained for Judaism by going out of our way to antagonize a Mel Gibson or to antagonize as many traditional Christians as we possibly can. I think we have been yelling 'Fire!’ in a crowded theater,” Klinghoffer said.

“To put it another way, I don't think it's very wise for a few Jewish leaders to try to tell millions of Christians what they are supposed to believe. Would we want some Christians to try to edit our scriptures and to tell us what we should believe?”

*

Rabbinic Bias Obscures Messianic Message of Old Testament

Luke 24:27

While most Christians believe that some Old Testament writers predicted the coming of Jesus Christ, one Bible scholar says few people realize that Messianic passages in the Hebrew Bible are far more numerous than today's popular translations of the Bible reveal.

Messianic hope is “a clear and shining light throughout the Hebrew Bible,” Michael Rydelnick, professor of Jewish studies at Moody Bible Institute in Chicago, told the Southern Baptist Messianic Fellowship during a June 18 meeting at the Renaissance Nashville Hotel. But it has been diffused by a prism of scholarship bent on excising elements that point to Christ, Rydelnick noted.

Just as today there are many versions of the Christian Bible -- each choosing different words to translate the Scripture for diverse audiences -- there were different versions of the Hebrew Bible in the three centuries before Christ, Rydelnick said. However, when Protestant reformers turned away from the Latin Bible of the Roman Catholic Church to re-translate the Old Testament, Rydelnick noted that they accepted a version of the Hebrew Bible that had been influenced for centuries by rabbis who wanted to obscure the Messianic message in the Scripture.

Those promises of the Messiah were what brought him to personal faith in Christ, Rydelnick said.

“It was the Messianic prophecies of the Hebrew Bible that convinced me that Yeshua [Jesus] was indeed the Messiah,” he told the Messianic fellowship. “But there are some Bible teachers at evangelical Christian schools today who will tell you there is no Messianic hope in the Old Testament. They will tell you that most of the passages are about David and that they were fulfilled in an historical context without reference to Yeshua.”

In fact, centuries ago when the Hebrew scriptures were being consolidated, Jewish scholars agreed they would only include a book in their canon if it carried a theme of Messianic hope, Rydelnick said. In the Middle Ages, however, when Jews were being pressured to convert to Christianity, Jewish scholars began to emphasize King David as the fulfillment of prophecy. The Protestant reformers -- and subsequent generations of Christian scholars -- based their work on Hebrew texts and commentaries that reflected a bias against Christ, Rydelnick said.

For example, Rydelnick noted that in many translations the prophecy recorded in Numbers 24:7 is about a king who will be “higher than Agag,” an Amelakite king from the time of King Saul and the prophet Samuel -- a prophecy that could have been fulfilled by David. In other versions of the Hebrew Bible, however, the word “Agag” is “Gog,” the end-times enemy of the returning Christ (Revelation 20:8) - a prophecy David could not fulfill, Rydelnick said.

Not only does that cast the entire passage in a new light, but it also reveals a Messianic thread in other passages that share similar language, Rydelnick said.

For example, Numbers 24:9 picks up a phrase - “couches like a lion” - from another passage Moses wrote, Genesis 49:8-12, in which he prophesies that tribal identity (“the scepter”) and judicial authority (“the ruler's staff”) will remain with Judah, the tribe of David, “until Shiloh comes.” On the surface, that doesn't seem to have a clear Messianic meaning, Rydelnick said, until you see that “Shiloh” is a contraction of Hebrew words that mean “to whom it rightfully belongs.” Suddenly, the passage in Genesis is seen to be a prophecy that was fulfilled in Jesus' era, when Rome assumed judicial power over Israel (7 A.D.) and the Temple was destroyed (70 A.D.).

Christian Bible teachers who believe the Old Testament says little about the Messiah need to listen to the voice of Jesus in Luke 24, where He said that only the foolish and faithless fail to see what “the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms” taught about Him, Rydelnick said.

“When you read your Hebrew Bible, pay attention to the variant readings noted in the text,” Rydelnick told the audience. “Because the teachings of the rabbis are embedded in the Masoretic text on which many translations are based, and the Masoretic text obscures the Messianic hope.

“The Hebrew Bible should be read without the prism of rabbinic interpretation,” Rydelnick said, “so the true, simple meaning of the Scripture can be seen. And that simple meaning points to the death, resurrection and exaltation of the Messiah.”

*

from Baptist Press · Mark Kelly via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database

God's Plan For Israel

Romans 11:25

Sermon in Romans series, #14. Romans 11:25-29

GOD'S PLAN FOR ISRAEL

=====================

I. Where's the proof?

A. Jews are a miracle of history.

B. God's plan has been hard.

II. Four theories on God's plan for Jews.

A. Replacement theology - Church takes over, Israel is obsolete.

B. Dispensationalism - Israel has a short role in future.

C. Two covenant - Both are separate tracts to heaven.

D. One covenant - God is bringing both groups together.

III. Paul's points.

A. God has not rejected the Jews. 11:1

B. The situation promotes Gentile evangelism. 11:11

C. Final fulfillment is the conversion of Israel. 11:26

IV. When will it happen?

A. There have always been a few Jewish converts.

B. But the final revival is tied to the Second Coming.

V. Have you looked on him?

from Condensed sermon outline (handout) by Rev. David Holwick · Rev. David Holwick, Serm05zc.pco via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database prophecyjews

Supercessionism In the Comics

Romans 11

On a Sunday I was preaching on Romans 11 and the place of Judaism in God’s plan, I glanced at the newspaper before heading to church. The Newark Star-Ledger had an article on why they were dropping some popular comics (sure to be controversial!) Garfield, Cathy, and others would be dropped. [My church moaned when I said this.] The article gave the reasons, such as stale humor, or lack of uniqueness.

None were dropped for being controversial, but in the past, one was - the comic “B.C.” by Johnny Hart. Every Easter Hart, who is born again, did one with a Christian theme. This particular Easter showed the tomb of Christ in the beginning of the strip, and an extinguished menorah (Jewish candelabra) at the end. The Jewish readers were incensed and the strip was dropped for good.

That comic strip was illustrating “replacement theology” or “supercessionism,” the idea that the Church has replaced Israel in God’s plan.

*

from Star Ledger Newspaper, Newark, New Jersey via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database jews

With God As Their Witness

John 5:23

From Armageddon to Mount Sinai, Western travelers confront the spiritual beliefs that divide them from the Muslim world, and one another.

_________________________

In the cold 2 a.m. darkness of the Egyptian desert, heading up the craggy face of Mount Sinai, my large gray camel edged perilously close to a cliff, and I could see that it was a long drop to the rocks below. I was disoriented and a bit frightened by the jarring strides of this strange beast, which seemed jumpy and skittish because he was being occasionally whipped and yelled at by a Bedouin handler trailing our group. I really wanted off, but there was no turning back. Climbing higher for more than an hour, which seemed to take forever, we finally stopped and dismounted.

We then had to continue on foot on an even steeper, rockier climb that would take two more hours. It was exhausting, and surprisingly chilly for the desert. We were ascending to nearly 7,500 feet, and the air was thin. The winding path was packed with thousands of smoothed stones that had been laid down over the centuries by hermitic desert monks. The path seemed endless, particularly in the hazy moonlight, as we strived to reach the summit by sunrise. As I climbed, my legs were intermittently cramping, my breathing became labored, and my chest at times was pounding beyond my level of comfort. I had to stop, catch my breath, drink some water and rest a few minutes, maybe eight or 10 times. I am 55 years old, and, while I am in reasonable shape, it occurred to me that I could easily have a heart attack.

Perhaps it was because our group had already traveled to many holy sites in the Middle East, but I found myself uncharacteristically saying a prayer. Not a conventional prayer asking God to deliver me safely to the mountaintop; rather, it was a prayer acknowledging how small and humbled I felt -- how very easy it would be for me to make a single misstep and hurt myself horribly, or worse, simply die, just like that. There was something strangely liberating in admitting this, and so I rested and climbed, and rested and climbed. On this fabled mountain, as in life, one small step at a time. By 5 a.m., we were nearing the peak of Sinai or Jebel Musa, Arabic for “Mountain of Moses,” believed to be the site where God, in a fiery appearance, delivered the Ten Commandments to the Jewish liberator.

At last, we were at the summit, along with hundreds of pilgrims from around the world who covered much of the mountaintop. Many were wrapped in blankets because they'd spent the night on Sinai, and they were speaking in many languages as we all awaited sunrise. Our group of 22 men and women gathered close together against the chill. We were an unusual collection: There were 14 Protestant seminarians whose upbringing and training encompassed much of Christianity -- Baptist, Southern Baptist, United Methodist, Episcopal, African Methodist Episcopal, Presbyterian, Christian Church, Church of Christ, United Church of Christ, Nazarene, Wesleyan, Quaker and nondenominational. Accompanying them were six older lay people, including me. Then there was our tribal elder and leader, Max Miller, a 68-year-old biblical historian from Mississippi, who identifies himself as a “theist, with a vague sense of the divine.” And there was our graceful, mountain-climbing Egyptian guide, a 28-year-old Muslim named Mohammed Shami.

We were exhausted but exhilarated as we huddled close. We were here thanks largely to the generosity of three Atlanta-based foundations that over 25 years have sent more than 600 future Protestant ministers and religious leaders on an intensive three-week study tour of the Holy Land called the Middle East Travel Seminar. METS is designed to give participants a deeper understanding of the Bible, but mostly to broaden their perspective of the peoples and beliefs outside of their own faiths. By now, after two weeks of traveling together, we made the pleasant small talk of people who become fast friends by living out of suitcases, sharing every meal, trading life stories and having spirited religious and political discussions. Our journey would span 24 days, about 15,000 miles, six countries and dozens of sites that are holy to the three major monotheistic religions -- Christianity, Islam and Judaism.

By 5:30 a.m., the very first hint of pinkish light was beginning to suggest itself over the jagged peaks of the Sinai wilderness. We were eager for the majesty of sunrise on Sinai. But we were also freezing. “Where's the burning bush when you really need it?” said Manikka Bowman, a 26-year-old Georgian who is a pastor-in-training of the African Methodist Episcopal church. We snapped photo after photo after photo of the blossoming sky, and then the group fell quiet, until Sharletta Green, a 30-year-old former science teacher from West Virginia who is studying to become a Methodist minister, began to lead a hymn in the towering voice that we had all appreciated during our travels.

Holy, holy, holy! Lord God almighty!

Early in the morning our song shall rise to Thee.

Holy, holy, holy! Merciful and mighty,

God in three persons, blessed Trinity ....

All Thy works shall praise Thy name

In earth and sky and sea . . .

Their voices echoed powerfully, and a few seminarians had tears in their eyes. I was stirred by the spirit of their song, yet I couldn't help but feel an outsider because I was a Jew who did not know the words, nor did I share the belief in the Holy Trinity. I was also deeply moved by some inchoate sense of the miraculous in this sunrise. So I turned to the other Jew on the trip, Audrey Galex, a mother of three and a professional storyteller from Atlanta, and proposed that we offer a prayer of our own. We joined hands and quickly decided it was a moment for a Sheheheyanu, a celebratory Hebrew blessing for special occasions. So we chanted: Baruch atah Adonai, elohaynu melech haolam, sheheheyanu, v'kiy'manu, v'higianau, lazman hazeh. It translates as: Blessed are you, our God, spirit of the universe, for granting us life, for sustaining us and for helping us to reach this blessed day.

Audrey and I hugged. Then, despite our separate experiences on the mountain, we embraced many of our fellow travelers. We were all feeling high; collectively, in our two weeks of intense traveling together, we had formed a community of spirit. Our forms of worship differed, but we were united at this moment. Then we headed down the great mountain in the warming sunlight, each of us alone in thought.

I have never been particularly religious. My family emigrated from Hungary to New York City in the early 1900s, and I was raised by parents who spoke Hungarian and identified themselves more by nationality than religion. We didn't observe Jewish holidays at home, and only after my parents joined the suburban migration of the 1950s did they send me and my brother to Hebrew school, the first generation in memory to be bar mitz-vahed. Growing up, I was strongly influenced by the 1960s civil rights and antiwar movements, but religion played no major role. As an adult, though, my connection to the Jewish faith became stronger after I married a Jewish woman, raised two sons and joined a Reform temple whose worship and commitment to social justice made me feel at home. I attend services and observe major holidays, but I'm only sporadically observant otherwise.

I ended up on this Middle East journey quite by chance, thanks to a friend who began her adult life as a Catholic nun.

Hallie Lovett fell in love with a priest, married him and eventually became a psychotherapist practicing in the Washington area. She had gone on the METS trip in 2001 -- lay people of various faiths are included to broaden the ecumenical perspective of the seminarians -- and afterward she described it as a transformative experience. She said it had been a rare opportunity for people to try to get outside their own culture and begin to understand “the other” -- the people of the world who are not like you. Hallie called me in January and said that METS organizers wanted gender balance and religious diversity, so they were looking for a Jewish guy. Could she recommend me? I had never been to the Middle East, and I leapt at the chance, joking that for such an adventure I would be delighted to be a token Jew.

As the departure date approached, however, I was feeling nervous. Not about terrorism or radical Islam or the dangers of traveling in a strife-torn region; instead, I realized I was apprehensive about actually having to confront my belief in God. Yes, I believe in the concept of God, but how deeply? Religion and God are things that I only rarely think about -- and even more rarely talk about. But soon, I would be traveling with seminarians entering their final year, men and women who have made this their life's work. And what of me? What was at the core of my faith? Was there a core at all? Would I come back from the trip feeling empty?

With four months' preparation, I amassed an impressive library of books on religion, Middle East history, the Crusades and more. I learned just enough to realize how stunningly ignorant I was, across a wide range of topics. I knew the readings would not resolve questions about God, but they did solidify for me the sense that I am a religious pluralist. I believe that the mainstreams of all the world's great religions ultimately have more commonalities than differences. Particularly since September 11, 2001, religious extremists of virtually all denominations have poisoned the political climate around the world -- and within the United States. Yet all the religions, despite their variations, are united in their belief in a spirit that is unseen, and in a deep yearning for holiness and unity.

My pluralist outlook was tested, though, when I got the METS roommate list and learned that I would be rooming for 23 nights with a Southern Baptist. Southern Baptist? My vague knowledge was enough to make me quite apprehensive: Members of the largest Protestant denomination, they are very conservative evangelicals who believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, that The End is Near, and that those who accept Jesus Christ as their savior will ascend to Heaven in the final apocalypse, while those who don't -- like me -- will go to Hell. I wondered what it would be like to live for three weeks with someone who might try to save my soul.

Six Protestant seminaries -- including those at Duke, Emory and several smaller schools -- select students for the program, based on leadership potential. The result was an eclectic mix of METS travelers: young and older, single and married, liberal and conservative, straight and gay, and black, white and Asian. Some were children of ministers; some were “called” to ministry or to teaching religion by a love of God established early; while others didn't hear the call until they reached their forties or fifties. Mostly, they were united by low income; so the foundations require them to pay only $900 each for what many regard as the trip of a lifetime.

So as I prepared to go, I wondered, how much would I have in common with Protestant seminarians? Would I find them stuck in narrow tunnels of religious vision, or would this trip broaden their views? After years of religious education, how open would they be, not only to a Jew but to the other Christians and to the Muslims we would encounter? Interfaith harmony is a wonderful concept, but what would it look like for Americans in the Middle East in 2005?

The four belly dancers, all bright-colored silk and flesh, were swaying back and forth, weaving their way among the crowded tables of a restaurant in Atlanta, where we had gathered for orientation. The pulsating music was getting louder and wilder. Our host, a cheerful, rotund man named Nicola, was doing his own hilarious belly dance with a glass of water balanced on his head. Fueled by wine, women and music, Nicola incited everyone in his Middle Eastern restaurant to get up and join the undulating dancers. Many of our seminarians, ages 23 to 56, ended up smiling, laughing and clapping along to the pounding music. When I looked over at my roommate, Matthew Cates, he was sitting motionless, hands in his lap, not very happy.

That first night, back in our hotel room, I asked Matthew about his reaction. He said that he was not opposed to dancing but that he was troubled by the public nature of the show, which he considered sexually suggestive and degrading to the women. I said I understood his view but countered that belly dancing could also be seen as harmless entertainment, and that the beauty and talent of the dancers could be appreciated without necessarily being sexual.

He held entertainment to a higher standard, he said. Does it benefit and help people and spread a positive message? People should treat each other with love, regardless of appearance or any other factor, because we are all created by God, he said. Of the belly dancers, he said: “I want to see them express love for themselves, and be loved by others rightly. And that those viewing them would love them purely, and with respect.” He quoted Scripture, as he would in most subsequent conversations, citing the warning in the Song of Songs about how dangerous it is to arouse romantic love, because it is like playing with fire.

We lay in our beds talking that night, Matthew with his dog-eared leather Bible and me with my reporter's notebook and pen. Matthew said he grew up in North Carolina, where his grandfather was a Southern Baptist minister and his parents raised their three children with family prayer time as part of the nightly routine. After seeing his older brother baptized, Matthew, at age 11, began to think seriously about his own personal relationship with God and whether he lived up to His standards. By the time he was baptized by his grandfather, Matthew, then 13, remembers the realization that when the choir sang that day, “they were singing about my God, and not just some God.”

After that, he said, he became an insatiable reader of the Bible. He would read and then pray to God to be able to understand it better. He would study two or three chapters every night, “and then I prayed, and prayed for everyone. I felt I had to pray for every person I knew before I could sleep, and I would fall asleep and wake up with my face in the Bible.”

He began to question his commitment to God, though, because, like other teenagers, Matthew found himself experimenting with lying, cursing and other misbehavior. “I felt like I was a prisoner to my own unholy tendencies,” he said. He was a good student, ran cross-country and track, played tennis and had a nice circle of friends at his church, he said, but he became withdrawn. “I was struggling with a sense that I was doing wrong, like I was at the bottom of a hole.” In college, he majored in religion and sociology and wrestled with the direction of his life. After much reflection, he said, he realized what was most important to him was not his future vocation, but his relationship to God: “I wanted to achieve holiness, a desire to be holy and genuine.”

After graduating, Matthew followed various paths: church mission work in Hong Kong as a youth minister, studying at a seminary in Illinois, working in a juvenile detention center, teaching English as a second language, teaching adult computer and literacy classes, and enrolling in a second divinity school, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, from which he will graduate next year with a master's in divinity.

He is 30 years old and has chosen to remain a virgin, he said. He hopes some day to find “intimacy and oneness” with a woman who is a “sister in Christ,” he said, but he wants to make sure he does not pursue a wife out of some sense of dissatisfaction with God. So he is concentrating first on his relationship with God and on learning to appreciate what he calls the gift of being single.

Matthew believes that the Messiah is coming soon and that the world as we know it is in its final days. He solemnly told me: “The reality that you and I could be dead tomorrow leads me to think of this very moment, this conversation. Is this how I want to spend this moment?”

I did my share of talking as well -- about my family, my marriage of 33 years, my work, my thoughts about Judaism. Beyond that, I told him that his vision of God -- that the only path to true salvation was through Jesus Christ -- was much too rigid for me, and his religion too exclusive. This trip would be a challenge. We were an unlikely pair, in an uncharted relationship, on our way to the Promised Land.

At the spectacular Umayyad Mosque, the grand mosque of Damascus, we all took off our shoes, and the women were required to put on gray robes covering their hair and bodies, so that we could visit a holy site for our first close encounter with Islam. With beautiful mosaics, multicolored marble and three soaring minaret spires, the Syrian mosque dates to the 8th century, but the site has been a holy place for some 3,000 years, dedicated to the worship of deities and prophets of the Aramaic, Roman, Christian and now Sunni and Shiite Muslim faiths.

We entered the finely tiled shrine of Hussein, who, according to Shiite tradition, should be regarded as a rightful successor to the prophet Muhammed. In the 7th century, Hussein was killed and beheaded in Karbala in what is now Iraq, but his head was said to have been brought to Damascus. Shiites from all over the Muslim world, many Iranians, make a pilgrimage here.

Inside: an intense, chaotic jam of worshipers and tourists; black-shrouded women; men wearing robes, Arab kaffiyeh headdresses or black skull caps; other men wearing Western-style clothes, some with video cameras. Most people were pushing forward, but in their midst, robed women and men stopped to kneel on worn Persian prayer rugs; some praying loudly, chanting and weeping. People relentlessly pressed ahead, jostling each other. The din of wailing and loud praying in Arabic and in Farsi was disorienting. It was stifling hot and stuffy, and I wanted to leave. I felt like an intruder in a strange world. What was moving these worshipers so ecstatically? A spirit was swirling around me, yet I had no clue what was driving it.

I was tempted to retreat, as some of my METS colleagues did, but I kept pushing forward, several times nearly falling over people who had kneeled to pray. Everyone was trying to reach an ornate silver grid enclosure at the end of the handsomely decorated hall. When I finally got close enough, I could see through the filigree-and-silver mesh a green shroud that was tied around what looked like a human head. Men and women, praying and sobbing, pressed close enough to touch the grid. Some slipped small papers inside, and a few tied little pieces of string to the silver, as personal tokens of prayer.

Afterward, some seminarians said they felt as alienated as I had. Matthew said he felt sympathy for the fervent worshipers, who he believed were misguided. Sharletta Green, from Emory University's seminary, said: “I appreciate their passion, but I felt a disconnect as a Westerner, and as a Christian. I think I felt a sadness in the fight of people to move forward; I felt people were stuck in the worship of a slain leader” instead of God. But Sharletta said she struggled to try to appreciate, rather than judge, the faith of others. “What can I learn from you that will honor the divine in both of us?” she said. “It is about leaving your bags at the door.”

But this would not be easy. We did not understand Islam, and the Muslims we encountered would be both welcoming and challenging to Americans of other faiths. Many received us as children of God, reminding us that Islam shared our reverence for the same prophets -- Abraham, Moses and Jesus. Others showed warmth toward us as Americans but open hostility to our government and our leaders. One seminarian was told by a Sunni woman that she believed the U.S. military had conducted the September 11 terrorist attacks as an excuse to retaliate against Islam. A Sunni merchant told one of us that if she liked President Bush, she must hate Arabs, and another declared, “Your president is a murderer.” It would sometimes be a challenge to honor the divine in the others we would meet.

Throughout the Middle East, we climbed hills and crossed dusty plains under the scorching sun to see the massive ancient ruins of the places of everyday life and worship. We saw remnants of innumerable warring civilizations: the Egyptians, Hittites, Amorites, Aramaeans, Canaanites, Israelites, Ammonites, Moabites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Nabateans, Romans, Parthians, Arabs, Turks, Mongols, Crusaders and more.

As our bus traveled south near the Jordan River, Max Miller took the microphone and quoted bloody passages from the Book of Joshua about the burning, smiting and slaying of entire peoples. All this, the Bible says, was commanded by God because these people worshiped other gods. It struck me that Joshua and the ancient Israelites did their share of killing, a thought I'd never before entertained. In his Mississippi drawl, Max said much of the Hebrew scripture can be summed up as one big battle: “It's God and 'us' versus 'them.'” Indeed, virtually every one of these ancient peoples had claimed in the name of their God -- whether it be Baal, or Ra, or Zeus, or Jupiter, or Jehovah, or Adonai, or Allah, or Jesus -- the right to subjugate, enslave and kill the nonbelievers.

Violence in the name of God. I was disheartened to see and hear so much of it, and I couldn't help but lament that nothing had changed much in the current Middle East. So I was particularly in the mood for interfaith peacemaking when I overheard a group of seminarians making plans for an “evening devotional” at our Syrian hotel one night after dinner. I knew it was some form of religious service but wasn't sure just what. I also wasn't sure how welcome I would be.

“Are Jews invited?” I cheerfully asked, and was warmly received.

That evening, eight of us crowded onto the small, open patio of Matthew's and my room. We were in a Syrian town called Meshtayeh, in a region that Max had called “the bloody plain” because of the magnitude of warfare it saw up through the Crusades. We started by reading and briefly discussing a New Testament passage from Luke that had a military theme, in keeping with what we had seen that day. Then we were each given a chance to offer a prayer. One person prayed for peace in the Middle East. Another prayed for the health of his wife at home, and the desire that she not worry too much about his safety. One prayed to be able to see the face of God in everyone we met, regardless of their faith. Another prayed for all of us on the trip to keep in touch more closely and share the experiences.

These weren't Baptist prayers or Presbyterian prayers. They were simply words from the heart, desires that are not always easily expressed. So when it came to me, I felt open to prayer, something I don't normally practice. I offered a prayer for my brother Steve, who, at age 59, had been hospitalized that month with pneumonia and other problems relating to kidney disease and bipolar disorder. Earlier in the week, I had talked with Matthew about how stressful and difficult it had been to try to help my brother back to health.

Then, when it was Matthew's turn, I was surprised to hear him also pray for my brother's health; he asked God to give my brother strength to hold up under a prolonged struggle and also to “give Peter the strength to help his brother -- if he can.” I was moved by Matthew's words because they reflected how closely he had listened, and because they conveyed how much he cared about people, about me.

At the end, we all said a prayer of thanks for this moment, and for the new friends we had made, and someone asked God to keep us “open and gentle and loving” toward one another. And then everyone just sat in silence for what seemed like a long while. Nobody wanted to leave. The air was very still and cool and quiet. The stars were twinkling brightly in a sky unpolluted by urban lights. I felt like I belonged here; I was part of a small, instant family and also part of a communal longing for something larger than ourselves.

Walking down the hillside from the spectacular ancient city of Petra in Jordan, Matthew was burning with a question for our Jordanian guide and interpreter, Sofian Nawash. Matthew was particularly disturbed by a story he'd heard from an American friend living in Amman: a Jordanian man had recently been convicted by an Islamic court of the crime of apostasy because he had converted to Christianity, and refused to convert back. The man had lost custody of his child, and, under Jordan's interpretation of sharia, the Islamic-inspired code of law, he could even be put to death.

The three of us kept walking as Matthew avidly explained details of the case. Sofian, sporting designer sunglasses and a thick mustache, is a thoroughly modern, charming, university-educated man in his thirties, with two children and a third on the way. A Sunni Muslim, Sofian has been guiding METS trips for 11 years and enjoys joking, bantering and answering the inevitable flurry of questions that arise from perplexed Christians visiting a country that is 95 percent Muslim.

Sofian told Matthew that he had not heard of this particular case, but that the verdict did not surprise him. He said he doubted the man would actually be executed. But his act of conversion was considered a most serious sin against God, Sofian said, and his understanding of the Koran was that it calls for the ultimate punishment.

Matthew was incredulous. What if someone was born to a Muslim family but never practiced Islam and just decided to become a Christian? he asked. No matter, said Sofian, same crime, same penalty. Matthew turned the question personal: What if Matthew had been born to Muslims but tried to spread Christianity? Sofian's answer was matter-of-fact: If Matthew chose to proselytize for Christ among the Muslims, he would likely die.

Both Matthew and I asked Sofian whether that was perhaps a bit harsh, but he would not judge it. Rather, he said, it simply was what it was: the will of God.

As we walked silently back toward our bus, I could sense there was no point in arguing with Sofian about the extremes of his faith. And it also occurred to me that, in some way, there was very little difference between Sofian's faith and Matthew's. Matthew's was not so draconian, but his belief in the true word of God as expressed in the Bible was just as absolute as Sofian's in the Koran. Matthew's only doubt was whether he was interpreting God's word correctly.

This emerged vividly several nights later in Israel when it was Matthew's turn to lead the devotional. Ten of us gathered in a hotel conference room, where Matthew sang an opening hymn, “Hallelujah, What a Savior!” He has a strong, sweet voice, and his face lights up when he sings or reads Scripture. He then chose for discussion Chapter 3 of the apostle Paul's letter to the Romans that begins: “Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?”

I winced when Matthew started reading the passage. In Romans, Paul, himself a Jew converted to Christianity, goes on to say that while Jewish practices are part of God's law, the only true path to salvation is through Jesus Christ. I disagreed with the message, but I had accepted that it is the central belief in Matthew's life.

Others were not as forgiving. Audrey, my fellow Jewish traveler, told Matthew later that his reading choice was hurtful. Her roommate, Manikka, told him: “You didn't give everyone a place to stand.” Matthew said he knew the passage might be offensive, but nonetheless thought the message was important to hear. Four seminarians apologized to me that night and the next day on Matthew's behalf, saying they did not share that interpretation of Romans 3. “None of us can know who is saved,” said Richard Hayes, a 30-year-old Duke seminarian. “We can apprehend God, but we cannot comprehend God.”

I asked Matthew later why he'd chosen that particular passage, instead of something more inclusive. He said he had prayed about what passage to choose, and God had led him to this choice for spreading the Gospel. “Scripture does not allow you to be inclusive,” he said. “It is exclusive.”

Later, Matthew shared with me the passage he had written in his personal journal about that night. It was addressed to God: “I believe that I spoke the message I should have, but I'm not sure if I spoke truth in love, and how people received it. Several seemed to be troubled and maybe even angered by it. I hope that they are wrestling with you, God, and not just me.”

We were standing at Armageddon. I never knew it was an actual place, called Megiddo, about 50 miles north of Jerusalem, on a hill overlooking a broad, fertile plain at a strategic crossroads on the main route between ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. (Armageddon is a Greek word adapted from the Hebrew Har Megiddo or Hill of Megiddo.) Under blazing sun, Max explained that here, over a period of more than 4,000 years, countless armies had met and destroyed each other -- Egyptian, Hittite, Assyrian, Canaanite, Israelite, Persian, Roman and more. Archaeologists have found layers of ruins from more than 25 cities that were annihilated by warfare or earthquake, and were rebuilt atop one another with each successive conquest. Some historians believe that more military battles have been fought on the plain of Megiddo than anywhere else on Earth.

“This is where the Bible says the final battle will occur in the last days,” Max said, gesturing over the plain, “the final battle to end all destruction and persecution.” He was referring to the New Testament's Book of Revelation, which says that when Christ returns, the armies of good will gather at Armageddon for the apocalypse.

As if on cue, while we were touring Megiddo's elaborate ruins, several supersonic Israeli jets flew overhead, the sound of humankind anticipating the next battle. I looked out at the horizon, which, like much of the biblical landscape, presents a harsh grandeur. We had traversed scorching desert and forbidding mountains. In this austere and unforgiving environment, I could imagine how wandering desert tribes would have worshiped the sun that was both life-giving yet so punishing; I could picture how miraculous it must have been for the thirsting shepherds to find an oasis; I could feel what an act of faith it must have been to trudge over sand and rocky peaks, in the hope that fertile valleys lay beyond. It made sense to me that these great religions grew out of this arid place. In our travels, I found myself appreciating a drink of water more than I ever had in my life and marveling at how wonderful the shade and the breeze can feel to a hot and tired body. Over time, somehow, I had been absorbing, through nature, a sense of the presence of God.

Yet I had also absorbed a strong sense of the pitiful state of humankind and warring religions. And my sadness at the stupidity of killing in the name of God peaked at Armageddon. In talking to the seminarians, I realized I wasn't alone.

“I see these places of the Bible, and I just see violence, violence, violence, violence, violence. I don't see God in it, and I pray to Him to show me,” said Manikka. “I've been struggling with God on this trip.” Richard said he found in the cycles of conquest a sobering message for America about “global imperialism.” Like the Romans, he said, “it seems we are imposing our power over half the globe, and now we look at the Roman ruins.”

As our bus rolled to a stop at a West Bank military checkpoint, the controversial Israeli “security fence” loomed above us. We were headed into territory of the Palestinian Authority, to Bethlehem, a small town about five miles south of Jerusalem. It is a place that is sacred to Christians as the birthplace of Jesus, and also significant to Jews, as the burial spot of the matriarch Rachel and birthplace of King David.

But whatever sense of reverence we had anticipated was immediately blotted out by the bold, block-printed graffiti that Palestinians had painted on the hulking gray wall: “WELCOME TO THE GHETTO,” declared one sign. “AMERICAN MONEY, ISRAELI APARTHEID” said another, with a hand-painted Star of David and a scrawled “NO ISRAEEL.” The Israeli-Palestinian conflict shadowed our travels in much of Israel. The security wall cast a pall over the sprawling West Bank, as did the frequent sight of machine guns wielded by police and soldiers in public squares. Historic places such as Jericho and Bethlehem were marked by barbed-wired military checkpoints and the aura of war. We had been eager to visit the 4,000-year-old site of Jericho, one of the oldest inhabited cities in the world, but it was devastating to first see all the modern remnants of the intifada, the burned-out buildings, grim cinder block refugee camps and bullet-riddled walls. And our destination in Bethlehem, the Church of the Nativity, had been the site in 2002 of a bloody, tense five-week hostage siege by Palestinian gunmen who held more than 100 churchgoers.

Visiting Jesus's traditional birthplace was a letdown for many of us. This followed a pattern throughout the trip -- it seemed that the man-made sites, churches, temples and shrines, were mundane and underwhelming compared with the sights of nature. Matthew and several other seminarians said a high point for them was the visit to the beautiful Sea of Galilee in northern Israel, where they felt they were walking where Jesus had walked. By contrast, few among us were as moved by Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity or the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, believed to be the site of Jesus's crucifixion. In both churches, tourists overwhelm the holy places in a relentless search for a photo op. At the Holy Sepulchre, some seminarians said the site lacked a sense of spiritual unity because the Greek Orthodox, Catholic, Armenian, Syrian, Coptic and Ethiopian churches all have their separate spaces, customs and times of worship. Several seminarians said it felt like a theme park, like “Jesusland.”

“It's become such a tourist attraction, all the gold and silver, and so gaudy,” said Sharletta. “It seems awful.”

In Bethlehem, a town of less than 50,000, the view outside the church was disheartening. There were a few thriving businesses that depend on the tourist trade, but we saw many shuttered shops, largely vacant streets and groups of ragged and listless young people with seemingly nothing to do. I couldn't help but sense a resentment and hopelessness in the eyes of some. As our bus rolled back toward the security wall, Richard told me he found the sights to be depressingly reminiscent of America's urban ghettos.

“Bethlehem,” he said wearily, “is Compton, California, for all intents and purposes.”

Interfaith harmony between Jews and Palestinians seems a distant dream in Israel, but one night in Jerusalem we had at least a small vision of it. I had talked to Max before the trip about the potential value for the seminarians to hear about Jews who were working with Muslims and Christians to try to bring peace. Too often, I told him, Jews are portrayed as narrow-minded Zionists. He was happy to add that to our itinerary. So, through my rabbi in Silver Spring, I had made contact with the Interreligious Coordinating Council in Israel, one of many small but devoted peace groups that believe that honest dialogue among people of different faiths is the key to coexistence.

We gathered at 8 p.m. in a hotel conference room -- tired from another long day of trekking but eager to hear something hopeful from Issa Jaber, a Muslim school superintendent, and Ron Kronish, a Reform Jewish rabbi, who have been working together for more than a decade. They sat side by side, Kronish, with a fringe of white hair and matching mustache, and Jaber, olive-skinned with darker hair and mustache.

Many attempts at interreligious dialogue have been “too nice,” the men said. Muslims, Christians and Jews should not just try to “neuter” their religions by saying that we are “all children of Abraham.” Rather, they said, we all must engage in the harder work of really listening to one another and understanding the other side's history in a deep enough way to be willing to compromise.

“It's going slowly and painfully, with too many people dying along the way,” said Kronish. “We have to help change the hearts and minds of people, to learn to live together, but it's going to take a generation or two or three.”

The majority of Jews and Palestinians have finally accepted that they must all make some sacrifices to achieve peace, they said, but extremist leaders on both sides fan the flames by reminding each group that they are a persecuted minority.

“Each side seeks to show they are the bigger victims, that we have suffered more than you,” said Jaber, who runs the schools in the predominantly Muslim town of Abu Ghosh.

This can end only when each side begins to listen to and understand the other side's narrative, said Kronish. “It is all about de-demonizing 'the other.'“

Jaber's presentation particularly resonated among the black METS travelers. He spoke of the “double-identity” of Arabs who live as minorities in Israel and must cope with lower educational and economic status. “Amen,” murmured several of the black seminarians. “Amen . . .”

I had been especially looking forward to visiting the Western Wall in the Old City in Jerusalem, which is among the most sacred sites in all of Judaism. It is a massive stone remnant from the destruction of the city's main temple by the Romans in 70 A.D., and it is the place where Jews across the world come to pray. On the day before I left on the trip, I'd awakened with a start and had the sudden inspiration to pack in my bag the tallit and yarmulke, the prayer shawl and skull cap, that I had worn more than 40 years ago when I was bar mitzvahed. I would put them on and pray at this holiest spot.

At the wall, there was a substantial midday crowd, and I felt a bit awkward about praying in public, particularly because I stood out as being different. Orthodox Jews were packed in tightly, with chairs, tables, desks and lecterns they set up outdoors to spend hours there in prayer. Some were Hasidic, with their distinctive long beards, black suits and black hats. Other Orthodox, many with thick beards, had their heads and arms wrapped in tefillin, the black leather case containing passages of Scripture that is attached to the body by straps. Others stood and davened, rhythmically rocking back and forth as they rapidly chanted prayers, their heads touching the wall.

I didn't look like any of them; I was clearly a Western tourist with only the surface trappings of Judaism. I put on the shawl and skull cap, and bid my Protestant colleagues farewell to approach the wall. I was alone because Audrey, unhappily, was not allowed at the main section. The Orthodox Jews, who control religious affairs in Israel, have segregated the wall by sex, with a small section set apart by a fence for women.

As I tried to work my way to the wall, a Hasid approached me with a quizzical expression. “Are you a Jew?” he asked. I was stunned, and then angry. I didn't answer him. Of course I am a Jew. I just don't look like you. How dare you question my faith?

“Would you like me to pray for you?” asked another man. The implication was that I was not capable of saying a proper prayer, and that he would pray -- for a fee. I was getting angrier. Then another man stopped me to ask for money for his charity. Now I felt like I was not seen as a fellow Jew, but just an outsider to be hustled.

I reached the wall and pushed myself into a small opening. I touched and kissed the stone, but I was rattled. I struggled to clear my head of anger and get in a prayerful mood. The men around me were babbling prayers, incomprehensibly fast. I closed my eyes and tried to achieve a meditative state, but I could not. The activity around me was too disorienting. It did not feel like a holy place. I stood in silence for a time, and then I quietly recited the Sheheheyanu. Then I sang the Shema, the most fundamental of Jewish prayers from the Torah, “Shema Yisroel, Adonai Elohenu, Adonai Echad!” Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one! I wanted to feel uplifted. Instead, I couldn't get away from the wall fast enough.

I should have known beforehand what to expect, but I had not done enough homework. The ancient wall in recent years has essentially been taken over by the Orthodox Jews of Israel, so that Reform and Conservative people are considered outsiders. The non-Orthodox often choose to pray at another, lesser-known site called the Southern Wall. Afterward, I reflected on the fact that I had felt more at home singing the Shema with Christians than I had with the Jews at the wall. That happened a week earlier, on the Friday night before we were to climb Mount Sinai, when Max had asked Audrey and me if we would like to conduct a Jewish Sabbath service. So, as the sun was setting, the whole group gathered on the ancient rocks outside St. Catherine's Monastery, built around 300 A.D. by monks at the foot of Sinai. With the sun streaming down on us and a congregation of Protestants spread out before us, Audrey and I recited and sang the first of several traditional Sabbath blessings. Then we sang the Shema. It may have been the cooling mountain air, but it gave me chills to sing it. And afterward, every single one of our fellow travelers stood up from the rocks and clambered over to embrace us and thank us for a moving service.

In the end, on Day 24, after we had cleared customs at the Atlanta airport, we hugged and said our farewells, although we knew we'd be seeing one another soon because we are all required to write papers and attend a reunion back in Atlanta in September to talk about our experience. A few of us were waiting for connecting flights home, when Matthew pulled me aside. He took out his notebook and started to ask me questions.

He wanted to know what I had gotten out of the trip, but he also wanted me to give him an honest critique of what I had observed of him. Mostly, he said, he wanted to know, “Do you think that my actions match my words?”

I was caught off guard, but I understood that he wanted an honest response.

I greatly admire your honesty, Matthew, I said, your devotion to God and your desire to love people. But the most disturbing thing about you is that your religion seems so exclusionary, with no room for anyone else. (More than once, he had told me that many of the other seminarians did not hold proper beliefs about salvation, and therefore were not “true Christians.” They were too “universalist” in believing that there are many paths to finding God.) I find that position quite sad, I told him.

Matthew nodded his head, listening carefully and taking a few notes. He smiled. He reminded me that Christian scripture is by its very nature exclusive because it holds only one path to God. I said that you seem to use that view of Scripture as a crutch, so that you don't need to really examine your own beliefs.

He smiled, as he often did, and listened in good spirit. And at the end, he thanked me. We embraced and went off to board our flights.

Throughout the trip, Max Miller, who grew up Methodist in a very religious, Bible-reading family, had scrupulously avoided being drawn into theological arguments. He told me that he found debates about the correct path to God to be painful and ultimately pointless. Instead, his advice to the seminarians was that they clarify their own beliefs. “You are grown folks, getting ready to lead churches, so you need to deal with it and struggle with it,” he said.

Earlier, one night at sunset near the Sea of Galilee, Max invited me up to talk on the verandah outside his room. He said that at age 68, after leading the METS trip for 25 years, he wondered how much longer he could do it, and he feared that if he stopped, the program would die. I asked him what effect he thought the trip had had on the hundreds who'd taken it.

Among the seminarians, reactions cut both ways, he said, “Some of the rigid people -- liberal and conservative -- dig in their heels and get more rigid. And others open their eyes and ask: 'How can I learn more about this? What can I study?'” But then he surprised me by saying that over the years he thought the lay people had undergone more significant changes than the seminarians, who tend to be more established in their faith. Among the lay travelers, he said, he has heard of the trip precipitating divorces, career changes and other key decisions about directions in life.

Later, as I reflected on Max's observation, it became less surprising. I had felt the stirrings of a divine presence in the Holy Land and its people, but how would that figure into what lay ahead, now that I was returning to my secular life and my old routines?

By contrast, that uncertainty does not exist for True Believers. For them, the path is clear: for Christians like Matthew, convinced that the way to God is through Jesus; for Muslims like Sofian, fervently believing that God has spoken the rules for living through the Koran; for Orthodox Jews, who are assured that theirs is the only Jewish way to worship the only God. But for the rest of us, probably the majority, the path is less clear, and the place of God in our lives is still to be learned. The one thing we know with certainty, however, is that familiar inner yearning for something to lift us above whatever it is that traps us in ourselves and keeps us separate and alone.

[see #30036 for background on this article]

________

Peter Perl, a former Magazine staff writer, is director of newsroom training and professional development at The Post. © 2005 The Washington Post Company

*

Paul's First Missionary Journey — (lystra, Derbe, Pisidian Antioch) Return To Antioch On Orontes

Acts 14:8

Acts 14:8–28 — “Paul’s First Missionary Journey — (Lystra, Derbe, Pisidian Antioch) Return to Antioch on Orontes”

(outline by F. F. Bruce, NICNT) « Leader information shown in this fashion »

{A.} The Birth of the Church (1:1–5:42)

{B.} Persecution and Expansion (6:1–9:31)

{C.} The Acts of Peter and Beginnings of Gentile Christianity, 9:32-12:25

{D.} Church Extension from Antioch & Apostolic Decree at Jerusalem

Acts 12:25–15:35

{1.} Barnabas and Saul (12:25–13:3)

{2.} Cyprus (13:4–12)

{3} Pisidian Antioch (13:13–52)

A. Arrival at Pisidian Antioch (13:13–15)

B. Paul’s Synagogue Address in Pisidian Antioch (13:16–41)

C. Response to Paul’s Address (13:42–43)

D. Gentile Interest Arouses Jewish Opposition (13:44–52)

{4}. Iconium, Lystra, Derbe (14:1–18)

A. Adventures in Iconium (14:1–7)

B. Miraculous Healing at Lystra

1. Acts 14:8–13 (NKJV): 8 And in Lystra a certain man without strength in his feet was sitting, a cripple from his mother’s womb, who had never walked. 9 This man heard Paul speaking. Paul, observing him intently and seeing that he had faith to be healed, 10 said with a loud voice, “Stand up straight on your feet!” And he leaped and walked. 11 Now when the people saw what Paul had done, they raised their voices, saying in the Lycaonian language, “The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!” 12 And Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, Hermes, because he was the chief speaker. 13 Then the priest of Zeus, whose temple was in front of their city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates, intending to sacrifice with the multitudes.

2. How is the reality of this man’s disability emphasized (verse 8)?

a. His feet … « were without strength »

b. His mother … « had borne him crippled »

c. His life … « was devoid of walking »

3. The verb, sozo, meaning “heal” is used concerning both physical (eg., Matthew 9:21-22) and spiritual (eg., Matthew 1:21) healing; why is this use appropriate? « – sin is a congenital disease which results in spiritual death in the absence of an act of healing; Jesus links the two in Matthew 9:2–5 (”Thy sins be forgiven…”) »

4. What prerequisite to healing did Paul notice? … how? « – the man had faith; it was spiritually perceived but there could be outward manifestations of interest, attentiveness, affirmation »

5. What emphasizes the reality of the miracle? « – the man doesn’t just walk, but leaps; the people seek a supernatural reason »

6. What fact initially inhibited Paul and Barnabas correcting the populace’s assumption of their being gods? « – they were speaking in the vernacular of that region rather than in Greek »

C. Proclamation of the Living God

1. Acts 14:14–18 (NKJV): 14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard this, they tore their clothes and ran in among the multitude, crying out 15 and saying, “Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men with the same nature as you, and preach to you that you should turn from these useless things to the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them, 16 who in bygone generations allowed all nations to walk in their own ways. 17 Nevertheless He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good, gave us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.” 18 And with these sayings they could scarcely restrain the multitudes from sacrificing to them.

2. What significance did tearing one’s clothes have (cf. Matthew 26:65, Ezra 9:1–3, Jeremiah 36:20-24)? « – sorrow, repentance or dismay in the face of perceived sin or calamity »

3. What differences do Paul and Barnabas draw …

a. … between themselves and Zeus and Hermes? « – P. & B. are men just like their audience, whatever Z. & H. may be »

b. … between their God and Zeus and Hermes?

(A) Zeus and Hermes are « — useless things »

(B) their God is « – living while Z. & H. are stone, false »

(C) their God has « – created all things (this argument, or similar ones, are used by O. T. prophets against idols) »

4. Was ignorance (compare Acts 17:30) an excuse giving people the right to be “allowed to walk in their own ways”? « – no because God had given sufficient evidence to His being and nature; see Romans 1, Psalm 19 »

5. What shows the God of the Bible to be worthy of man’s worship? « – His providential care of all mankind, providing their every blessing and need. In the Greek and Roman panoply there were individual gods and goddesses for each blessing and evil (eg., Concord, the goddess of Lystra, Discord, Lacturnus etc), but our God is Sovereign over all; cf., “The City of God” by Augustine, especially Book IV. »

D. Persecuted at Lystra, the Missionaries Go On to Derbe and Then Retrace Their Steps

1. Acts 14:19–23 (NKJV): 19 Then Jews from Antioch and Iconium came there; and having persuaded the multitudes, they stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city, supposing him to be dead. 20 However, when the disciples gathered around him, he rose up and went into the city. And the next day he departed with Barnabas to Derbe. 21 And when they had preached the gospel to that city and made many disciples, they returned to Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, 22 strengthening the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to continue in the faith, and saying, “We must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God.” 23 So when they had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.

2. Increasingly in Acts, Jewish exclusivists oppose the gospel

a. What did the Jews view as the way for Gentile salvation (cf. Matthew 23:15, Galatians 6:12, etc.)? « – by becoming Jews through circumcision and proselytism »

b. How must Christianity be exclusive (Isaiah 45:12, John 14:6, Acts 4:12)? « – only One God and One Way of Salvation »

c. How must Christianity avoid being exclusivist? « – the gospel is for everyone, which includes whom??? »

3. How many miracles recounted in Lystra? « – Two; the lame man and also Paul’s survival seems miraculous (2 Corinthians 11:25) »

4. Derbe was about 60 miles away, the farthest point reached.

5. What did they do to assist the new churches which were founded in each of these cities?

a. Revisited them to … « strengthen their souls »

b. Exhorted them to … « perseverance; continuing in the faith »

c. Reminded them … « persecution was the norm »

d. Provided them with … « direction; elders, those from whom are taken overseers (bishops) and pastors (cf Acts 20:17ff) – discuss how P. & B. could do this with very new converts »

E. Return to Antioch on the Orontes (River)

1. Acts 14:24–28 (NKJV): 24 And after they had passed through Pisidia, they came to Pamphylia. 25 Now when they had preached the word in Perga, they went down to Attalia. 26 From there they sailed to Antioch, where they had been commended to the grace of God for the work which they had completed. 27 Now when they had come and gathered the church together, they reported all that God had done with them, and that He had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles. 28 So they stayed there a long time with the disciples.

2. What has this passage to say about boundaries for service? « – here, they are defined by the location of and the opportunities given to the servants; not some self-defined limits »

3. What other responsibilities did Paul and Barnabas carry out? « – having completed their trip, they reported to the church which had commissioned them to the ministry just undertaken. This is a matter of accountability by Christian workers. »

4. In what spirit was this conducted? « – that of ascribing to God the work carried out by His servants; God got the credit, the glory »

from Sunday Bible School · Garth Hutchinson via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database judaism

Falwell Says Jews Need Jesus For Salvation

John 14:6

Denying a Jerusalem Post story that said he had embraced a “dual covenant” theology, Southern Baptist pastor Jerry Falwell said March 1 that he believes all people, including Jews, “must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ in order to enter heaven.”

“I do not follow this teaching of ‘dual covenant’ theology and I believe it runs counter to the Gospel,” Falwell said in a statement posted on www.falwell.com. “I have been on record all 54 years of my ministry as being opposed to ‘dual covenant' theology.”

Rejected by orthodox theologians, dual covenant theology holds that Jews are saved through a special, unique relationship with God and need not trust in Christ for salvation.

The Jerusalem Post story, published March 1, said that pastor John Hagee and Rabbi Aryeh Scheinberg -- both from Texas -- had “apparently persuaded” Falwell to adopt a dual covenant belief system. The story quoted only Scheinberg and did not quote Falwell.

“Falwell has altered his position, according to Scheinberg, apparently because the pastor decided to put End of Days theology aside in favor of the overriding need to support Israel, particularly against the mounting threat of a nuclear Iran,” the story, authored by Ilam Chaim, said.

The story noted that dual covenant theology “runs counter to mainstream evangelism.”

But a March 2 story Jerusalem Post story said that Hagee had contacted the Post to say that he also doesn't believe in a “dual covenant.”

“In a statement to the Post, the Texas-based televangelist Hagee said that neither he nor Southern Baptist pastor Falwell 'believe or teach dual covenant,” The Post reported.

Falwell’s complete statement follows:

“Earlier today, reports began circulating across the globe that I have recently stated that Jews can go to heaven without being converted to Jesus Christ. This is categorically untrue.

“These false reports originated from a March 1 Jerusalem Post front page column which said: ‘An evangelical pastor and an Orthodox rabbi, both from Texas, have apparently persuaded leading Baptist preacher Jerry Falwell that Jews can get to heaven without being converted to Christianity. Televangelist John Hagee and Rabbi Aryeh Scheinberg, whose Cornerstone Church and Rodfei Sholom congregations are based in San Antonio, told The Jerusalem Post that Falwell had adopted Hagee's innovative belief in what Christians refer to as ‘dual covenant’ theology. This creed, which runs counter to mainstream evangelism, maintains that the Jewish people have a special relationship to God through the revelation at Sinai and therefore do not need ‘to go through Christ or the Cross’ to get to heaven.’

“While I am a strong supporter of the State of Israel and dearly love the Jewish people and believe them to be the chosen people of God, I continue to stand on the foundational biblical principle that all people -- Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals, Jews, Muslims, etc. -- must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ in order to enter heaven.

“Dr. Hagee called me today and said he never made these statements to the Jerusalem Post or to anyone else. He assured me that he would immediately contact the Jerusalem Post and request a correction. Before today, I had never heard of Rabbi Aryeh Scheinberg or had any communications with him. I therefore am at a total loss as to why he would make such statements about me to the Post, if in fact he did.

“In this age of political correctness and diversity, the traditional evangelical belief that salvation is available only through faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ is often portrayed as closed-minded and bigoted. But if one is to believe in Jesus Christ, he must believe in His words: 'I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes unto the Father but by Me' (John 14:6). I simply cannot alter my belief that Jesus is The Way to heaven, as He taught.

“Again, I do not follow this teaching of 'dual covenant' theology and I believe it runs counter to the Gospel.

“I have been on record all 54 years of my ministry as being opposed to ‘dual covenant’ theology. In fact, Dr. John Hagee has indicated to me, as recently as today, that he likewise does not accept ‘dual covenant’ theology.

“I want to reaffirm that I am a Zionist in terms of Israel’s entitlement to its homeland. I continue to pray daily for the peace of Jerusalem, as the Bible instructs Christians to do. And I have dedicated my life and ministry to working for the peace of Israel. I dearly cherish the highly esteemed Jabotinsky Award which was given me in 1981 by Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin. I have led thousands of pilgrims through the Land Of Israel during my 31 tours over 36 years. I seriously believe that few Americans have invested more time and resources in the defense of Israel in this generation.

“However, I simply cannot alter my deeply-held belief in the exclusivity of salvation through the Gospel of Christ for the sake of political or theological expediency.

“Like the Apostle Paul, I pray daily for the salvation of everyone, including the Jewish people.”

*

Living Like Leviticus

Leviticus 19:27

A.J. Jacobs grew up in a secular Jewish home, but says of himself, “I’m Jewish in the same way the Olive Garden is an Italian restaurant.” He recently spent a year trying to live his life while adhering — as literally as possible — to all of the Bible’s laws, teachings and commandments, which he describes in his book, THE YEAR OF LIVING BIBLICALLY.

Jacobs was interested not only in what he calls “the famous” laws, like the Ten Commandments and “love thy neighbor,” but also in what he describes as the “hundreds of oft-ignored ones,” like not shaving your beard (Leviticus 19:27) and stoning adulterers (Leviticus 20:10).

His first step was to pack up any of his clothing that contained mixed fibers, because in Leviticus 19:19 it says, “You shall not wear clothing that is a mixture of two kinds of material.” As a secular journalist Jacobs discovered the relevance, and the difficulty, of prohibitions on gossip, covetousness and lying. He also discovered the difficulty of smashing idols (Deuteronomy 12:3) in “modern-day Manhattan.”

A self-described agnostic, Jacobs discovered the meaning and delight of prayer, especially offering thanks. “In Deuteronomy the Bible says we should thank the Lord when we’ve eaten our fill... but Christians moved the grace to the beginning of the meal, [so] to be safe, I pray both before and after.” Such prayers reminded him that his food was the result of work and efforts of many people, which helped him “...feel more connected, more grateful, more grounded, and more aware of [his] place” in the cycle of food production.

Jacobs’ intention was to “take legalism to its logical extreme and show that it leads to righteous idiocy.” But his project helped him to discover something far more meaningful than religion — spirituality. “The spiritual journey now takes up far more of my time,” he says, comparing it to wrestling with an opponent who is “...sometimes beautiful, sometimes cruel, sometimes ancient, sometimes crazily relevant.” And true to his Biblical namesake, who wrestled with an angel, he says of this Opponent, “I can’t get a handle on it.”

If you’d like to try Jacobs’ experiment, I can suggest a simpler model. When Jesus was asked which was the greatest commandment, he said, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and you shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

And so they do.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #20880]

from Open Door, Newsletter Of The Succasunna Presbyterian Church · Rev. Peter Magnan via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database spiritualityjudaism

The Heretic, the Bible, and the Birth of the Modern World

In a very real sense, the modern world began 350 summers ago when a young man was excommunicated by the Jewish community in Amsterdam. The excommunication of Baruch (later changed to Benedict) Spinoza is one of the hallmark events in the development of the modern mind and modern secularism. The anniversary of Baruch Spinoza's excommunication also serves as a reminder of the ideological roots of modern biblical criticism and the political agenda behind Spinoza's critical approach to the Bible. Born November 24, 1632 to Michael de Espinoza and Hana Debora, his second wife, Baruch Spinoza was a son of privilege. His ancestors had fled Portugal and Spain during the Inquisition and the Spinoza family became pillars of the Marrano Jewish community in Amsterdam.

As a boy, Spinoza was noted for his brilliance. In his fascinating new book, THE COURTIER AND THE HERETIC, Matthew Stewart quotes a Polish observer who noted the brilliant young Jewish boys of Amsterdam, speaking of them as “small as grasshoppers” who were also “like prodigies because of their unusual familiarity with the entire Bible and the science of grammar.”

No one knows exactly what happened between Spinoza's childhood and adolescence as an orthodox “grasshopper” and his emergence in early adulthood as a scandalous heretic. As a matter of fact, the actual writ of excommunication, pronounced on July 27, 1656, provides little specificity. Instead, the declaration indicates that the ruling council of the Jews in Amsterdam had “for some time known the evil opinions and work of Baruch de Espinoza” and, having “endeavored by various ways and promises to bring him back from his evil ways,” nonetheless excommunicated him for his “horrible heresies” and “awful deeds.” The sentence of excommunication was the most serious ever handed down by the Jewish authorities of Amsterdam: “We warn that none may contact him orally or in writing, nor do him any favor, nor stay under the same roof with him, nor read any paper he made or wrote.”

Within four years of his excommunication, Spinoza would complete his most famous work, the ETHICS, in which he would promote a theory of pantheism more extreme than anything yet encountered in Western thought. As Jewish scholar Yirmiyahu Yovel notes, “With these ideas Spinoza distances himself from both Judaism and Christianity, and even from the accepted philosophical traditions; he was a heretic not only from the point of view of the established religions, but also from the point of view of the freethinkers and from the several varieties of philosophic deism they were espousing at the time.”

As Yovel explains, the deistic heresies “have at least acknowledged the existence of a transcendent deity elevated above the world.” Spinoza, on the other hand, simply denied any distinction between God and the universe. “In short,” Yovel explains, “Spinoza proclaimed himself a heretic not only among the faithful, but also among representatives of the accepted heresy of his period, thus separating himself from all of the major spiritual currents of his time.”

In the end, Spinoza would deny any concept of a personal God, all claims to divine revelation, any claim of biblical inspiration, and the validity of miracles. In essence, he serves as the father of modern biblical criticism. As a matter of fact, Spinoza is the first major figure credited with proposing an exclusively secular reading of the Bible. The philosopher Leo Strauss acknowledged Spinoza's legacy over three decades ago: “In our time, scholars generally study the Bible in the manner in which they study any other book. As is generally admitted, Spinoza more than any other man laid the foundation for this kind of Biblical study.”

Interestingly enough, the focus of Spinoza's early heresies was Judaism, but he soon turned his critical attention to Christianity. Spinoza saw dogmatic Christianity as the great enemy of the modern age and his project of biblical criticism was expressly intended to liberate Christianity from its dogmatic moorings.

As Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg note, “Spinoza's intent is clear, if indirect: false Christianity is dogmatic Christianity of any stripe. It is a child of unreason. For the sake of reason, dogmatic Christianity must be overcome.” Harrisville and Sundberg then explain why biblical criticism came to serve as Spinoza's major proposal for removing the threat of dogmatic Christianity. “What is needed is something to direct the passion of the multitude from false religion to true religion.... Since the Christian Bible is the authoritative source for the Christian religion, its understanding must be reshaped by rational criticism. Spinoza's political program of reform, then, is established in the exercise of biblical criticism.”

Most modern persons would doubtless be surprised to know that the main ambition behind the emergence of biblical criticism was political -- to transform the society by removing the obstacle of orthodox Christianity. Yet, as Spinoza's essays in his most notorious work, the THEOLOGICAL-POLITICAL TREATISE make clear, this was precisely Spinoza's ambition.

In Spinoza's view, both Jews and Christians had simply mistaken the particularity of their religious texts for a claim to divine revelation. Since Spinoza believed in no personal God, it was impossible for God to have inspired the Bible in any sense. Instead, Spinoza believed that the Bible was simply a product of human authorship, reflecting all of the historical circumstances, prejudices, and faults of those authors. As a thoroughgoing rationalist, Spinoza believed that the goal of human existence should be to live by the service of reason alone. Nevertheless, he believed that the vast majority of human beings were driven by emotion and passion, and were thus unable to understand what was known by the rationalist elite. Thus, the masses are attracted to simplistic and fanciful ideas such as miracles.

Spinoza's rejection of the miraculous was absolute. In the first place, he did not believe in a God who would act in any personal manner. Beyond this, his absolute denial of any distinction between God and nature meant that it would be impossible for any action or event contrary to nature to occur.

As Spinoza wrote: “The universal laws of nature are merely God's decrees, following from the necessity and perfection of the divine nature. So if anything were to happen in nature contrary to her universal laws, it would also be necessarily contrary to the decree, intellect and nature of God. Or if anyone were to maintain that God performs some act contrary to the laws of Nature, he would at the same time have to maintain that God acts contrary to his own nature -- than which nothing could be more absurd.”

The idea of a supernatural deity who revealed himself in the Bible is nothing more than superstition, Spinoza insisted. And superstition is “the bitter enemy of all true knowledge and true morality.”

Spinoza denied the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and the inspiration of the Scriptures as a whole. The prophets were simply men of elevated moral insight, whose actual worldviews and understanding of reality were often woefully deficient.

In one central paragraph, Spinoza offers his approach to understanding the Bible: “Now in exactly the same way the task of Scriptural interpretation requires us to make a straightforward study of Scripture, and from this, as the source of our fixed data and principles, to deduce by logical inference the meaning of the authors of Scripture. In this way, by allowing no other principles or data for the interpretation of Scripture and study of its contents except those that can be gathered only from Scripture itself and from a historical study of Scripture -- steady progress can be made without any danger of error, and one can deal with matters that surpass our understanding with no less confidence than those matters that are known to us by the natural light of reason.”

As Spinoza scholar Steven Nadler suggests, Spinoza denies that the Bible provides “privileged knowledge of natural or spiritual phenomena.” In Spinoza's view, the enduring message of the Bible is merely obedience to God, altruism, and submission to the divine predetermination of all things.

With specific reference to Israel, Spinoza denies that the Jews were in any way “elected” by God. Instead, they were simply the product of historical circumstance, benefiting from historical, geographical, political, and economic realities. The Torah was simply a fortuitous development that offered rules and precepts that aided the Jews in their endurance, survival, and national development. The Bible is simply the work of human writers who were often ill informed, prejudiced, and superstitious.

As Matthew Stewart argues, “In short, Spinoza presents a thoroughly secular and historicist reading of the scriptures -- entirely unexceptional by modern standards -- according to which the Bible is clearly the work of human hands, and the truths it relays are, in the main, not FACTUAL but MORAL.”

Armed with his new philosophy, Spinoza saw himself, as Stewart acknowledges, as “the spiritual leader of a global revolution.”

The foundations of modern biblical criticism, and the secular worldview from which these foundations emerge, are all present and visible in Spinoza's writings. Indeed, one of the most fundamental distinctions common to the critical reading of the Bible -- the distinction between MEANING and TRUTH -- is well established in Spinoza's thought. In Spinoza's own words, “the point at issue is merely the meaning of the texts, not their truth.” Or, as Harrisville and Sundberg explain, “The distinction between truth and meaning is crucial to Spinoza's argument. Truth refers to matters of universal significance that reason is able to discern regardless of time and place. Meaning refers to the cultural expressions and artifacts of specific peoples bound to time and place.”

Thus, the miracle accounts found in the Bible are described as meaningful, even if untrue. The “truth” of the Bible is found only in its call to “true virtue.”

Harrisville and Sundberg understand the revolutionary character of Spinoza's thought: “In retrospect, Spinoza appears to be the trailblazer of a revolutionary position. In his work the Bible has become the object of historical science. This science is unalterably opposed to the proposition that the foundation of biblical study is revealed religion. The only proper foundation of religion is human reason.”

Further: “The motivation for historical criticism of the Bible is clear. It is a primary means to free society from the destructive force of religious passion. That is to say, the purpose of this new exegesis is not proclamatory or dogmatic, but political. The content of the Bible is investigated with an eye firmly fixed on its social effect. By undercutting religious passion, Spinoza encourages doubt. From doubt, Spinoza believes there will spring the social good of tolerance.”

Thus, the anniversary of Baruch Spinoza's excommunication in Amsterdam 350 years ago serves as a reminder of the radical roots of modern biblical criticism -- and of what little remains when divine revelation is denied. The Bible is left as nothing more than a “meaningful” witness to the religious passions of the ancients, marked by all of their own prejudices, faults, and misconceptions.

Once again, we face the basic fault line in modern thought -- the line between the belief that the Bible is indeed the written Word of God and the belief that the Bible is nothing more than a fallible moral witness. Matthew Stewart is absolutely correct in noting that Benedict Spinoza's concept of biblical criticism is now seen as “unexceptional” in the modern secular academy. Beyond this, Spinoza's distinction between meaning and truth has found its way into all too many pulpits, churches, seminaries, and denominations. We can only hope that a reminder of what took place in Amsterdam 350 summers ago might serve to remind the believing church of what is at stake today.

The Testimony of Lon Solomon

Lon Solomon leads the McLean Bible Church. To reach its fifteen-thousand members, who include Senator Jim Inhofe, Kenneth Starr, and Joe Gibbs, the church is adding ten satellite campuses. He found God in a science class and continues to see Him in his birth-defected daughter. He said in an interview for Esquire magazine:

My search began in earnest in 1969, when I first started taking lots and lots of drugs. I smoked a lot of dope. I took a lot of LSD. And it culminated in 1972, when I made the decision to give my life to Christ, which, as a Jew, was a real risk. I imagine some people thought I was still on drugs. I still consider myself a Jew.

Convert is a really ugly word in the Jewish vocabulary. I didn’t convert. I became the way I was supposed to be.

When I was a junior in high school, I was invited to a national science seminar, six weeks at Virginia Tech. It was there that I studied enzymes. I learned that there were thousands of these proteins in the body to speed up chemical reactions, and they’re all code-specific, meaning that if one doesn’t work, another enzyme correspondingly won’t pick up and do its job. The complexity of that system was so overwhelming that I’ll never forget walking back after class and saying to myself, There has to be a God. I knew nothing of this God at that point.

I know that there are scientific conclusions that some people believe contradict the Bible -- the age of the Earth and the fossil record, for instance. I believe that these conclusions are wrong.

My daughter Jill was born perfectly normal. At three months she started having seizures, and they got worse. Eventually she lost the ability to speak. She’s probably had five thousand grand mals or more, and has serious brain injury. She’s sixteen now, and nonverbal. It took nine years, but finally the doctors figured out that she had mitochondrial disease. The mitochondria are the parts of your cells that produce energy, and hers don’t work right. Her brain doesn’t get enough energy. She used to have six or eight seizures a day. Once, she had nineteen. We never slept through the night.

My daughter has taught me humility. She requires constant, permanent care. She’s not fully potty trained. She has simple pleasures. Taking a walk, picking up sticks, is what she loves to do. Riding in our van and looking out the window gives her great pleasure. I think we get so caught up in the complexity and the speed of things that we forget that that doesn’t bring real happiness. My daughter is amazingly happy. She doesn’t know she’s retarded, that she’s disabled. She needs love. She has been Walden to me, in reminding me what is important. It’s not having a BlackBerry. Or having your name in Esquire magazine. It’s serving somebody. God has given Brenda and me the gift of serving Jill, who will be one year old forever. At first I despised this fate and viewed it as a curse. Now I know that it is a privilege.

I’ve heard of these people who go down the white tunnel. I’m reminded of Shrek, where Donkey says, If you see a long white tunnel, don’t go down it. I don’t know if angels come and get you like Meet Joe Black or what. I’d like to think that maybe the Lord Jesus himself would come and get me.

I don’t have the slightest idea what heaven looks like. But I am convinced that when I get to heaven, Jill is going to be whole, and she’s going to say, “That’s my dad.” I will hear her voice.

________

Interviewed by Mark Warren, October 16, 2008

Do Jews Need To Be Perfected?

John 4:22

On October 11, 2007, Ann Coulter said on a television program that Jews need to be “perfected,” with reference to the teaching of the Old and New Testament. Her talk show host promptly declared himself “offended,” and the next morning Joe Scarborough, on his show, countered Coulter, saying to his “panel of experts” that “nowhere in the New Testament” did he find the teaching she was talking about. Instead, he said, people would be judged on the basis of whether they fed the hungry, helped the sick, and visited those in prison. He also said we should not judge other people.

I know when I’m out of my league, and so for the most part try not to comment on politics (I’ll leave that to pundits such as Ann and Joe), but in this case, they ventured into the area of Christian theology and biblical exegesis, and on this territory I feel a little more comfortable contributing to the discussion. In short, I am going to argue that while I may have wished that Ann Coulter had expressed her view with greater theological sophistication, she did have a point, and Joe’s efforts to “clarify” the New Testament’s teaching fell, at least in my opinion, flat.

Rightly interpreted, does the New Testament teach that the Jews need to be “perfected,” to use Ann Coulter’s language? Do Jews need to believe in Jesus the Messiah in order for them to be saved? Or is this belief optional, just for Christians, and is it OK for non-Christian Jews to go on holding to their own beliefs (which involve rejecting Jesus as Messiah)? (In case some of you reading the last sentence are wondering about the phrase “non-Christian Jews” -- as if there were “Christian Jews” -- there were, and are, in fact Christian or messianic Jews who believe in Jesus as Messiah.)

To address this issue, we must do better than Joe Scarborough, quoting one or two passages out of context. We need to look at all the relevant passages on the topic in Scripture, and try to understand the biblical theology on this subject. Since the genre of this post is that of a brief column, I will limit myself to a few key passages.

On the one hand, Jesus did acknowledge that “salvation comes from the Jews” (John 4:22), that is, the Jews are God’s chosen people per the Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament), and it is through them that the Messiah, Jesus, came. Jesus was a Jew!

At the same time, Jesus unequivocally claimed to be the Messiah and the only way to God. In John 14:6, he is quoted as saying, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” The same belief is echoed by the early Christians. Thus Luke quotes Peter as teaching, “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name given under heaven by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). So who is this name? “... then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead ... Jesus is ‘the stone you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone’” (Acts 4:10–11, quoting Psalm 118:22). The name without which no one -- Jew or non-Jew -- can be saved is Jesus. (And notice that Peter was addressing his fellow Jews.)

What will happen to Jews, then, who reject Jesus as Messiah? In John’s Gospel chapter 8, Jesus is quoted as saying that the Jews -- his own people -- are “children of the devil,” which, in context, means “sinners.” Jews are sinners, just like the rest of us. But if they are sinners, they need salvation. And how can they be saved? By feeding the hungry, helping the sick, and visiting those in prison, as Joe Scarborough is misrepresenting Jesus as teaching? No. According to both Jesus and the early church, salvation -- not only for non-Jews but also for Jews -- is “found in no one else” but Jesus (Acts 4:12).

So how do Jews get saved? Just like the rest of us -- by believing that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God (John 20:31). There is no special arrangement, no exception, no partiality. As Paul wrote, “There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.” That’s what the New Testament says. You didn’t hear it on Joe Scarborough’s morning show, but check it out -- it’s right there in the Bible. Maybe Ann Coulter, in her amateurish way of expressing it, did have a point -- this time.

________

Andreas Köstenberger is founder of Biblical Foundations (www.biblicalfoundations.org) and professor of New Testament at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, N.C.

The Origins of Life: A Jewish Perspective

Job 40

The increasingly nasty debate between believers in Darwinian evolution and advocates for intelligent design theory hinges on the fact that most creationists relate to evolutionists as if they have no soul, and most evolutionists relate to the creationists as if they have no brain.

Since according to Jewish tradition we all possess both, this is where our discussion should begin -- no small feat in a culture in which the absolute obliteration of the other side’s views is often the only basis for thinking that one’s own position is correct.

Such thinking is totally inconsistent with the Jewish intellectual tradition of healthy debate, the acceptance of multiple positions on complex issues, and the awareness that even those claims judged to be incorrect still have a great deal to teach us. In fact, according to the Talmud, the views of the “losing side” in every debate are preserved precisely because they may, at some future point, be deemed to be correct. It is that intellectual modesty, sorely lacking on both sides of today’s debate, which my tradition brings to its teachings about the divisive nature of the origin of life.

Jewish tradition teaches that God is the ground of all being and the ultimate source of all life. That said, both the positions of Darwinian evolution and those of the intelligent design theorists can fit with classical Jewish thought. The argument for the former bases itself on readings of the creation stories in Genesis as being non-literal with respect to time, i.e., the seven days of creation according to many rabbinic commentaries are understood as seven eons (the word “day” being a literary conceit helping the reader to comprehend the process), developmental in roughly the ways that Darwin describes, i.e., moving from less to increasingly complex forms of life, and guided by a process that supports the expansion of life in the most efficient and successful ways.

The argument for intelligent design is also easily made by reading the Genesis story as a literal account of the initial stages of the creation of all that is. This approach is driven by an understanding of God as more intimately involved with the ongoing processes of the world and all forms of life within it, the willingness to stand awe-struck before something of seemingly incomprehensible richness and complexity, and the ability to provide answers to life’s questions that supply meaning beyond the mechanisms by which life proceeds.

How can a single religious tradition support both of these readings? It can do so in much the same way that the book of Genesis can include two distinct creation narratives. The Hebrew Bible and Jewish tradition recognize that each approach is a valid response to a different set of issues. Both evolution and intelligent design attempt to explain the origins of life and to understand how life takes new forms. But the first is primarily interested in understanding the mechanics, while the second is at least as driven by the desire to appreciate the presence of the creator of life.

That difference does not imply that one is more valid than the other, or even more accurate. It simply means that when each of them is taught, there should be full recognition of the different biases that each approach carries with it. While each of them is in fact a “theory,” the meaning of that term is not applied equally by those who use it. Intelligent design theory is simply not testable in the way in which evolution theory is. More importantly, the proponents of evolution theory would be just as happy to find out that they are wrong, as to continue believing that they are right.

Excluding those Darwinians who understand their position to be a proof against the existence of a creator -- itself a kind of fundamentalist position -- the primary interest of evolutionary biology is the deepening of our understanding of life, regardless of the theological implications. The premise of intelligent design theory is that it can provide evidence that confirms the existence of a specific kind of creator. If it failed to do so, then not only would the theory be wrong, but the proponents of it would see themselves as having failed in their pursuit of knowledge and in their attempt to confirm what they already believe.

Jewish tradition has always made room for both of these impulses, the one that seeks confirmation of the purposefulness and meaningfulness of existence, and the one that challenges our very definitions of those terms. In fact, the only unacceptable position in this debate between the intelligent design folks and proponents of Darwin is the one that insists there is no room for both of these positions in our classrooms, homes, hearts and minds.

________

Rabbi Brad Hirschfield is vice president of CLAL-The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership.

Because It Is Right, Or Because God Says So?

Mark 12:40

Since it was raided by immigration agents in May 2008, the kosher slaughterhouse in Postville, Iowa, has been an endless source of national fascination and headlines. Just last week the Orthodox man who ran the Agriprocessors plant was released from jail on bail after a contentious hearing -- this after being hit by child-labor and bank-fraud charges.

The raid and its aftermath were not a surprise to me. I’d visited the plant in 2006 and written an article about the immigrant workers who had been shorted pay and lost limbs in the plant. But the attention to the plant’s woes -- particularly in the Jewish community -- astonished even me. The Agriprocessors raid, as it became known, inspired fund-raising campaigns, sermons, front-page headlines and lots of biting debate.

What was it that so riveted our attention? It was never articulated and it took me a while to see it, but this one story had managed to distill some of the most essential questions and issues that are dividing and defining the Jewish community, and indeed religious communities of all stripes today.

These divisions are, at their most basic, about the proper way to interpret religious law and values: Should we read our ancient texts literally or adapt them to a changing world?

The Agriprocessors plant slaughtered chickens and cows according to a group of laws -- known as KASHRUT -- that have been refined and codified over centuries in books like the Shulchan Aruch. Bearded, Orthodox rabbis had buzzed around the Agriprocessors plant making sure these laws were being followed.

When allegations about the working conditions at the company first came to public attention through my 2006 reporting, these Orthodox rabbis vouched for the company. But a group of progressive, socially engaged, and mostly clean-shaven rabbis decided to visit the plant themselves. After a tour of the plant and town, these rabbis said that while the company seemed to be in compliance with narrow kosher laws, there was less attention being paid to another, less codified set of Jewish rules about the proper way to treat workers.

These rules do not loom large in everyday Jewish life -- there is little contemporary rabbinic legislation on the proper minimum wage -- but they are strikingly consonant with modern concerns about human dignity and equality. The rabbis pushing this agenda might be compared, in secular terms, with Supreme Court justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer who seek to interpret old legal doctrines through a modern lens. As part of this push, these rabbis, who were representing the Conservative movement, created a new program, known as the Hekhsher Tzedek or Justice Certification, which aims to evaluate the business ethics of kosher producers.

The Hekhsher Tzedek generated intense pushback in large segments of the Orthodox community, where there is a belief in strict adherence to the laws set down in the Jewish holy texts -- these are the Antonin Scalias of the Jewish world, to continue the Supreme Court analogy. One influential Orthodox rabbi told me, “I don’t keep kosher because of some sense that it is the right thing to do socially -- I do it because God said so.”

These issues of legal interpretation have come up in past intracommunal battles over permitting women to read from the Torah and allowing gays and lesbians into the rabbinate. But the Agriprocessors debate has been about more than just law -- it has been about how Jews should relate to each other and the world.

The raid and the company’s subsequent collapse have hurt a diverse swath of people, from the 300 immigrants who were thrown in jail to the Orthodox family from Brooklyn, the Rubashkins, who owned the company and have faced criminal charges; one son, Sholom Rubashkin, was put in jail and hit initially with a 99-count criminal indictment.

The Orthodox rabbinate has focused most of its energy on a successful campaign to spring Mr. Rubashkin from jail on bail, citing an ancient Jewish religious obligation to free Jews from gentile captivity. This law and its sentiments grow out of a kin-based vision of religion in which the thing that matters most is family and co-religionists.

This campaign for Sholom Rubashkin has faced skepticism from progressive Jews -- many of whom had spent months trying to help the immigrants put in jail after the raid. In standing up for the immigrants, the non-Orthodox rabbis have fought for a more explicitly universal vision of mankind, in which a Guatemalan Catholic has the same weight as a Brooklyn Jew.

To be clear, these debates have not always broken down cleanly along Orthodox and non-Orthodox lines. There is, for instance, a group of young Orthodox rabbis who have been vocal in their criticism of the company. But this group is thus far a minority, and they have faced derision from the larger Orthodox community. The two sides of the Jewish world -- the Orthodox and non-Orthodox -- have shown remarkable unity on issues pertaining to Agriprocessors, but it has largely been in opposition to one another.

It is the very vitriol and divisive nature of the Agriprocessors debates that is one of the most characteristic elements of the increasingly polarized Jewish community of today. Progressive Jews passionate about social justice and Orthodox Jews unswerving in Talmudic law have interacted less and less in recent years, and disagreed more and more. The battles over Agriprocessors have underscored the suspicions between the two camps.

There is a historical irony to these divisions. Food has traditionally been one of the last places that Jews could come together -- Jews who had fully embraced the modern world would still allow themselves contact with the old country at the kitchen table. Now these interactions are being tarnished by questions about where the chicken in the matzoh ball soup came from and whose rabbis certified it. The ability to come together over a warm platter of brisket of beef may be, increasingly, a thing of the past.

________

Mr. Popper is senior writer at the Forward newspaper.

Is Christianity the Only Way?

John 5:23

The recent [June 2008] Pew Forum study on religion, widely reported in the media, shows that the vast majority of Americans remains religious: 92 percent believe in God. This percentage has remained relatively stable for more than half a century.

Atheists remain a tiny proportion of the population with some interesting anomalies: 21 percent of self-identified atheists say they believe in God, with nearly 10 percent of them “absolutely sure” of it. What this means is that 21 percent of self-described atheists are highly confused and 10 percent are certified nut-cases.

What got the most attention, however, was Pew’s discovery that a majority of religious Americans believe that other religions make valid claims about God and can lead to heaven. Around 80 percent of Catholics, Protestants and Jews, as well as 55 percent of Muslims, reject the idea that their religion is the only way.

These findings, however, hardly suggest that pluralism has overtaken truth as the defining feature of American religion. First of all, Christianity is the only religion to hold another religion to be wholly true. That religion is Judaism. Second, Catholics and Protestants have become increasingly convinced that it is fidelity to creedal Christianity -- and not the denominational differences of past centuries -- that is decisive for salvation. Finally many people don’t realize that just as Christianity sees itself as succeeding and incorporating Judaism, so Islam sees itself as coming after and incorporating both Judaism and Christianity. Consequently I’m not surprised that most Muslims view Jews and Christians as fellow monotheists rather than hell-bound infidels.

I recently had a debate with atheist Christopher Hitchens and Jewish radio host Dennis Prager. The debate had some fiery and fascinating exchanges. At one point Hitchens sought to alienate me from the Jews in the audience by asking me if good and decent Jews can go to heaven. I said I believe they can. This is no denial of the central Christian proposition that Christ is the way to salvation. The Bible clearly specifies that there is salvation through Christ for his followers.

But Scripture and Christian teaching leave open the question of what happens to virtuous non-Christians who either lived before Christ or who have not had a chance to accept him. My hope and belief is that God’s mercy can extend to them also, as it did to Moses and Abraham and the God-fearing Jews of the Old Testament. If so, they too would be saved through Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, even if they did not consciously and explicitly embrace that sacrifice. As for atheists who reject God and affirm with Hitchens that they want nothing to do with heaven, we can be reasonably confident that God will respect their free will and reluctantly grant their wish.

There are two kinds of pluralism: the kind that holds that truth does not matter, and the kind that holds that truth matters greatly but as flawed human beings our reason and experience gives us only limited access to the truth. The first kind of pluralism is deadly for religion, and is typically embraced by flaccid people who are too lazy to think or who have been seduced by postmodernist flimflam. The second kind of pluralism is the shared ground of debate between intelligent believers and unbelievers. The stakes could not be higher.

Gimme! Thanks! Oops! Wow!

Rabbi Marc Gellman leads Long Island’s Temple Beth Torah, a liberal Reformed synagogue. He says, “Really, when you come right down to it, there are only four basic prayers. Gimme! Thanks! Oops! and Wow!

“Wow! are prayers of praise and wonder at the creation.

“Oops! is asking for forgiveness.

“Gimme! is a request or a petition.

“Thanks! is expressing gratitude.

“That’s the entire Judeo-Christian doxology.”

from The New York Times · Zev Chafets via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database thanksgivingjudaism

I Don't Need Jesus Because I'm Jewish

John 14:6

“I don’t need Jesus because I’m Jewish”

Jewish friends sometimes say to me, “If you believe in Jesus, fine! He’s the Messiah for you but not for me because I’m Jewish. We Jewish people are already with God, so we don’t need Jesus”. These friends might not be aware of the “two-covenant” theology of various Jewish and Christian writers of the 20th and 21st centuries, but this is what underlies their thinking. The approach owes much to the writings of the German-Jewish thinker Franz Rosenweig (1886-1929) who said:

What Christ and his Church mean within the world — on this point we are agreed. No one comes to the Father except through him ... but the situation is different when one need no longer come to the Father because he is already with him. That is the case with the nation of Israel (cited in H J Schoeps, The Jewish-Christian Argument, New York, 1963).

There are various things to be said in response to the claim that Jewish people don’t need Jesus.

I point out that the Hebrew prophets make it clear that the Jewish people were never automatically saved simply by being Jewish. To the contrary, the prophets call their Jewish brethren again and again to repent and turn back to God, with warnings of judgment if they should fail to do so.

I highlight that the Torah of Moses also makes it clear that it is not enough simply to be Jewish. Whilst God gave many special promises to the Jewish people, there was no promise of automatic salvation for each individual member of the covenant nation. To the contrary, Jewish people, like all of us, have broken God’s commandments and so come under the curse of a broken law: “Cursed is he who does not confirm all the words of this law by doing them” (Deuteronomy 27:26). This being the case, the Torah makes it clear that there is no way of approach to God except through the God-appointed atonement for sin: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given the blood upon the altar to make atonement for the soul” (Leviticus 17:11). However, the Temple and altar of atonement have gone and the only way of salvation is in the atoning death of Jesus: “All we like sheep have gone astray, we have turned, everyone, to his own way; and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:6).

Finally, I emphasise that if Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of the Messiah in the Hebrew Bible, he is clearly the Jewish Messiah, and God therefore wants all Jewish people to believe in him. I then draw attention to some of the key prophecies of the Messiah in the Hebrew Bible, such as Isaiah 7:14; 9:6-7; 52:13-53:12; Psalm 22; Micah 5:2 and Zechariah 9:9.

Jesus made the point very clearly. For when he stated, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me,” He was undoubtedly declaring the only way to the Father for those Jewish people to whom he addressed his words.

________

This article first appeared in the September 2005 edition of the Herald.

[Holwick: Jesus preached almost entirely to Jews and he called them to repent and believe. I would add that the Apostle Paul did not consider Jews to be saved and knew “the righteousness that comes from God” (Romans 10:1-3 and also 9:1-5). He acknowledged they had zeal for God but not correct knowledge about him.]

He Had A Vision of The King of Kings

Joel 3:1

Baptists don’t have popes but we do have area leaders. In New Jersey, our state leader was Lee Spitzer. Lee is a very dynamic guy and has been a successful pastor in Nebraska, the Executive Minister of New Jersey who led the state to growth, and then the leader of the entire American Baptist denomination.

He wasn’t born into a Baptist family - he was born Jewish. His family was not very religious and rarely attended synagogue. Lee had a bar mitzvah party, but no bar mitzvah. His dad said the synagogue charged too much for the ceremony.

Lee remembers that he often felt like an outsider, such as when his school sang Christmas songs at a holiday assembly. Yet he was very proud to be Jewish. During the Six-Day war between Israel and the Arabs in 1967, he avidly followed the news of Israel’s huge victory. In his young mind, it was like God had delivered them from Pharaoh all over again.

Lee knew about the Old Testament prophets, especially Ezekiel. Ezekiel predicted a renewal of Israel and the defeat of its enemies. A messiah would bring it about.

When he was 7 years old, Lee had a dream. Probably inspired by Ezekiel, he dreamed that he was taken to a mountain where he saw all the enemies of Israel gathered. Up in the sky, he saw a man riding on a white war horse. He pointed to him and said, “That’s my messiah!” Then he woke up.

There was something else in Ezekiel that bothered Lee. The prophet talked a lot about sin. Lee was a pretty straight-laced kid, but he knew he fell far short of God’s ideal. How could a holy God forgive him? The Jewish Bible had animal sacrifices but that didn’t seem possible or desirable today. Lee wrestled with the idea of atonement.

It all clicked for him on December 23, 1971. He was bored and watching TV. Only Christmas movies were on. He watched two versions of Dickens’s “The Christmas Carol.” During the second one, he felt a PRESENCE in the room. He started to tingle. He searched all the closets to see if someone else was there. Lee said out loud, “What should I do now?” To his utter astonishment, he heard a strong voice. The voice said, “Pick up that book!”

His eye caught a book lying on his brother’s bookshelf. He picked it up. It was a Bible. Lee had never seen a New Testament before. He turned to the last pages and his attention fell on this passage in the book of Revelation:

“I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse ...

His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns...

On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:

KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.”

(Revelation 19:11-16)

Who was this guy? The voice spoke to him again: “Turn to the first page of the New Testament.” Lee had to go to the table of contents. Matthew was the first book. He turned there and read, “A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham...” It dawned on Lee - Jesus was Jewish! He was the rider on the white horse. He has the power to forgive sins. He is the Messiah Lee had been waiting for. Lee was moved to pray, and he acknowledged Jesus as his “master and messiah.”

He concluded his prayer by telling God he wouldn’t evangelize. Jews hate evangelism. Yet within days he was telling his friends about Jesus. God had truly invaded his life.

from Illustration #66319, "Being Jewish At Christmas," by Rev. Dr. Lee Spitzer · Rev. David Holwick, modifying the testimony of Rev. Dr. Lee Spitzer via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database conversionvisionchristmasgod s presencegod s voice

Hidden Children of the Holocaust

The year was 1942. The place was wartime Paris. Rachel Laznowski, a fashionably dressed middle-class woman with Semitic features, bundled her quiet, well-behaved daughters onto a train bound for the medieval cathedral city of Chartres.

Laznowski and her children, 5-year-old Adele and 2-year-old Josette, were headed for the nearby village of Brou and the poor, dilapidated home of an elderly villager who had agreed to take the girls in -- for pay.

Nazi Germany had occupied France two years earlier, and the deportation of French Jews was gathering momentum. Laznowski’s husband, Wolf, had just been taken away to Auschwitz, the notorious concentration camp in Nazi-occupied Poland. Laznowski knew her turn would come soon.

She and her sister, Anna Hoffman, had agonized over what to do. Hoffman had argued she would keep her children with her, no matter what. Laznowski, though torn, felt the girls would be safer if they could be hidden with a Christian family until the horror of the war and the mass exterminations ended.

They were fateful choices. Hoffman, her daughter and all but one member of her family perished in Auschwitz. Laznowski and her husband, who managed to survive the camp, were reunited after the war with Adele and Josette, who were safe if emotionally traumatized.

Adele Laznowski Zaveduk, now 58 and a resident of north suburban Northbrook, is one of an unknown number of “hidden children” who survived the Holocaust in attics, in convents or in the homes of non-Jewish families, posing as their offspring. Their stories have only recently begun to be told, as the number of living camp survivors dwindles.

“We felt we didn’t have the right to talk about what had happened to us,” Zaveduk said. “They were the real survivors. But now that the older generation is disappearing, I feel we must speak out.”

On Friday, Zaveduk will be the featured speaker at the city’s Holocaust Remembrance Day educational breakfast, where she will address about 200 students representing every public and parochial high school in the city. A public commemoration will follow at noon at the Harold Washington Library Center.

This is high season on Zaveduk’s particular lecture circuit, because it is Remembrance Week for victims of the Holocaust. She has given six presentations since last Friday, including an eight-hour marathon at Glenbrook South High School.

“I’m doing it for my parents,” she said, “because the history of that dark time must be told.”

And perhaps because of a sense of guilt -- guilt that she survived when so many others were killed, guilt that she got both her parents back after the war while most hidden children did not and guilt that her primary response to the reunion with her parents was anger and resentment.

“They abandoned me,” Zaveduk said, “or at least that’s how I experienced it.”

Madame Mulard -- the foster parent she came to call “Meme,” or “Granny” -- reinforced that.

“She would tell us our mother was a bad woman,” Zaveduk said.

“Meme” remains somewhat of an enigma to Zaveduk. An alcoholic who lived with her daughter and several grandchildren, Mulard frequently beat and berated all the children.

But, on the other hand, “Meme shared what little food there was evenly -- we were not treated worse than her grandchildren. And even though my mother’s money must have run out at some point, she kept us,” Zaveduk said.

“People who hid Jewish children were punished by death. So while there was no love there, I have great respect for her, and gratitude. I felt no anger toward her -- only toward my parents.”

Zaveduk, who was almost 9 when the war ended, became “a good Catholic” who had been taught that “the Jews were evil, and they crucified Jesus.” So she was particularly displeased that the strange couple who came to take her and Josette back to Paris were Jewish.

“I kept bringing crosses home, and my parents kept throwing them out. But although they wouldn’t let us go to church anymore, they didn’t replace our religion with anything else,” she said.

“After what their Judaism had cost them, they were not very observant.”

Even worse, her parents were not able to show the joy and love they must have felt at recovering their children.

“They had lost so much,” Zaveduk said, “they were afraid to become attached to anything for fear of losing it.”

The children, for their part, became very protective of their rather distant parents: “We always had to be good -- we couldn’t inflict any more pain on them.”

Perhaps the most heartbreaking part of Zaveduk’s story is the dearth of communication, not just with her mother -- who never explained why she had “abandoned” her -- but with her own children.

Zaveduk said she never talked with her parents about their wartime experiences. It wasn’t until 10 years ago, when her mother taped a “living testimonial” for the Holocaust Foundation in Skokie that Zaveduk got any inkling of what Laznowski had been through.

“I said to her, ‘Why didn’t you tell us more?’ She answered, ‘Why didn’t you ask?’

“I didn’t want to bring up sad memories, and she didn’t want to burden me with her past.”

Two years later, when Zaveduk agreed to speak about her childhood for the first time, she asked her elder son to type the speech. “He did it very graciously,” she said, “but he never asked any questions. When I asked him why, he replied, ‘There was a very clear line; I knew I wasn’t supposed to cross it.’ So I guess I must have conveyed the same reticence.”

Part of the reason for the conspiracy of silence is that, like other parents and children, Holocaust-survivor families “try to protect each other from bad things,” Zaveduk said. “But also we were told, ‘Forget the past. Get on with your life.’ “

And they did. Rachel Laznowski moved her family to Argentina in 1951, the year her husband died, and eventually remarried. Both daughters grew up and married in Buenos Aires, where Laznowski died five years ago and where Josette still lives.

Adele married Ben Zaveduk and they moved to the Chicago area in 1963. Their sons, Victor and Mitchell, live in Chicago.

Adele Zaveduk is active in a 100-member support group called Hidden Children/Chicago, which meets every other month.

“There is a bond that can’t be described,” she said. “Our lost childhood, the abandonment, having to go back to parents you don’t remember and who weren’t the same as they’d been three years earlier.”

________

"Secret Sufferers Of Holocaust" is the original title.

Do Christians and Muslims Worship the Same God? [3 Articles]

Luke 10:22

A statement made by a professor at a leading evangelical college has become a flashpoint in a controversy that really matters. In explaining why she intended to wear a traditional Muslim hijab over the holiday season in order to symbolize solidarity with her Muslim neighbors, the professor asserted that Christians and Muslims worship the same God.

Is this true?

The answer to that question depends upon a distinctly Christian and clearly biblical answer to yet another question: Can anyone truly worship the Father while rejecting the Son?

The Christian’s answer to that question must follow the example of Christ. Jesus himself settled the question when he responded to Jewish leaders who confronted him after he had said “I am the light of the world.” When they denied him, Jesus said, “If you knew me, you would know my Father also” (John 8:19). Later in that same chapter, Jesus used some of the strongest language of his earthly ministry in stating clearly that to deny him is to deny the Father.

Christians and Muslims do not worship the same God. Christians worship the triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and no other god. We know the Father through the Son, and it is solely through Christ’s atonement for sin that salvation has come. Salvation comes to those who confess with their lips that Jesus Christ is Lord and believe in their hearts that God has raised him from the dead (Romans 10:9). The New Testament leaves no margin for misunderstanding. To deny the Son is to deny the Father.

To affirm this truth is not to argue that non-Christians, our Muslim neighbors included, know nothing true about God or to deny that the three major monotheistic religions — Judaism, Christianity and Islam — share some major theological beliefs. All three religions affirm that there is only one God and that he has spoken to us by divine revelation. All three religions point to what each claims to be revealed scriptures. Historically, Jews and Christians and Muslims have affirmed many points of agreement on moral teachings. All three theological worldviews hold to a linear view of history, unlike many Asian worldviews that believe in a circular view of history.

And yet, when we look more closely, even these points of agreement begin to break down. Christian trinitarianism is rejected by both Judaism and Islam. Muslims deny that Jesus Christ is the incarnate and eternal Son of God and go further to deny that God has a son. Any reader of the New Testament knows that this was the major point of division between Christianity and Judaism. The central Christian claim that Jesus is Israel’s promised Messiah and the divine Son become flesh led to the separation of the church and the synagogue as is revealed in the Book of Acts.

There is historical truth in the claim of “three Abrahamic religions” because Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all look to Abraham as a principal figure and model of faith. But this historical truth is far surpassed in importance by the fact that Jesus explicitly denied that salvation comes merely by being merely one of “Abraham’s children” (John 8:39-59). He told the Jewish leaders who rejected him that their rejection revealed that they were not Abraham’s true sons and that they did not truly know God.

Christians do not deny that Muslims know some true things about God. As a matter of fact, in Romans 1:19-20 Paul explains that all people have some real knowledge of God by general revelation, so that they are without excuse. Speaking at Mars Hill in Athens in Acts 17, Paul argued that even some of the Greeks’ own philosophers and poets gave evidence of a rudimentary knowledge of God — but this was not a saving knowledge, and the Apostle was brokenhearted when he saw the Athenians at worship.

In making her claim that Christians and Muslims worship the same God, the professor claimed the authority of Pope Francis, and since Vatican II the Roman Catholic Church has become ever more explicit in its teaching that salvation can come without a conscious and explicit faith in Christ. This is simply not an option for evangelical Christians committed to the authority of Scripture alone and to the Gospel as defined in the New Testament.

Francis J. Beckwith, a leading Catholic apologist and philosopher, defended the claim that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. At one point, Beckwith argued that two people could have differing knowledge of Thomas Jefferson while knowing the same Thomas Jefferson as the third President of the United States. He continued: “In the same way, Abraham and Moses did not believe that God is a Trinity, but St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Billy Graham do. Does that mean that Augustine, Aquinas, and Graham do not worship the same God as Abraham and Moses? Again, of course not.”

But this line of argument evades the entire structure of promise and fulfillment that links the Old Testament and the New Testament. Abraham and Moses could not have defined the doctrine of the Trinity while they were on earth, but they believed that God would be faithful to all of his promises, and those promises were fulfilled only and fulfilled perfectly in Christ. And, going back to John 8:56-58, Jesus said: “Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad ... Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”

Evangelical Christians understand that, theologically, there is a genetic link between Judaism and Christianity. That is why Christians must always be humbled by the fact that we have been grafted onto the promises first made to Israel. In terms of both history and theology, there is no genetic link between Christianity and Islam. The Qur’an claims that to confess Jesus Christ as the divine Son and the second person of the Trinity is to commit blasphemy against Allah.

Hard times come with hard questions, and our cultural context exerts enormous pressure on Christians to affirm common ground at the expense of theological differences. But the cost of getting this question wrong is the loss of the Gospel. Christians affirm the image of God in every single human being and we must obey Christ as we love all people everywhere as our neighbor. Love of neighbor also demands that we tell our neighbor the truth concerning Christ as the only way to truly know the Father.

We must also understand that the most basic issue is the one Jesus answered with absolute clarity. One cannot deny the Son and truly worship the Father. There is no question that the Muslim is our neighbor, but there is no way to remain faithful to Scripture and the gospel and then claim that Christians and Muslims worship the same God.

==================

"Do Christians and Muslims Worship the Same God?" by Albert Mohler • December 1, 2013 • Decision Magazine

Does God care what we call Him? Do Muslims and Christians worship the same god? These are questions many Christians are asking these days, and for good reason.

For some time now, feminist theologians and a host of others have suggested that Christians should adopt new names for God. One denomination went so far as to affirm names like “Giver, Gift and Giving” in place of the “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” to be used in worship. Feminist theologians have demanded that masculine pronouns and names for God be replaced with female or gender-neutral terms. But to change the name of God is to redefine the God we reference. Changing the name of God is no small matter.

As a matter of fact, God takes His name very seriously, and the Ten Commandments include the command that we must not take the name of the Lord in vain. We are to use the names God has given for Himself, and we are to recognize that God takes His name seriously because He desires to be rightly known by His human creatures. We cannot truly know Him if we do not even know His name.

Moses understood this. When he encountered the call of God that came from the burning bush, Moses asked God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” (Exodus 3:13). God answered Moses, “I Am who I Am” (Exodus 3:14). God told Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘The Lord, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations” (Exodus 3:15).

As these verses make clear, we are not to tamper with God’s name. We are to use the names whereby God has named Himself, and we are to recognize that any confusion about the name of God will lead to confusion about the nature of God, if not to idolatry.

Christians must keep this central principle from the Bible constantly in mind as we consider some of the most urgent questions we face in the world today. We must certainly have this principle in mind when we think about Islam.

Several years ago, a bishop in the Netherlands attracted controversy when he argued that Christians should call God “Allah” in order to lower theological tensions. He also argued that calling God “Allah” would be commonplace in Christian churches within a century and that this would lead to a synthesis of Islam and Christianity.

More recently, an Islamic court in Malaysia ruled that only Muslims can use the name “Allah” in print publications. “The usage of the word will cause confusion in the community,” the chief judge ruled. Oddly enough, Christians may well agree with this Islamic judge. To call God “Allah” is to invite confusion.

In the Bible, God reveals Himself to us in many names. These names are His personal property. We did not invent these names for God. To the contrary, God revealed these names as His own.

We have no right to modify or to revise these names — much less to reject them. Jesus Christ made this abundantly clear. In the simplest way imaginable, Jesus teaches us to know God as Father, and to use this name in prayer. The Lord’s Prayer begins with the words, “Our Father, who is in heaven.” By the grace that God has shown us in Christ, we can truly know Him as Father.

Muslims do not speak of God as their heavenly Father. In the Islamic faith, Allah is not only a different name for god; the deity it designates is far more impersonal than the God of the Bible. Father — the very name that Jesus gave us as the designated name for use in prayer — is a name that simply does not fit Allah as depicted in the Quran.

Furthermore, Muslims claim that Allah has no son. This represents a head-on collision between the God of the Bible and Allah. For, as the Bible makes clear, the one and only true God is most perfectly revealed as the Father of the Son, Jesus Christ. In the Gospel of John, Jesus repeatedly teaches that no one has truly known the Father, except by the Son. In one of the most clarifying verses in the New Testament, Jesus declared Himself to be “the way, and the truth, and the life,” adding, “No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).

Because Muslims deny that God has a son, they explicitly reject any Trinitarian language. From the very starting point, Islam denies what Christianity takes as its central truth claim: the fact that Jesus Christ is the only begotten of the Father. If Allah has no son, then Allah is not the God who reveals Himself through the Son. How then can calling God “Allah” not lead to anything but confusion — and worse?

Islam teaches that the doctrine of the Trinity is blasphemous. But the Christian faith is essentially and irreducibly Trinitarian. The Bible reveals that the Father is God, that the Son is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God. Jesus is not merely a prophet, as acknowledged by Muslims, He is God in human flesh. This is precisely what Islam rejects.

The Trinitarian language is the language of the Bible, and it is essential to Christianity. Indeed, the Christian faith points to Christ and announces that we can only know the Father through the Son. Confusing the God of the Bible with Allah of the Quran is not only a mistake, it is a dangerous distortion of the Gospel of Christ.

The Trinitarian nature of God is embedded within the Great Commission. Jesus tells His disciples to go into the world and make disciples of all nations and to baptize them “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). Christians are those who bear the names of God even in our baptism, and those names are Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

This has become a matter of significant controversy in recent years as some Christians, including some serving with mission agencies, have argued that Christians can use the name “Allah” in talking about God. In some languages, especially those based on an Arabic source, there is no generic word for god. In such a situation, it might be necessary to begin a conversation by using this word, but the Christian cannot continue to call God “Allah.” It is hard to imagine that anyone can hear the name “Allah” without thinking of him as claimed in the Quran (see following article). Indeed, Muslims who speak languages other than Arabic use “Allah” as the name of god. But as soon as the Christian begins to explain that the true living God is the Father of Jesus Christ the Son, the Christian is making clear that the true living God is not Allah, but our Heavenly Father.

Continuing to use the name “Allah” to refer to the God of the Bible in such situations invites deep confusion. Some now argue that Muslims who come to faith in Christ can even remain within the mosque and continue to worship God as Allah. It is hard to see how that is anything other than a theological disaster.

We can now see that the name of God is no small matter. The deity we name is the God we believe in. Christians believe in only one God, and He is the Father who sent the Son to save us from our sins. Allah has no son, and, thus, Christians cannot know God as Allah. In this light, Muslims and Christians do not only use different names for God; in reality, these different names refer to different gods.

God takes His name with great seriousness, and so must we. Thankfully, we are not left in the dark, groping for adequate language. God has revealed His names to us, so that we can rightly know Him. We are not called to be clever or creative in referring to God, only faithful and accurate.

We are living in challenging days. One of the most pressing challenges of our times is the task of speaking rightly about God. This is particularly challenging when Christians encounter Muslims, but it is also a challenge when Christians encounter secular people in Western cultures. But this really isn’t a new challenge. It was the same challenge faced by the children of Israel as they encountered the Canaanites, and the same challenge faced by the Apostle Paul at Mars Hill.

Our challenge is to speak truthfully about God, and the only way we can do that is to use the names God gave Himself. The God of the Bible is not Allah, and Allah is not the God of the Bible. Any confusion about that undermines the very Gospel we preach.

________

©2013 R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

Scripture quotations are taken from the Holy Bible, English Standard Version.

==================

“What Does God Care What We Call Him?” by Albert Mohler, August 22, 2007.

A retiring Roman Catholic bishop in the Netherlands has been making headlines around the world in recent days with his suggestion that Dutch Christians should pray to Allah.

Bishop Tiny Muskens of Breda, a former missionary to Indonesia, suggested that conflict between Christians and Muslims could be lessened if Dutch Catholics followed the lead of some Christians in Muslim-dominated lands and adopted Allah as the preferred name for God..

From Catholic News:

Speaking on the Dutch TV programme Network on Monday evening, Bishop Muskens says it could take another 100 years but eventually the name Allah will be used by Dutch churches. And that will promote rapprochement between the two religions. Muskens doesn’t expect his idea to be greeted with much enthusiasm. The 71-year-old bishop, who will soon be retiring due to ill health, says God doesn’t mind what he is called. God is above such “discussion and bickering”. Human beings invented this discussion themselves, he believes, in order to argue about it.

Is there a valid linguistic basis for his argument? It is certainly true that the word Allah is the Arabic word for deity. Those supporting an argument like that of Bishop Muskens suggest that the Arabic word can be used as a generic term for deity.

In common English we use the word God as both a proper name and a noun. We differentiate between the two usages by capitalizing the word when we mean to refer to the specific personal God of the Bible, and by not capitalizing generic uses of the word. Thus, we might paraphrase the First Commandment like this: “God commanded His people to have no other gods before Him.” The correct interpretation of this sentence requires the use and understanding of the habits of capitalization.

Those making the case for a Christian appropriation of Allah must take their argument in one of two trajectories. The first trajectory is to argue that Allah can be used in a generic way to refer to any (presumably monotheistic) deity. This case will be very difficult to make. Language, theology, and worship are so closely intertwined that it is difficult, if not impossible, to argue for a generic use of Allah. Further evidence against this trajectory is the fact that non-Arabic speaking Muslims also use Allah when referring to their god.

The second trajectory presents even more of a problem. Those following this line of argument must make the case that Allah and God refer to the same deity. This represents a huge problem for both Muslims and Christians. Allah is not a personal deity in the sense that the God of the Bible is. Furthermore, the Qur’an explicitly denies that Allah has a son, and Islam considers the notion of a triune God to be blasphemy.

Thus, from its very starting point Islam denies what Christianity takes as its central truth claim — the fact that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of the Father. If Allah has no Son by definition, Allah is not the God who revealed himself in the Son. How then can the use of Allah by Christians lead to anything but confusion ... and worse?

The most dangerous (and theologically dishonest) part of Bishop Muskens’ argument is found in these words:

The 71-year-old bishop, who will soon be retiring due to ill health, says God doesn’t mind what he is called. God is above such “discussion and bickering”. Human beings invented this discussion themselves, he believes, in order to argue about it.

According to The Herald Sun [Melbourne, Australia], Bishop Muskens commented: “Allah is a very beautiful word for God .... What does God care what we call him?” What does God care what we call him?

Has the bishop read the Bible? God takes his name with great seriousness indeed. Moses discovered this when heard God speak from the burning bush [Exodus 3:13-22]. God did not leave himself nameless, nor did He invite Moses to devise a name for him. Jesus used this name [I AM] to refer to himself.

The Christian faith is essentially and irreducibly Trinitarian. The Bible reveals that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Jesus is not merely a prophet; He is God in human flesh. This is precisely what Islam rejects. If Allah has no Son, he is not the Father.

This is the most significant theological obstacle in the way of the Christian use of Allah as a name for God. Jesus taught his disciples to pray to “our Father, who is in heaven” [Matthew 6:9] — thus disallowing any confusion concerning God’s name. The most important names for God for Christians are “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit.” In the four New Testament gospels, Jesus uses the word “Father” more than sixty times. No Muslim would refer to Allah in this same way. This is not what will come to mind when a Muslim hears a Christian pray to Allah.

So Bishop Muskens is disingenuous at best when he suggests that God does not care about His name. This is not a matter of mere “discussion and bickering.” If the Bible is the Word of God, we can be assured that human beings did not invent this discussion.

There is one final and insurmountable problem with Bishop Muskens’ proposal. Jesus commanded his disciples to baptize believers “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” [Matthew 28:19]. When this command is taken seriously and obeyed, the whole issue is greatly clarified — a Christian cannot baptize in the name of Allah.

If Allah has no son, Allah is not the father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Even if the case is made that Allah could be used in a generic sense to refer to God ( and I am not persuaded that it can), the word cannot be used to mean the Father in a Trinitarian affirmation. This is not mere “discussion and bickering.” This is where the Gospel stands or falls.

ADDENDUM: The particular question raised by Bishop Muskens was the use of the word “Allah” by Christians in the West as a means of lessening Christian-Muslim tensions. The question of using “Allah” to refer to god in a clearly missiological setting will raise other issues. If the word is understood as a generic term for God (and not exclusively as a proper name), the question would then be how a Christian must make clear that the God of the Bible–revealed as the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ–is not the deity as described in the Qur’an (who explicitly has no son). The linguisitic root of Allah may well be connected to Elohim (a name for God found in the Old Testament). This fact may help to clarify the possible use of the word in a missiological setting. The clarity comes in understanding that, even in the Old Testament, the name Elohim is, in itself, quickly accompanied by other names and words to make clear that the God of the Bible is the personal, monotheistic, covenant-making God of Abraham, Moses, and the prophets. The New Testament makes clear that this God is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ — indeed the God who in these latter days has spoken definitively through the Son [Hebrews 1].

In other words, it would seem best to think of Allah in this setting as a place to begin a conversation about God in a Muslim setting. The challenge from that point onward will be to make certain that there is no misunderstanding about the fact that the only true and living God is the Father of Jesus Christ the Savior.

The crucial questions here are these: First, can we assume that the deity central to Islam and known as Allah is, in fact, the same God worshipped by Christians and revealed in the Bible? The answer to that question must be negative. In that sense, Allah is certainly not the God of the Bible.

The second question is whether the word “Allah” can be understood, in Arabic and Muslim settings, as both a generic noun and a proper noun. Some credible Christian scholars and missionaries are certain that it can. The issue then becomes how contemporary Christians remain faithful to the Gospel in this setting even as the Apostle Paul remained faithful in Acts 17 when he visited Athens. Paul, we must remember, had to tell the religious Athenians that they had misunderstood the very nature and character of the true God. “Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you” [Acts 17:23].

A Rabbi Thanks God That America Is A Christian Nation

Not every non-Christian supports efforts to hinder Christianity in America. Rabbi Daniel Lapin of The American Alliance of Jews and Christianity said that he believes it is in “paramount” Jewish interest to support Christians in their defense of Christianity.

“As an orthodox Jewish rabbi, I know that nowhere in the past 2,000 years have Jews enjoyed as lengthy, as prosperous and tranquil a stay as here in the United States of America,” he said. “And I believe passionately that this is not in spite of the vitality of Christianity in America and its centrality in American civilization.”

He added, “Unlike Europe, with it seemingly insurmountable problems, thank God America is a Christian nation as I see it.”

________

Christian Post Reporter

The Temple That Jesus Visited

Mark 13:1

Viewing the remains of the Jewish Temple complex that Jesus visited on many occasions remains the favorite aspect of both trips I’ve made to Israel. After nearly 2,000 years, the Temple still inspires the many Jewish and Christian visitors to the old city of Jerusalem.

In the New Testament, the term “Temple” is used for both the sanctuary/shrine as well as for the whole Temple complex site that includes its many courts and retaining walls. The Temple that Jesus visited was started by King Herod beginning around 20-19 B.C. Under Herod, the sanctuary itself was completed in a year and a half, but construction on the various courts, gates and retaining walls continued on and off until just a few years before the Jewish revolt in A.D. 66.

In the early ministry of Jesus, the most recent terminus of construction to that point had occurred 46 years after Herod began the project, according to the biblical record in John 2:20. It was the third Jewish Temple built on the site. Solomon and Zerubbabel had earlier sponsored Temple complexes there, but the historian Josephus related that Herod even removed the foundation stones of the earlier Temples to construct his Temple (Antiquities of the Jews, 15,391; 15,421).

Herod’s Temple complex was impressive. Largely constructed of local white meleke limestone from the Jerusalem area with a veneer of marble and gold on the shrine itself, the huge ashlars (finely cut and dressed rectangular blocks designed to fit together without mortar) were polished to reflect the sunlight. Josephus tells us that visitors seeing the Temple from a distance may have thought it a snow-covered mountain (Jewish War, 5,223). Even a disciple of Jesus marveled at the beautiful and massive stone work of the Temple (Mark 13:1).

Nevertheless, the Lord knew that Herod’s great Temple would be destroyed -- particularly the buildings and shrine at the site. Jesus replied to His disciple: “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left here on another that will not be thrown down” (Mark 13:2 HCSB). His prediction came true in A.D. 70 when the Romans destroyed all the buildings on the Temple Mount, including the magnificent sanctuary.

So, what remains of the Temple that Jesus visited? Although the buildings on the Temple Mount were destroyed, one can still find a good deal of the Temple complex that Jesus, the disciples and the apostle Paul would have recognized. Specifically, the following features still can be viewed today: portions of the massive retaining walls, some special features and even some signage that once was posted in the Temple complex.

The retaining walls

Today we know that the lower courses of Herod’s retaining walls are found on all four sides of the Temple Mount (or the “Haram al-Sharif” to Muslims who currently possess the Temple Mount platform). Most of the north side retaining wall is under the present ground level, but on three sides -- the west, south and east -- portions of the retaining wall exist above ground. We can identify the Herodian masonry because of the huge stone ashlars in the lower courses of the present old city wall around the Temple Mount. The upper portions, containing smaller stones from later centuries, were not present in New Testament times.

One of more imposing parts of the Herodian retaining walls is at the southeastern corner of the Temple Mount (the “pinnacle of the Temple” -- the highest point of the Temple complex above the Kidron Valley). Here the Gospels record that Satan unsuccessfully tempted Jesus (Matthew 4:5; Luke 4:9). Below-ground portions of the “pinnacle” platform extend another 75 feet or so underneath the present ground level.

Nevertheless, the most famous above-ground portion of the retaining wall is the Western Wall (the so-called “Wailing Wall”). Here 21st-century Jews pray at the most impressive surviving portion of the wall above ground. Like the stone courses of the “pinnacle” platform, many layers of the Western Wall continue underneath the present ground level. A tunnel adjacent to another portion of the Western Wall reveals the Herodian ashlars set on massive foundation stones.

Special features

Other aspects of the Temple that Herod built and Jesus visited still are extant today. These include some paving stones and floor tiles that match tiles found at Herodian palaces at Masada and other locales, a sundial for perhaps determining the time of day for prayers (Acts 3:1) and sacrifices, geometric and floral designs on the column capitals and facings of the stone work (no animal or human likenesses have been found among these) and, just outside the Temple complex on the south side, there are a number of Jewish “mikvot.” A “mikveh” (singular) was a baptismal pool for Jews undergoing ceremonial cleansings. Many Jewish pilgrims to the Temple made use of these before ascending the steps into the Temple complex on the south side.

In addition, some surviving architectural features can still be viewed today. Among these is Wilson’s Arch on the Western Wall (named for the archeologist who rediscovered it). The arch once was part of a bridge over the Tyropoeon Valley (the misnamed “Valley of the Cheesemakers”) into the Temple. A part of the arch is the original Herodian structure or a later rebuilt arch constructed with Herod’s huge building blocks. Archeologists remain divided on the origin of the current structure. Not disputed are the nearby partial remains of Robinson’s Arch (named for another archeologist) also on the Western Wall. Here pilgrims could enter the Temple from the valley below on a staircase supported by the arch.

On the south side of the retaining wall for Herod’s Temple are a number of interesting features. These include the stairs to the Double and Triple Gates. Both gates functioned as the entrance way for most Jews entering the Temple Complex in the New Testament era (Mishnah, Middoth, 1,3) but today, no one can enter the Temple Mount in the vicinity of these gates. Some of the stair steps have been reconstructed and restored while other original steps reveal their 2000 years of wear and tear. The lintel piece atop the walled-up Double Gate is partially visible today but the rest of it is covered by a Crusader era structure. The Triple Gate also is walled-up but contains some of the original stones at the bottom and below the ground level. It is not known if this was a “Triple Gate” in antiquity; the modern Avi-Yonah model of the Temple shows it as another Double Gate.

Around and under the Temple Mount are a number of other surviving features. Highlights include some of the cisterns and water courses that served the Temple and the Fortress Antonia (some still carry water), storerooms and the massive Herodian structures misnamed as “Solomon’s Stables.” These huge pillars supported the massive works above ground near the south side. Some of these features have only recently been accessible to tourists by the opening of tunnels under and adjacent to the Temple Mount.

Signage

Like most public structures in the 21st century, the Temple that Jesus visited possessed signage. Only a few years ago, archeologists recovered a sign in Hebrew letters announcing “to the place of the trumpeting.” At the original site somewhere atop the southwestern part of the Temple complex, Jewish priests blew the shofar to announce the beginning of the Sabbath and other special days. The sign either was a deliberate permanent sign to designate where the priests would trumpet or a temporary sign that remained to point construction teams to the site of the “place of the trumpeting.”

Josephus acknowledged that special signs in both Greek and Latin warned Gentiles not to go beyond the Court of the Gentiles into those courts reserved for Jews (Jewish War, 5,194). Although no Latin signs have been recovered, today we possess two stone signs in Greek that caution Gentiles not to go any further into the Temple Complex. The signs warn: “No foreigner [Gentile] is to enter within the forecourt and balustrade around the sanctuary. Whoever is caught will have himself to blame for his subsequent death” (ABD 2.963). That the Jews of this period took the warning seriously can be gleaned from Acts 21:27-33.

Conclusion

Aspects of the first-century Temple fascinate both Jews and Christians. One can still view some of the sights that Jesus saw when He ministered at the Temple. Archeologists continue to uncover both artifacts and even structures (largely underground today) connected to the Temple of this era.

Although Christians are not commanded in the New Testament to make pilgrimages, Southern Baptists can learn much about their faith by touring Israel and Palestine and visiting places like the Temple Mount. Having returned from my second trip shortly after the tensions with Gaza last fall, I found the experience inspirational, safe and problem-free. My two visits to the Holy Land have positively impacted my faith.

Jesus Didn't Eat A Seder Meal

Ezra 6:19

Passover has a special allure for Christians. It is on the night of Passover, as all Israel is offering the pascal Lamb and eating matza (unleavened bread) and bitter herbs on the slopes of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem that Jesus of Nazareth meets with his 12 disciples for the Last Supper. This may be the best-known Passover meal.

Both of these meals — Jesus’s Last Supper and the first Passover meal — are launch events. Each of them inaugurates a new religious civilization. Thus, for the believing Christian, it is no coincidence that Jesus convenes the disciples at the very moment of the Passover meal to signal that this meal is the fulfillment of and successor to that first Passover meal, and that like the first one, the Last Supper inaugurates a new faith community. For most of Christian history, the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, the Eucharist, replaced the Jewish Passover Seder. For Jews, however, the most important Passover meal is the very first, described in Exodus 12. It is the meal by which Israel celebrates its liberation from the pagan culture of Egypt/Mitzrayim by serving the One God and bringing an offering to the One God. That first Passover meal is eaten home-by-home, family-by-family. The guest list consists of all the members of the family, men and women, old and young, wise and foolish, learned and ignorant, boys and girls. In other words, present at that first Passover offering was the whole Jewish family in all of its delight and complexity. When Jews today celebrate the Passover, they are reenacting that moment and connecting with all Jews across time and space who have been celebrating the Passover Seder for millennia.

The re-emergence of Christian interest in the Jewish Passover and especially the Seder is due, in part, to the American context. Our social and political culture, where people are free to practice their faith freely as well as freely explore other faiths — has made it possible for Jews and Christians to satisfy their innate human curiosity and to come to know the other as never before. This ethos is felt nowhere more powerfully than in the encounter that takes place between Christianity and Judaism in Christian Holy Week and Passover, which fall in the same week approximately three out of every four years.

This interest can be traced to the emergence of post–World War II Jewish-Christian dialogue, in which the “model Seder,” led by a knowledgeable Jew, emerged as an opportunity to use the Passover/Easter connection to teach Christians about Judaism, but also because Christians wanted to better understand the Jewish background of their faith. But these well-intentioned goals were the victim of their own success. Increasing numbers of Christians wanted to have that experience, even if there were no Jews around to lead it. And so what began as an effort at interreligious and historical understanding morphed into a tradition for many churches’ Holy Week celebrations, so that in some settings the Seder has become a form of Christian worship. This trend has been exacerbated by the increased recognition of the Jewishness of Jesus and a desire among some Christians to do what Jesus would have done — good and faithful Christians want to experience a Passover meal like Jesus. In evangelical settings, the promotion of Christian Seders by those who identify as messianic Jews and other such affiliations has also contributed to its growth.

So this is a phenomenon that cannot be denied, but it is one that most Jews find particularly troubling.

The first reason is historical. The Seder ritual, as it is practiced today, did not exist at the time of Jesus. It was only fully developed by the rabbis in the years following the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E., in other words, at least two generations after Jesus. Many assume that Jesus, at the Last Supper, conducted what we now know of as a traditional Passover Seder with the Pesakh (pascal) offering of the lamb, matza, bitter herbs, the telling of the tale of the Exodus from Egypt, and other rituals as found in the Jewish Passover Hagada. This is incorrect. To put it bluntly, Jesus certainly celebrated Passover, but neither he nor his disciples ever attended a Seder, any more than they drove a car or used a cell phone.

In the Last Supper, Jesus surely is making allusions to the Exodus, as does the Jewish Passover meal, but that event takes a back seat to his revealing himself as “the Passover lamb,” as the object of a new and revolutionary expression of faith. The Jewish Passover meal inaugurates the Jewish people into its history; it prepares them to fulfill the responsibilities of the mitzvot (commandments) given at Sinai. As such, it is an event designed for and limited to the Jewish people. Jesus of Nazareth, in the Last Supper, presents himself as the offering not just for all Israel, but for all of humanity. He is, in short, establishing a unique ritual. In our view, celebrating a Christian Seder to commemorate the Last Supper misses the point historically.

Second, adopting another’s ritual shows a lack of respect. Even when pursued with the best of intentions, taking another faith’s sacred ritual and transforming it into an expression of one’s own tradition displays a misunderstanding of the complex nature of faith traditions. Good relations between Christianity and Judaism, and by extension, other faiths as well, may begin with acknowledging common principles, but also demand a clear articulation of the profound differences that separate them. However, it is surely not the goal of good interfaith relations for Jews and Christians to co-opt or reshape one another’s rituals for their own ends.

On the other hand, for the Jew, the Passover Seder is not some quaint experience such as Thanksgiving dinner or a Fourth of July barbeque, which like other aspects of our American “civil religion,” Jews and Christians should and do share, readily and with ease. The Passover Seder expresses the belief that God who redeemed us once from Egypt will in the End of Days inaugurate the messianic era for the first time, redeem the Jewish people from the Exile in which we now find ourselves, and ultimately bring God’s eternal reign of peace and righteousness to the entire world. It is the meal that celebrates that Jews are God’s chosen people with a unique mission, and points back to what we believe is the first and only divine revelation, at Sinai.We like to think of rituals as the lovemaking between a faith community and God. They are unique, and they express utterly distinct beliefs that Jews and only Jews hold, or that Christians and only Christians hold. In our experience, Jews who encourage a Christian adaptation of the Passover Seder view and naturally emphasize Jesus as a fine teacher, partaking of the Jewish culture of his times, interested in the same kinds of Torah learning as the Perushim, the righteous Pharisees whose teachings are foundational to rabbinic, and therefore, contemporary, Judaism. In doing so, such Jews do not realize they are showing profound disrespect and lack of understanding of Christian faith in Jesus. For the Christian, Jesus is not merely one more interesting and inspiring member of the Jewish scholarly community of the first century. Jesus was certainly part of that world, but for the Christian, Jesus is God incarnate, the risen Christ. For the Christian, the blood of the new Lamb of God on the cross is what atones not only for sin, but also brings salvation and life eternal.

Jews and Christians honor their traditions — and those of the other — best when we recognize that those traditions cannot be turned into something that they are not. We honor and respect each other when we do not trespass on the other’s most sacred ground, violating the very respect that love for neighbor requires. In our view, in the understandable Christian rush to embrace certain elements of the Jewish tradition, Christians far too often forget that rituals of any faith community are its most precious possession and that these rituals emerge from a unique set of beliefs, faith affirmations, and historical experiences.

Should a Christian want to know something of a Passover Seder, there is many a readily available Jewish host who would set a fine table for his or her Christian friends and neighbors. We have often welcomed non-Jewish visitors to our Shabbat dinner tables, our Passover meals, weddings, bar or bat mitzvah ceremonies, and the like. In these settings, it is clear that the ritual is a wholly authentic Jewish experience. There is a world of difference between being a guest in someone else’s home or house of worship, and the expropriation of another’s ritual for one’s own religious purposes.

The Seder is uniquely Jewish, born of the Jewish reading of the Torah, shaped by the architecture of our magisterial Perushim-Pharisees and their rabbis, and given artistry and beauty through 2,000 years of Jewish experience. Christians best honor their Jewish neighbors, to whom they wish to express the love of Christ, by recognizing that the Seder meal is the unique spiritual heritage of the Jewish people and respecting it as such.

________

Rabbi Yehiel Poupko is rabbinic scholar at the Jewish United Fund/Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago.

Rabbi David Sandmel is director of interreligious engagement for the Anti-Defamation League.

Judaism 101: Pesach / Passover

Ezra 6:19

The Jewish Passover

Significance: Remembers the Exodus from Egypt

Observances: Avoiding all leavened grain products and related foods; Family or communal retelling of the Exodus story

Length: 8 days (Some: 7 days)

And this day shall become a memorial for you, and you shall observe it as a festival for the L-RD, for your generations, as an eternal decree shall you observe it. For seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, but on the first day you shall remove the leaven from your homes ... you shall guard the unleavened bread, because on this very day I will take you out of the land of Egypt; you shall observe this day for your generations as an eternal decree. - Exodus 12:14-17

Pesach, known in English as Passover, is one of the most commonly observed Jewish holidays, even by otherwise non-observant Jews. According to the 2000-01 National Jewish Population Survey (NJPS), 67% of Jews routinely hold or attend a Pesach seder, while only 46% belong to a synagogue.

Pesach begins on the 15th day of the Jewish month of Nissan. It is the first of the three major festivals with both historical and agricultural significance (the other two are Shavu’ot and Sukkot). Agriculturally, it represents the beginning of the harvest season in Israel, but little attention is paid to this aspect of the holiday. The primary observances of Pesach are related to the Exodus from Egypt after generations of slavery. This story is told in Exodus 1-15. Many of the Pesach observances are instituted in chapters 12-15.

The name “Pesach” (PAY-sahch, with a “ch” as in the Scottish “loch”) comes from the Hebrew root Pei-Samekh-Cheit, meaning to pass through, to pass over, to exempt or to spare. It refers to the fact that G-d “passed over” the houses of the Jews when he was slaying the firstborn of Egypt. In English, the holiday is known as Passover. “Pesach” is also the name of the sacrificial offering (a lamb) that was made in the Temple on this holiday. The holiday is also referred to as Chag he-Aviv, (the Spring Festival), Chag ha-Matzot, (the Festival of Matzahs), and Z’man Cheiruteinu, (the Time of Our Freedom) (again, all with those Scottish “ch”s).

Pesach Laws and Customs

Probably the most significant observance related to Pesach involves avoiding chametz (leaven; sounds like “hum it’s” with that Scottish “ch”) throughout the holiday. This commemorates the fact that the Jews leaving Egypt were in a hurry, and did not have time to let their bread rise. It is also a symbolic way of removing the “puffiness” (arrogance, pride) from our souls.

Chametz includes anything made from the five major grains (wheat, rye, barley, oats and spelt) that has not been completely cooked within 18 minutes after first coming into contact with water. Orthodox Jews of Ashkenazic background also avoid rice, corn, peanuts, legumes (beans) and some other foods as if they were chametz. All of these items are commonly used to make bread, or are grown and processed near chametz, thus use of them was prohibited to avoid any confusion or cross-contamination. Such additional items are referred to as “kitniyot.” (usually pronounced as in Yiddish, KIT-nee-yohs).

We may not eat chametz during Pesach; we may not even own it or derive benefit from it. We may not even feed it to our pets or cattle. All chametz, including utensils used to cook chametz, must either be disposed of or sold to a non-Jew (they can be repurchased after the holiday). Pets’ diets must be changed for the holiday, or the pets must be sold to a non-Jew (like the food and utensils, the pets can be repurchased after the holiday ends). You can sell your chametz online through Chabad-Lubavitch. I have noticed that many non-Jews and non-observant Jews mock this practice of selling chametz as an artificial technicality. I assure you that this sale is very real and legally binding, and would not be valid under Jewish law if it were not. From the gentile’s perspective, the purchase functions much like the buying and selling of futures on the stock market: even though he does not take physical possession of the goods, his temporary legal ownership of those goods is very real and potentially profitable.

The process of cleaning the home of all chametz in preparation for Pesach is an enormous task. To do it right, you must prepare for several weeks and spend several days scrubbing everything down, going over the edges of your stove and fridge with a toothpick and a Q-Tip, covering all surfaces that come in contact with food with foil or shelf-liner, etc., etc., etc. After the cleaning is completed, the morning before the seder, a formal search of the house for chametz is undertaken, and any remaining chametz is burned.

The grain product we eat during Pesach is called matzah. Matzah is unleavened bread, made simply from flour and water and cooked very quickly. This is the bread that the Jews made for their flight from Egypt. We have come up with many inventive ways to use matzah; it is available in a variety of textures for cooking: matzah flour (finely ground for cakes and cookies), matzah meal (coarsely ground, used as a bread crumb substitute), matzah farfel (little chunks, a noodle or crouton substitute), and full-sized matzah (sheets about 8 inch square, a bread substitute).

Some people observe an additional strictness during Pesach known as gebrochts, from a Yiddish word meaning “broken,” although I’m not sure what brokenness has to do with this restriction. Those who observe gebrochts (or more accurately, “no gebrochts”) will avoid any matzah product that has come into contact with liquid after being baked. The rule arises from a concern that matzah may contain bits of flour that were not completely cooked and that would become leavened upon contact with liquid. People who observe this strictness cannot eat many common traditional Pesach dishes, such as matzah ball soup, and cannot even eat charoset on matzah at seder. They are careful not to spill seder wine on their matzah, and promptly remove the wine spilled as part of the seder. Observance of this additional restriction is not common, but many people become exposed to it because it is followed by the Chabad-Lubavitch, who are active in Jewish education. Some have criticized gebrochts for unnecessarily complicating Pesach and taking some of the joy out of this celebration of freedom for no good reason, noting that the premise of this rule contradicts codes of Jewish law that explicitly say it is impossible for matzah to become chametz once it is baked. Nevertheless, this effort to more fully observe G-d’s law is worthy of respect, even if you are not inclined to add this restriction to your own Pesach experience.

The day before Pesach is the Fast of the Firstborn, a minor fast for all firstborn males, commemorating the fact that the firstborn Jewish males in Egypt were not killed during the final plague.

On the first night of Pesach (first two nights for traditional Jews outside Israel), we have a special family meal filled with ritual to remind us of the significance of the holiday. This meal is called a seder, from a Hebrew root word meaning “order,” because there is a specific set of information that must be discussed in a specific order. It is the same root from which we derive the word “siddur”, (prayer book). An overview of a traditional seder is included below.

Pesach lasts for eight days (seven days in Israel). The first two days and last two days of the holiday (first and last in Israel) are days on which no work is permitted. See Extra Day of Holidays for more information. Work is permitted on the intermediate days. These intermediate days on which work is permitted are referred to as Chol Ha-Mo’ed, as are the intermediate days of Sukkot.

When Pesach Begins on a Saturday Night

Occasionally, Pesach begins on a motzaei Shabbat, that is, on Saturday night after the sabbath has concluded. This last occurred in 5768 (2008), and will not occur again until 5781 (2021). This complicates the process of preparing for Pesach, because many of the preparations normally undertaken on the day before Pesach cannot be performed on Shabbat.

The Fast of the Firstborn, normally observed on the day before Pesach, is observed on Thursday instead. The search for chametz, normally performed on the night before Pesach, is performed on Thursday night. The seder should be prepared for as much as possible before Shabbat begins, because time should not be taken away from Shabbat to prepare for Pesach. In addition, there are severe complications dealing with the conflict between the requirement of removing chametz no later than mid-morning on Saturday, the prohibition against eating matzah on the day before the seder, and the requirement of eating three meals with bread during Shabbat! For further details, see an excellent summary from the Orthodox Union, the world’s largest, oldest and perhaps most respected kosher certification agency.

The Pesach Seder

And if your son asks you in the future, saying, What are the testimonies, and the statutes, and the judgments, that the L-RD our G-d commanded you? You will say to your son, We were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt; and the L-RD brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand. The L-RD gave signs and wonders, great and harmful, against Egypt, against Pharaoh, and against all his household, before our eyes: And he brought us out of there to bring us in, to give us the land that he promised our fathers. -Deuteronomy 6:20-23

The text of the Pesach seder is written in a book called the haggadah. The haggadah tells the story of the Exodus from Egypt and explains some of the practices and symbols of the holiday. The content of the seder can be summed up by the following Hebrew rhyme:

Kaddesh, Urechatz,

Karpas, Yachatz,

Maggid, Rachtzah,

Motzi, Matzah,

Maror, Korekh,

Shulchan Orekh,

Tzafun, Barekh,

Hallel, Nirtzah

Now, what does that mean?

1. Kaddesh: Sanctification

A blessing over wine in honor of the holiday. The wine is drunk, and a second cup is poured.

2. Urechatz: Washing

A washing of the hands without a blessing, in preparation for eating the Karpas.

3. Karpas: Vegetable

A vegetable (usually parsley) is dipped in salt water and eaten. The vegetable symbolizes the lowly origins of the Jewish people; the salt water symbolizes the tears shed as a result of our slavery. Parsley is a good vegetable to use for this purpose, because when you shake off the salt water, it looks like tears.

4. Yachatz: Breaking

One of the three matzahs on the table is broken. Part is returned to the pile, the other part is set aside for the afikomen (see below).

5. Maggid: The Story

A retelling of the story of the Exodus from Egypt and the first Pesach. This begins with the youngest person asking The Four Questions, a set of questions about the proceedings designed to encourage participation in the seder. The Four Questions are also known as Mah Nishtanah (Why is it different?), which are the first words of the Four Questions. This is often sung. See below.

The maggid is designed to satisfy the needs of four different types of people: the wise one, who wants to know the technical details; the wicked one, who excludes himself (and learns the penalty for doing so); the simple one, who needs to know the basics; and the one who is unable to ask, who doesn't even know enough to know what he needs to know.

At the end of the maggid, a blessing is recited over the second cup of wine and it is drunk.

6. Rachtzah: Washing

A second washing of the hands, this time with a blessing, in preparation for eating the matzah.

7. Motzi: Blessing over Grain Products

The ha-motzi blessing, a generic blessing for bread or grain products used as a meal, is recited over the matzah.

8. Matzah: Blessing over Matzah

A blessing specific to matzah is recited, and a bit of matzah is eaten.

9. Maror: Bitter Herbs

A blessing is recited over a bitter vegetable (usually raw horseradish; sometimes romaine lettuce), and it is eaten. This symbolizes the bitterness of slavery. The maror is dipped in charoset, a mixture of apples, nuts, cinnamon and wine, which symbolizes the mortar used by the Jews in building during their slavery. (I highly recommend it -- it's the best tasting thing on the holiday, and goes surprisingly well with horseradish! My recipe is included below.)

Note that there are two bitter herbs on the seder plate: one labeled Maror and one labeled Chazeret. The one labeled Maror should be used for Maror and the one labeled Chazeret should be used in the Korekh, below.

10. Korekh: The Sandwich

Rabbi Hillel was of the opinion that the maror should be eaten together with matzah and the paschal offering in a sandwich. In his honor, we eat some maror on a piece of matzah, with some charoset (we don't do animal sacrifice anymore, so there is no paschal offering to eat).

11. Shulchan Orekh: Dinner

A festive meal is eaten. There is no particular requirement regarding what to eat at this meal (except, of course, that chametz cannot be eaten). Among Ashkenazic Jews, gefilte fish and matzah ball soup are traditionally eaten at the beginning of the meal. Roast chicken or turkey are common as a main course, as is beef brisket.

12. Tzafun: The Afikomen

The piece of matzah set aside earlier is eaten as "dessert," the last food of the meal. Different families have different traditions relating to the afikomen. Some have the children hide it, while the parents have to either find it or ransom it back. Others have the parents hide it. The idea is to keep the children awake and attentive throughout the pre-meal proceedings, waiting for this part.

13. Barekh: Grace after Meals

The third cup of wine is poured, and birkat ha-mazon (grace after meals) is recited. This is similar to the grace that would be said on any Shabbat. At the end, a blessing is said over the third cup and it is drunk. The fourth cup is poured, including a cup set aside for the prophet Elijah, who is supposed to herald the Messiah, and is supposed to come on Pesach to do this. The door is opened for a while at this point (supposedly for Elijah, but historically because Jews were accused of nonsense like putting the blood of Christian babies in matzah, and we wanted to show our Christian neighbors that we weren't doing anything unseemly).

14. Hallel: Praises

Several psalms are recited. A blessing is recited over the last cup of wine and it is drunk.

15. Nirtzah: Closing

A simple statement that the seder has been completed, with a wish that next year, we may celebrate Pesach in Jerusalem (i.e., that the Messiah will come within the next year). This is followed by various hymns and stories.

For more information about how the Pesach seder compares to a traditional Jewish weekday, Shabbat or holiday meal, see Pesach Seder: How is This Night Different.

Pesach Music

Many people think of Pesach as a time of deprivation: a time when we cannot eat bread or other leavened foods. This is not the traditional way of viewing the holiday. Pesach is Z'man Cheiruteinu, the Time of Our Freedom, and the joy of that time is evident in the music of the season. There are many joyous songs sung during the seder.

Mah Nishtanah (Why is it Different?)

This is the tune sung during the youngest participant's recitation of the Four Questions.

Why is this night different from all other nights, from all other nights?

On all other nights, we may eat chametz and matzah, chametz and matzah. On this night, on this night, only matzah.

On all other nights, we eat many vegetables, many vegetables. On this night, on this night, maror.

On all other nights, we do not dip even once. On this night, on this night, twice.

On all other nights, we eat either sitting or reclining, either sitting or reclining. On this night, on this night, we all recline.

Dahyenu (It Would Have Been Enough For Us)

This is one of the most popular tunes of the seder, a very up-beat song about the many favors that G-d bestowed upon us when He brought us out of Egypt. The song appears in the haggadah after the telling of the story of the exodus, just before the explanation of Pesach, Matzah and Maror. I provide just two sample verses from a rather long song. The English does not include all of the repetition that is in the Hebrew.

Had He brought us out of Egypt and not judged them, it would have been enough for us.

(Chorus) It would have been enough for us.

Had He judged them and not done so to their idols, it would have been enough for us.

Chorus, etc.

Eliyahu Ha-Navi (Elijah, the Prophet)

Many people sing this song when the Cup of Elijah is poured and the door is opened in anticipation of his return.

Elijah the Prophet, Elijah the Tishbite, Elijah, Elijah, Elijah the Gileadite

Speedily and in our days, come to us, with the messiah, son of David, with the messiah, son of David.

Adir Hu (He is Mighty)

Adir Hu is a great sing-along song, because it has a lot of repetition. You don't need to know much Hebrew to get by with this one! It's also got a catchy tune. It's sung as the seder comes to a close. It expresses our hope that the messianic age will begin soon, and the Temple will be rebuilt. Each line of praise begins with a different letter of the Hebrew alphabet, in alphabetical order, a common gimmick in Jewish hymns.

He is mighty, He is mighty

Chorus:

May He soon rebuild his house

Speedily, speedily and in our days, soon.

G-d, rebuild! G-d, rebuild!

Rebuild your house soon!

He is distinguished, He is great, He is exhalted

(Chorus)

He is glorious, He is faithful, He is faultless, He is righteous

(Chorus)

He is pure, He is unique, He is powerful,

He is wise, He is King, He is awesome,

He is sublime, He is all-powerful, He is the redeemer, He is all-righteous

(Chorus)

He is holy, He is compassionate, He is almighty, He is omnipotent

(Chorus)

Recipe for Charoset

This fruit, nut and wine mix is eaten during the seder. It is meant to remind us of the mortar used by the Jews to build during the period of slavery. It should have a coarse texture. The ingredient quantities listed here are at best a rough estimate; I usually just eye-ball it. The recipe below makes a very large quantity, but we usually wind up making more before the holiday is over. Other fruits or nuts can be used.

4 medium apples, 2 tart and 2 sweet

1/2 cup finely chopped almonds

1/4 cup sweet wine

1/4 cup dry wine

1 Tbs. cinnamon

Shred the apples. Add all other ingredients. Allow to sit for 3-6 hours, until the wine is absorbed by the other ingredients. Serve on matzah. Goes very well with horseradish.

Haggadahs

If you want to know more about Pesach, the best place to start is with the haggadah. The haggadah was written as a teaching tool, to allow people at all levels to learn the significance of Pesach and its symbols.

There are a wide variety of Haggadahs available for every political and religious point of view: traditional haggadahs, liberal haggadahs, mystical haggadahs, feminist haggadahs, and others. I have even seen what might be described as an atheist haggadah: one that does not mention the role of G-d in the Exodus.

If you're buying a haggadah for study or collection, there are many haggadahs with extensive commentary or with pictures from illuminated medieval haggadahs. However, if you're buying haggadahs for actual use at a seder, you're best off with an inexpensive paperback. Keep in mind that you'll need one for everybody, you're likely to get food and wine on these things, and you'll be using them year after year.

I'm particularly partial to the Artscroll/Mesorah series' The Family Haggadah. It has the full, Orthodox text of the haggadah in English side-by-side with Hebrew and Aramaic, with complete instructions for preparing for and performing the seder. The translations are very readable and the book includes marginal notes explaining the significance of each paragraph of the text. This book is usually only available at Jewish gift or book stores, and usually sells for about $2.50.

Another good traditional one is Nathan Goldberg's Passover Haggadah. This is the familiar "yellow and red cover" haggadah that so many of us grew up with. Believe it or not, it is frequently available in grocery stores in the Passover aisle. It usually sells for less than $5, and is often given away free with certain grocery purchases.

Watch out for Christianized versions of the haggadah. The Christian "last supper" is generally believed to have been a Pesach seder, so many Christians recreate the ritual of the seder, and the haggadahs that they use for this purpose tend to reinterpret the significance of the holiday and its symbols to fit into their Christian theology. For example, they say that the three matzahs represent the Trinity, with the broken one representing Jesus on the cross (in Judaism, the three matzahs represent the three Temples, two of which have been destroyed, and the third of which will be built when the mashiach comes). They speak of the paschal lamb as a prophecy of Jesus, rather than a remembrance of the lamb's blood on the doorposts in Egypt. If you want to learn what Pesach means to Jews, then these "messianic" haggadahs aren't for you.

Key Terms

Note: Pronunciations are intended to reflect the way these terms are most commonly pronounced by Jews in the United States, and may not be strictly technically correct.

Term Meaning Pronunciation

Pesach Passover PAY-sahkh or PEH-sahkh

Matzah Unleavened bread MAHTZ-uh

Chametz Leavened things KHUH-mitz

Seder Home ritual performed on the first two nights of Pesach SAY-d'r

Haggadah The book read during the seder huh-GAH-duh

List of Dates

Pesach will occur on the following days of the secular calendar:

Jewish Year 5777: sunset April 10, 2017 - nightfall April 18, 2017

Jewish Year 5778: sunset March 30, 2018 - nightfall April 7, 2018

Jewish Year 5779: sunset April 19, 2019 - nightfall April 27, 2019

Jewish Year 5780: sunset April 8, 2020 - nightfall April 16, 2020

Jewish Year 5781: sunset March 27, 2021 - nightfall April 4, 2021

The Conversion of Robert Novak

Mark 8:36

Raised in secular Jewish culture, conservative syndicated columnist Robert Novak lived seven decades as an agnostic. He briefly attended Unitarian and then Methodist services at the behest of his first and second wives, but he was not interested in either faith. He particularly disliked the Methodists’ anti-Vietnam War position. Novak was introduced to Catholicism in the early 1980s when his friend Jeffrey Bell, a Republican political consultant and former Reagan aide, gave him some books on the Catholic faith. At that time, Novak had nearly died from spinal meningitis.

Novak’s wife, Geraldine, began regular churchgoing in the early 1990s and eventually settled on St Patrick’s Catholic Church, Washington D.C. One day she persuaded Novak, who had not attended religious services for nearly 30 years, to join her at Mass. The celebrant was Fr. Peter Vaghi, whom he had known before Vaghi switched from politics to the priesthood. Novak then started to go to Mass regularly and decided to convert a few years later.

According to Novak, the turning point came when he visited Syracuse University to lecture. Before he spoke, he was seated at a dinner table near a female student who wore a cross necklace. Novak asked her if she was Catholic and she asked him the same. Novak said he had been going to Mass each Sunday for the last four years, but had not converted. “Mr. Novak”, the young woman replied, “life is short, but eternity is forever.” That brief sentence chilled Novak, who felt the student had channeled the Holy Spirit. When he got home and told Geraldine, they decided it was time to convert.

In May 1998 Novak was received into the Roman Catholic Church at the age of 67. Geraldine was already a Catholic. Al Hunt, Judy Woodruff, Fred Barnes, Margaret Carlson, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Henry Hyde, and Rick Santorum attended Novak’s baptism, with some of them openly crying.

A Jewish Scholar Considers Some Parables of Jesus

Luke 10:29

Dr. Amy-Jill Levine is an Orthodox Jew and a New Testament scholar at Vanderbilt University. She believes there are some specific biblical texts that Christians misinterpret. Perhaps the most common example is the parable of the good Samaritan. A standard Christian interpretation is that the reason the priest and the Levite walk by the guy in the ditch is because they’re afraid that he’s dead and if they touch him — or if he dies while they are attending to him — they will become ritually impure. This is a misperception of how purity laws function, and it’s a complete misreading of the text, which says nothing about purity.

What’s also missed is that in the contemporary Jewish context, as soon as the story mentions a priest and a Levite, everybody knows the third person will be an Israelite. It’s like going from Larry to Moe to Curly. The shock is that the third one is a Samaritan, and Samaritans were the enemy. We should see ourselves not as the Samaritan but as the person in the ditch who is saying, “Who’s going to help me?” and who then realizes that the enemy, the one we think is going to kill us, is the very one who will save us.

Another example is the parable of the prodigal son. The standard reading is that when the prodigal comes back, Jesus’ Jewish contemporaries would have expected the dad — representing the so-called Old Testament God of wrath — to demand that the younger son beg forgiveness and work for 20 years before being allowed back in the family. And then the surprise is that the dad says, “No, bring out the best robes, and put out the barbecue.” That surprise is false. We know from other sources of this period that if the younger son comes back home, of course the father is delighted.

What we miss in the parable is the pathos of the older brother. The older son says to the dad: “I have been with you; I’ve done everything you wanted, and you ignored me! You’ve put on this big barbecue. You had enough time to call the bands and the caterer, and you didn’t have enough time to come out and find me?” It’s a parable about a father who discounts one of his sons.

I’ve had students suggest that when Jesus says the greatest commandment is to love God and love neighbor, he invented this belief. They apparently don’t know that the commandment to love God is in Deuteronomy 6 and the commandment to love the neighbor is in Leviticus 19.

Some students have said to me that when Jews say you have to love your neighbor as yourself, it means you only have to love fellow Jews. They forget that Leviticus 19 goes on to say that you have to love the stranger who dwells among you because you were strangers in the land of Egypt. Jews have the category of neighbor and the category of stranger, but they are commanded to love the stranger too. The unfortunate thing is that the category of stranger eventually drops out of the Christian tradition. In the early Christian tradition, you are either a neighbor (which means a fellow believer) or you are a potential convert (which means a potential neighbor) or you are a heretic or an infidel.

Messianic Jews Say ‘Fake Rabbi’ Was Wrong Way To Reach the Ultra-Orthodox

1 Corinthians 9:20

Unpacking the motives of an accused undercover American in Israel and lessons learned for Christians wanting to engage Haredi Jews.

________

How far can one go to “reach the Jews”?

The apostle Paul put himself “under the law” to give the gospel to his Hebrew brethren (1 Cor. 9:20).

Allegedly a Gentile, Michael Elkohen did the same to reach the modern Jews most fastidiously under the law — the Haredim, often known in English as “ultra-Orthodox.”

Approximately 1.2 million Haredim live in Israel, jealously guarding their traditions.

Dressed in black-and-white garb with a hat, long beard, and side curls, in 2011 Elkohen appeared next to an Iranian Christian on MorningStar TV and prayed for a Muslim world revival.

“When Jesus walked the earth, he was Jewish,” Elkohen told the host, Rick Joyner. “The church, the non-Jewish part of the body, is supposed to stir us to jealousy.”

For more than a decade, his would-be jealous Haredi neighbors were completely unaware. To the insular community in the French Hill section of Jerusalem, Elkohen was a beloved rabbi, scribe, and mohel — performing circumcisions.

In April, the Israeli anti-missionary organization Beyneynu sent shockwaves through the Haredi world with a report claiming that Elkohen was in fact a missionary from New Jersey, whose father is buried in a Mennonite cemetery.

“Other anti-Semites attack the Jews as individuals or as a people,” said Tovia Singer, a rabbi and founder of Outreach Judaism. “But the missionaries are attacking the Jewish faith and working to erase it from the planet.”

The spiritual damage is considerable.

Though there is no evidence anyone was converted in Elkohen’s community, Singer claims that the alleged missionary’s manuscripts and religious services are all invalid. And his presence at prayer may have falsely achieved minyan, the necessary quorum of 10 adults, prompting Torah readings that to Haredi Jews now constitute speaking God’s name in vain.

The 42-year-old Elkohen first moved to Israel with his family in 2006, obtaining citizenship after presenting papers as a Jew related to a famous mystical rabbi in Morocco. Having obtained rabbinical ordination through an online Orthodox US institution, in 2014 he went on to study at a yeshiva in the West Bank.

It was then he gained the attention of the anti-missionary organization Yad L’Achim, who confronted him. Confessing his evangelistic purpose, Elkohen replied that he had since “repented” and “chose Judaism.”

A few years later, Elkohen was living quietly among the Haredim when they rallied around him as his wife — who said she was descended from Holocaust survivors — died from cancer. The community raised money to support the husband and five children in need.

But in April, Elkohen’s 13-year-old daughter told classmates about Jesus.

Beyneynu investigated and felt it had to act. There are 30,000 missionaries in Israel, the organization estimates, and 300 organizations dedicated to evangelizing Jews.

Messianic Jews were quick to distance themselves.

Michael Brown, a popular radio host, author, and apologist, circulated statements from Jews for Jesus, Chosen People Ministries, and One for Israel that deplore deception.

“I know of no Messianic Jews who support what he did,” Brown told CT. “We are open and forthright about our faith.”

Tsvi Sadan, an author, stated that Elkohen was “probably a loner who ... convinced himself that he is a Jew.” He observed that among Christians who decide to keep the Mosaic law, some take it further and live as Orthodox Jews in emulation of Paul’s words to the Corinthians: “To those under the law I became like one under the law ... so as to win those under the law.”

“This kind of understanding,” Sadan wrote, “turns Paul into a con artist.”

According to a Pew Research Center report released last month, there are 1.4 million Americans “of Jewish affinity” who are counted separately from the 7.5 million Jews in the United States. With neither Jewish lineage nor religion, 60 percent identify as Christian and 8 percent as Messianic Jews. Meanwhile, Pew found only 4 percent of American adults raised Jewish by religion are now Christian.

“Clearly, if he wasn’t Jewish, it’s pure fraud,” said Jamie Cowen, a Messianic Jewish lawyer. “If he really was Jewish but then masqueraded himself as ultra-Orthodox when he never lived that way previously, I would say it’s misleading at best and fraudulent at worst.”

Brown agreed but held out other possibilities.

Haredi Jews who come to believe in Jesus might initially share their faith in an “underground” way. And Messianic Jews who desire to share the gospel with them might take on Haredi traditions to join the community, provided they were up front about their intentions.

“The problem,” Brown said, “is that if you had any success at all, you would immediately be kicked out of the community.”

Sources described the Haredim as one of the most overlooked unreached people groups in the world. A senior staff member at Jews for Jesus (JFJ), requesting anonymity to protect his efforts in sharing the gospel with Haredim, said they heavily regulate the internet and social media.

Some even engage cell phone companies to supply unique number patterns to their community. Deviation from the pattern immediately alerts the user — and anyone monitoring — of contact from the outside.

Despite its apparent austerity, a major subgroup of the Haredi movement, Hasidism, began as an 18th-century popular revival. Eastern European Judaism at the time confined learning to the educated elite. But Israel Ben Eliezer, known as the Baal Shem Tov — in Hebrew, “master of the good name” — said that the spiritual life is for everyone.

Today, at 13 percent of the population, the ultra-Orthodox are the fastest-growing segment in Israel. But this is from birthrate, not conversion. Averaging 6.5 children per family, their fertility rate doubles that of other Jews. Devastated by the Holocaust, they feel a responsibility to replace those lost.

“We respect the Haredim for their love of the Bible and devotion to the Jewish people,” said the JFJ source. “Do others feel this way? I hope so.”

Yet many do not.

During the pandemic, their close-knit community and commitment to worship were blamed for the spread of COVID-19. Around the world, memories of enmity have given the ultra-Orthodox little trust in the nations that host them. And in Israel, they are the only officially recognized Jewish sect, gaining privileges from the government and obliging public Sabbath observance on secular Jews.

To protect their ways, the Haredim keep a severe culture of honor and shame, shunning anyone who diverges from community standards.

Rick Joyner, executive director of MorningStar Ministries, told CT that his organization sends missionaries into difficult areas, where they may have to conceal their identities as Christians.

“We never sanction denying our faith,” he said. “But we leave it to the discretion of the missionaries how and when to share their faith.”

MorningStar contributed financial support to Elkohen, though it did not send him. Joyner accepted his Jewishness at face value and now withholds judgment about reports in the media.

But he understands the anger. Throughout history, Christians have persecuted the Jews, at times massacring those who refused to give up their beliefs.

“I for one am glad for all the Jews who did not convert to such a false representation of Christianity,” said Joyner. “But it seems that this is now a wound so deep, only Jesus himself can heal it.”

Elkohen believed that Jesus would.

Living in anticipation of the Second Coming, Jewish conversion to Christianity was not Elkohen’s goal, Joyner said. He wanted only to love and learn from the Haredim, ready to help them “once they recognized their Messiah.”

Others are trying to help them now.

Sean Steckbeck, a Gentile from Tennessee, hesitates to call himself a Christian, in deference to his wife. After moving to Israel in 2002, he married a Messianic Jew originally raised in a kibbutz, who later joined an ultra-Orthodox community. Steckbeck’s efforts to obtain Israeli citizenship were ultimately successful, after a 10-year legal battle culminated in Israel’s Supreme Court.

First serving as a youth pastor, Steckbeck also founded Simeon’s Cry Ministries, named after the biblical figure who held the baby Jesus after waiting for the consolation of Israel. Steckbeck trains Messianic Jews in disciple-making movements to fulfill their call to be “light to the nations.”

But three years ago, his team started the Adullam Outreach Center in Jerusalem to help the “off the derech” (OTD) Haredim, those who have left the “path.” Named after the cave where David gathered “all who were in distress” as he fled from Saul, the center provides emergency shelter and classes on how to live in the outside world.

Unorthodox, a four-part Netflix series about this community, was nominated for two Golden Globe awards. It tells the story of a 19-year-old woman who ran away from an arranged marriage.

“OTDs flee because they don’t fit in,” said Steckbeck. “They try but fail to follow the stringent rules, and many swing from one extreme to another.”

Some OTD outreach efforts encourage this, helping young Haredim learn how to party and experiment sexually. Others, run by the ultra-Orthodox themselves, recognize the pull to “sow one’s wild oats” and instead help the wayward return to the law-abiding fold.

Adullam teaches them discernment — and it draws many in.

But it also draws opposition. Last year, an extremist anti-missionary group threw rocks at the center over the course of two weeks, and one participant was stabbed.

Steckbeck is fully transparent about his belief in Jesus as Messiah. Even so, most of Adullam’s programs are run by OTD Haredim, many of whom still believe in God. Though they are often rejected completely by their community, some of their distraught parents try to maintain ties.

“We take a back seat and give them tools to reach their families,” said Steckbeck. “A new believer sharing the gospel is more powerful than a trained missionary.”

Anecdotal reports state there are followers of Jesus among the Haredim, sources said. But since most Messianic Jews came from the non-Orthodox community, efforts to share the gospel with the ultra-Orthodox are still in their infancy.

What would a Haredi expression of faith in Jesus look like?

The JFJ source said there is no desire to pull them out of the only community they have ever known. But Brown said that when there is a sufficient number, a new community would need to be formed.

For Steckbeck, Jesus will call it into being.

“Like Paul said: They have a zeal, without knowledge,” he said. “Ultimately, the Haredim will help the Jews coronate the coming Messiah, once they recognize him as Yeshua.”

Judaism and Abortion

Mark 9:37

Though Jews today differ tremendously on abortion (also not surprising, since they also differ tremendously on all manner of theological, liturgical, moral, and political issues), historically, the position is much clearer. Except to save the life of the mother, Judaism has historically opposed abortion.

The Jewish position goes back to Genesis 9:6. Because this is the record of God’s instructions to Noah after the Flood, many Jewish scholars have understood this verse to be binding on all humanity. While modern Christian Bibles such as the ESV translate the verse as, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for man is made in the image of God,” Jewish scholars who comment on this passage suggest that the text actually says, “Whoever sheds the blood of man within man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God He made man.” Rabbis who understood the text to read “man within man” believe that this teaching refers to an unborn child. Thus, these scholars argued for a universal prohibition of abortion for all of Noah’s descendants, Jews and Gentiles alike.

In Jewish law, the unborn is recognized as nearly a full-fledged human being, but not quite. Consequently, it was considered a sin to deliberately harm a fetus, but doing so did not carry the full penalty associated with harming someone already born. In Exodus, a man who strikes a woman and causes her to give birth was not guilty of murder but had to pay a financial penalty. While this could refer simply to a premature but live birth, to the rabbis, this referred to miscarriage or stillbirth. They treated this loss as more of a property crime than a murder, despite the unborn being made in the image of God. (Exodus 21:22-25)

Similarly, if a woman’s pregnancy threatens her life, the fetus was to be considered “one who is pursuing another” to kill her. Jewish law permits one to kill a pursuer to save the life of the one pursued, and hence abortion is permissible to save the mother’s life if directly threatened by the pregnancy. If the baby’s head had emerged, however, the baby was given the same moral status as the mother and, thus, could not be killed.

Since Judaism refuses to assign differing values to life, Orthodox rabbis authorized to decide matters of Jewish law rejected abortion for fetal abnormalities or deformities. Historically, then, Judaism opposed abortion under normal circumstances but permitted it in a very limited number of situations, primarily the saving of the mother’s life. For example, the great medieval rabbi Maimonides permitted abortion only if the pregnancy “definitely and without question” endangered the life of the mother. This was the nearly universal view within Judaism until less than a century ago.

Today, some modern Orthodox Jewish scholars permit abortion to save the life of the mother, even if the fetus is not the direct cause of the threat to the mother’s life. Others extend permission further to protect the mother’s physical or mental health; some to pregnancies caused by forbidden sexual relations such as adultery, rape, or incest; and some, a minority, to severe and proven fetal abnormalities.

These are not universal concessions, however. Therefore, most Orthodox Jewish scholars advocate making such decisions on a case-by-case basis rather than establishing general rules for handling these situations. Abortion is understood differently within the Conservative and Reform branches of Judaism.

The Conservative branch of Jews, unlike the Orthodox Jews, generally follows a somewhat looser interpretation of these guidelines. In 1983, leading Conservative rabbis issued a statement permitting abortion to prevent severe physical or psychological harm to the mother or in the case of extreme fetal abnormalities. These were essentially the same guidelines already adopted by Reform Judaism in 1958, which were then modified in 1985 to specify that psychological reasons included rape and incest. At the same time, however, most Reform rabbis opposed abortion on demand, abortion for trivial reasons, or abortion because of family hardship.

Therefore, using Judaism as a counterexample to the Christian position that life is sacred from the moment of conception is a red herring, and ignores the real limitations placed on abortion within historic Judaism. While Conservative and Reform Jews do support legal access to abortion, they have only done so recently and despite their moral and religious views, not because of them.

________

Copyright (c) 2022 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

from BreakPoint Commentary · Dr. Glenn Sunshine via Kerux Sermon and Illustration Database judaismvalue of life

Now You Resemble Your Christ

Mark 13:13

In 1927 Cecil B. DeMille produced the silent movie “The King of Kings” about the life of Jesus. It was shown all over the world. One of those who saw it was a Polish man living in Danzig (today Gdansk) named William E. Wallner. Wallner was so moved by the film he decided to devote his life to Christian ministry.

By 1939, Wallner was leading a Lutheran parish in Prague. Shortly after Hitler’s invasion of Czechoslovakia, a doctor in Wallner’s parish was sent to a Nazi concentration camp. The doctor was a Jewish convert to Christianity and he encouraged his fellow prisoners “to die bravely, with faith in their hearts.” As a result, the doctor became a target of Gestapo officers.

Although struck with an iron rod until one of his arms had to be amputated, the doctor would not be quieted. Finally, “one Gestapo officer beat the doctor’s head against a stone wall until blood was streaming down his face.” Holding a mirror before the doctor, the Gestapo officer sneered: “Take a look at yourself. Now you look like your Jewish Christ.”

Lifting his remaining hand up, the doctor exclaimed, “Lord [Jesus], never in my life have I received such honor — to resemble You.” Those would be his last words on Earth.

Distraught by the doctor’s proclamation, the Gestapo officer sought out Wallner that night. Could Pastor Wallner help him, free him from the terrible burden of his guilt?

After praying with him, Wallner advised, “Perhaps God let you kill that good man to bring you to the foot of the Cross, where you can help others.” The Gestapo officer returned to the concentration camp. And through the aid of Wallner and the Czech underground, he worked to free many Jews over the years that followed.

On July 30, 1957, Wallner met with DeMille and spoke about the impact “The King of Kings” had on his life and all who came in contact with him. Wallner ended his account to DeMille by declaring: “If it were not for ‘The King of Kings,’ I would not be a Lutheran pastor, and 350 Jewish children would have died in the ditches.”

________

Adapted from the article “The Gospel According to Hollywood: Warner Brothers and Cecil B. DeMille have led countless people to Christianity,” by Mr. John A. Murray, headmaster of Fourth Presbyterian School in Potomac, Maryland. Wall Street Journal, April 22, 2011.

Everything we make is available for free because of a generous community of supporters.

Donate