Welcome to Nakdimon's Page


 

Questionable rabbinic interpretations of Scripture
 
 
In this section we will look at some amazing rabbinic interpretations. Let me demonstrate to you some classical examples of anti-missionary double standards. They are willing to swallow whatever sources such as the Talmud teaches, even if the Talmudic conclusion is totally contrary to the conclusion of the Tenach. Even then the words of the Talmud are seen as a display of the brilliance and incredible wisdom of the Sages by the anti-missionaries. Now bear in mind that these are only interpretations that I am aware of! Interpretations that I have learned from anti-missionary sources, that have really startled me. Yet for much less the authors of the New Testament are allotted every imaginable certificate of incompetence and ignorance one can think of. Here are the examples.
 
 
Daniel 7 vs Zacharya 9
 
 
There are 2 places in scripture that are both understood by Rabbinic Jews as well as Messianic Jews to be Messianic texts about how Messiah will appear to his people. One being Daniel 7:13 and the other being Zecharya 9:9. The former says that Messiah will come with the clouds of heaven and the latter says he will come lowly and riding upon a donkey. Well, this posed some difficulties for the sages, because how will Moshiach come? He can�t come in both ways. So the Talmud comes with one conclusive answer: it merges the two and changes it into a conditional prophecy!
 
Namely: If we are worthy (meaning if we are righteous) he will come on the clouds of heaven and if we�re not worthy (meaning if we are sinful) he will come lowly riding on a donkey.
 
So, problem solved, right? Not exactly! For starters, there is no indication whatsoever that these prophecies have any relation to one another let alone are dependent to one another for their fulfilment. In saying so, using the same standards with which the anti-missionaries judge the New Testament authors and Yeshua, one of these prophets, be it Daniel or Zechariah, will be a false prophet, since they both proclaimed their prophecies in the Name of Yahweh and  one will not come true!
Also, since there were Messianic expectations during the second Temple times and the Messiah didn�t come (according to rabbinic Judaism) the excuse is been made that because of our sins he (Messiah) didn�t come. This, however, is not what we are told by the Talmud in relation to Daniel 7:13 and Zechariah 9:9! According to the Talmudic reading Messiah would come on the clouds of heaven if we were righteous, and lowly on a donkey if we were sinful. He would not �stay away because of our sins�. So, since we were wicked and therefore �not worthy�, he should have come riding on a donkey per their own view and not just stay away! Yet if we say that the Messiah came on a donkey (Zech 9:9), died and rose from the dead (Is 53:9-10, 12), ascended to the right hand of God (Ps 110:1), will remain there for many days (Hos 3:4-5) and come with the clouds of heaven (Dan 7:13), then this is said not to be in conformity with the Tenach but merely a �Christian fabrication�. But because the rabbis say this there are no questions asked and the anti-missionaries take their statements to be the absolute truth. You go figure!
 
 
David and Uriah (2 Samuel 11-12)
 
How about the Talmudic element rabbi Singer was referring to in his �Sin and Atonement� lecture? Now when reading the account of David and Uriah in 2 Samuel 11 and 12 we will see that:
 
      God thinks David had no right to kill Uriah
      God thinks David had no right to take Batsheva
      David committed murder and adultery
      According to Torah, David had to die (compare Deut 22:22 � 2 Sam 12:13)
      There is nothing in the text that indicates that Uriah and Batsheva were either illegally married or divorced at that time.
      Uriah was loyal to David. (see the list of David�s heroes in 1 Chron 11:41. In a discussion with an anti-missionary on the Messiah Truth forum one guy actually basically told me that maybe the author of Chronicles erred by putting Uriah in this list! No one corrected him! So the Tenach is wrong but the Sages are correct!)
 
Yet despite these clear testimonies that the Tenach gives us, the anti-missionaries, based on the Talmudic reading, come to the exact opposite conclusion! Their position is:
 
      David had every right to kill Uriah
      David had every right to take Batsheva
      David committed no murder and adultery
      David had done nothing wrong except give people the wrong impression in his actions concerning Batsheva
      Uriah and Batsheva were illegally married at best, divorced at worst
      Uriah committed high treason
 
 
Isn�t this amazing? Now this is either entirely the Talmudic reading or the anti-missionary position based on the Talmudic reading. Whatever the case, it is obvious to what length the anti-missionaries go to accept an interpretation diametrically opposed to that of the Tenach and fail to be the least bit critical. Now I have to be honest and mention that of all the anti-missionaries on that forum there was only one person (who apparently wasn�t aware of the Talmudic reading) that tried to correct the others and said that it was obvious that the Tenach said something else than they were saying and even went so far to say that they were all acting "like the Christians� by avoiding the obvious. That coming from an anti-missionary says a lot!
 
The Talmud manages to acquit the guilty and accuse the innocent! How does the Talmud come to this conclusion?  This is what I�ve been told on the Messiah Truth website by the moderators: (1) The Talmud claims that since Uriah was a Hittite and since Torah prohibits intermarriage, the marriage was to be considered illegal. (2) In the time of war, the men of war would give his wife a �get�, which was a letter of divorce in case the man had gone missing, which permitted the woman to remarry. (3) When David had ordered Uriah to go home to sleep with his wife and Uriah didn�t do that, he committed high treason (!), since he failed to follow a direct order of the king in time of war and was disloyal to David by calling Joab his lord instead of acknowledging David as his lord. (4) He was considered a threat to the king since he swore by the kings life that he would not go home and for this reason David had the right to kill him. (5) The fact that Uriah didn�t go home to sleep with his wife is to be considered evidence that they weren�t married. (6) since David, being a man of great responsibility, gave people the occasion to misunderstand his actions, he had to be punished harshly. I have even been told that it was actually Batsheva who seduced David!
 
Now, who would believe this story? But let�s look at the claims one by one:
(1) The Bible obviously doesn�t share the view that the marriage was illegal. When God rebukes David, He asks why David took Uriah�s wife (ishto � his wife) to be his own in verse 9 and calls Batsheva �eshet Uriah� (the wife of Uriah) in verse 10. Especially notice 2 Sam 11:26 where it says that �she made lamentation for her husband� (Heb. watispod al-ba�alah), clearly showing the obvious husband-wife relationship between the two. (the anti-missionary mod Sophiee1 actually accused me of not knowing any Hebrew and then refused to admit that the word �ishah� here means �wife�, but instead claimed that it meant �woman�, no mattter how elaborate my explanation of the Hebrew text was! Although that word can mean woman, in this context it doesn�t matter if we talk about �the wife of Uriah� or �the woman of Uriah�. The point is that she belonged to him and he was her �ba�al� � husband - and was therefore off limits for David.)
 
(2) Again, based on point no. 1, there is no reason whatsoever to either think that Uriah and Batsheva were either illegally married or divorced.
 
(3) The charge of high treason is absolutely ridiculous. High treason is to collaborate with the enemy in times of war or disloyalty towards a nation (or the head of the nation) to the point of endangering that nation. Did Uriah do these things? Not at all! His loyalty towards Israel was very profound as shown in 2 Samuel 11, when it says:
11 And Uriah said unto David: 'The ark, and Israel, and Judah, abide in booths; and my lord Joab, and the servants of my lord, are encamped in the open field; shall I then go into my house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife? as thou livest, and as thy soul liveth, I will not do this thing.'
Does this sound like a traitor to you? He showed great loyalty towards the God of Israel (by mentioning the ark), Israel's king and Israel's army! Not going home to �get busy� with your wife when the king tells you to is not what one would call (high) treason. Especially when you clarify to the king why you didn't go: because of the ark, because of Israel and Judah, because of his commander Joab and the his fellow soldiers serving in the Israeli army (if that isn't loyalty, then what is?). Not because he didn't acknowledge David as his lord by calling Joab his lord (which he was, he was the highest ranked officer!), but because of the obvious reasons given above.
 
(4) It was common in that day to swear by something or someone higher than yourself. David also did this in 2 Sam 12:5: ��'As the LORD lives, the man that hath done this deserves to die;�. Here he swears by God�s life. Using the line of reasoning of the anti-missionaries, David sought God�s life. How are we to believe that?
 
(5) On the contrary: the fact that David sent Uriah home to go sleep with his wife should be considered conclusive evidence that they were legally married! Why would David even consider to send him to Batsheva if they weren�t married, especially when she was already carrying David�s child! What logic is that based on?
 
(6) An anti-missionary moderator called Sophiee1 on the Messiah Truth website told me that the word �la�asot� in 12:9 indicates that David �appeared� to have sinned, but didn�t really sin. His only sin was that he rushed into things instead of waiting for God to get rid of Uriah and to make Batsheva his wife. It should be mentioned that no one rebuked her for it! This desperate attempt to try to acquit David was easy to refute by pointing her to Gen 2:23 where the same word "la'asot" is used, saying that God created heaven and earth. Yet no one would even think of claiming that God didn�t actually create heaven and earth but only �appeared� to create it. So I asked her to provide one example where the word "la'asot" is used to describe an "appearance" of something rather than an actual act or event. Of course, I am still waiting for her to come up with it. (btw, she is also a mod at the forum "Kosher Judaism" where she also portrays herself as a great scholar on Judaism, but when you actually challenge her claims, she can't substantiate them and you will end up being banned because of disrespectful behaviour, as happened to me twice on the Messiah Truth forum and once on the Kosher Judaism forum.)
 
 
So all these arguments are clearly nothing but desperate attempts to try to acquit David and pin it on his victims. But after having read the account in the Bible, what unbiased reader on the face of this earth would even consider to believe the story of the Talmud? There is not a stitch of evidence whatsoever to support any point the Talmud raises. Yet this is considered a display of great scholarship and wisdom in the eyes of rabbinic Jews! Imagine if the New Testament would come up with such a story? All rabbi Singer would do is �leave skid marks�, wouldn�t he? Or ask questions like �how dare they play with my Bible�? But because the rabbis say this there are no questions asked and the anti-missionaries take their statements to be the absolute truth. 
 
 
 
Counting of the Omer:
 
Traditional Judaism teaches that the counting of the Omer must start the day after the Sabbath of Pesach, i.e. on the 16th of Nisan, irrespective of what day of the week this is. And this is how our people have been taught for many centuries. But let�s see what the bible says about the start of the counting of the Omer:
 
You shall count for yourselves -- from the day after the Shabbat, from the day when you bring the Omer of the waving -- seven Shabbats, they shall be complete. Until the day after the seventh sabbath you shall count, fifty days... -Leviticus 23:15-16
 
So the rabbinic Jewish position says to start to counting from the 16th and after seven full weeks we have Shavu�ot, irrespective of what day the week it is, right? However, the text above clearly says seven full weeks �Until the day after the seventh sabbath�! Which means that Shavu�ot is always preceded by a Yom Shabbat (Sabbath day). Which in turn means that this can only be the case if that Yom Shabbat would be the weekly Shabbat and therefore starting on the 16th of Nisan (on any given day) is erroneous. For example: If you would start on a Tuesday, 16th Nisan, you will and up on a Tuesday after seven full weeks. The day before that day is a Monday or Yom Sheni, which is not a Yom Shabbat, as the Bible requires. Yet if you start counting on Yom Echad (Sunday), taking the phrase �from the day after the Shabbat� to be referring to the day after the ordinary Shabbat in the Pesach week, you will automatically end up on Sunday after seven full weeks and, exactly as required, the day after the seventh Shabbat, the 50th day! So obviously the rabbinic reading of this text is erroneous, since it fails to meet the requirements of the Torah and the counting of the Omer is to start on the day after the weekly Shabbat of the Pesach week and not on the 16th of Nisan, irrespective of what day of the week. So they will build Scripture around the statements of the rabbis, instead of building their statements around Scripture. But because the rabbis say differently there are no questions asked and the anti-missionaries take their statements to be the absolute truth.
 
 
 
Isaiah 9:5-6
 
For more on these verses, see my essay on the Trinity. But the question raises: who does this refer to? An immediate response, and logical one, would be Messiah, because what we learn about him is that he will be given the throne of David and rule on it forever and to his kingdom will be no end, have peace throughout his reign and his works will be marvellous. Yet, instead of this obvious conclusion, the Talmud says that this is not about Messiah, but about Chizki�yahu (Hezekiah). Read the story about Hezekiah in 2 Kings 18-20 and honestly tell me how this prophecy is fulfilled. With statements like �God wanted to make Hezekiah Messiah but Hezekiah wasn�t worthy� (My paraphrase) the rabbis win the hearts of the anti-missionaries. But looking at the prophecy, we can safely conclude that this was nowhere near fulfilled by Hezekiah, since Hezekiah�s reign was not what we would call (increasingly) peaceful and his reign did end (the words �ein kets� has the meaning �which can hardly be counted�). He only reigned for 29 years, much shorter than a lot of kings. For example, his son Menashe ruled for 55 years and is regarded to be the most wicked king in Judah�s history. Furthermore, he was called none of the names listed in the verse either contemporarily or after and a couple of generations later Judah was carried off to exile! So considering all this, Hezekiah does not fit the bill at all and this prophecy remains unfulfilled! So either Isaiah is a false prophet and this prophecy was never fulfilled, or this prophecy is Messianic, as is the Messianic Jewish position, and therefore is yet to be fulfilled. An in-depth response to the rabbinic position can be found at the �Trinity� section. But because the rabbis say differently there are no questions asked and the anti-missionaries take their statements to be the absolute truth.
 
   
Pronunciation of Gods Name
 
This might be the most sensitive subject of all of the points I have raised in this section. And therefore I have done my best to choose my words carefully. The rabbis claim that it is forbidden to pronounce The Name (haShem) of God, even with the most sincere intentions. Pronunciation of the Name is therefore unthinkable for the religious Jew. The Divine Name can only be pronounced by the High Priest, once a year during Yom Kippur. Of course there is an upside to this interpretation of the rabbis, namely, that this keeps the Name from being used in vein. But on the other hand, this view is built on the assumption that people will go on and use the Name in vein. However, what does the Bible say? If you read the Bible, especially the Torah, God actually says the exact opposite that the Tradition says. Namely, that His Name is the only name among any and all other gods that we are allowed to utter. It is actually the name of other gods that are not to be found in our mouths. With this, God thinks of the good in man, particularly of his people and trusts that we will not use His Name in vein, as He warns us subsequently. But the overall testimony of the Bible is very different from that of rabbinic Judaism. While Rabbinic Judaism has problems to pronounce the Divine Name of the God of Israel, it has no problem pronouncing the names of other gods, it is unthinkable that they would say the Name of the Almighty, thereby doing and teaching the exact opposite of the Torah, Prophets and Writings. Although there is absolutely nothing wrong with calling God �HaShem�, �Adonai� or �Lord�, there is also no scriptural basis for the prohibition of calling God by His Name; YaHWeH. But because the rabbis say differently... you finish the sentence.
   

 

Importance of the oral law: Exodus 34:27
 
 
27. The Lord said to Moses: "Inscribe these words for yourself, for according to these words I have formed a covenant with you and with Israel."
 
 
In my rebuttal on rabbi Tovia Singer on the oral law I referred to this verse and said that this verse, although being a clear declaration to the fact that the Written Torah is the entire basis for the Covenant on Mt Sinai, the Talmud manages to use this very verse as proof that God made His Covenant based on the oral law. Now the entire basis for this is the words that I�ve made red in the Hebrew text and the translation. The words �al pi� literally mean �on the mouth� but make no sense whatsoever when translated as such in this verse. The link is also made with the �Torah Sheba�al Peh� (Torah that is owned by mouth; oral law), which looks like this:
 
If we read the text, however, and we use the interpretation of the Talmud, the verse would say
 
Inscribe these words for yourself, for on the mouth of these words
I have formed a covenant with you and with Israel
 
How absurd this reading is! God is saying nothing else than that, according to these words Moses is told to write down, He has made a Covenant with Israel. This is all about the words Moses was to write down and how on earth should this be seen as solid proof that the oral law is the basis of the Covenant at Sinai. And, since rabbi Singer is strongly opposed to the New Testament not quoting entire verses and accused it of being deceitful for doing so, only half of this verse was quoted here, namely the part "for according to these words I have formed a covenant with you". And by doing so, the Talmud tries to PROVE it's point and is used to do so to support major doctrinal issues. Can you immagine rabbi Singer stumbling upon something like this in the New Testament? The words "skid marks" come to mind. Yet we have nothing of that about the Talmud, do we? Remember: double standards! Now this is THE verse in all of scripture that proves that there not only is an oral law, but that the oral law is the foundation of the covenant God made with Israel. And we find another astonishing statement in the Talmud: 
 
"the Holy One, Blessed be He, did not make His covenant with Israel except by virtue of the Oral Law" (Gittin 60b)
 
Notice that there is NOTHING in the entire Tenach that supports this claim. In fact, every time the people mention the covenant that was made on Sinai they always refer to the BOOK of Moses. So we have here a word in Hebrew, al-pi, that means �in accordance� which is totally distorted to make it say that it refers to the oral law just to be able to endorse it. But the rabbis say it, so no ifs ands or buts, that's what you do because it's the absolute truth!


 
Separation of milk and meat
 
This �commandment� is solely based on one commandment that is repeated three times in the Torah and applied in a way that it was never meant to be applied. Because of this verse, Orthodox Jewish rabbis have taught the people to completely separate all dairy from all meat products. This goes very far: separate dishes, separate kitchens, separate towels, you name it. Let�s analyse this verse and see what is actually being said.
 
The choicest of the first fruits of your soil you shall bring to the house of the Lord, your God. 
You shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk. (Ex 23:19)
 
The choicest of the first of your soil you shall bring to the house of the Lord, your God. 
You shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk." (Ex 34:26)
 
You shall not eat any carcass. You may give it to the stranger who is in your cities, that he may eat it, 
or you may sell it to a foreigner; for you are a holy people to the Lord, your God. 
You shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk. (Deut 14:21)
 
That�s it! Based on these words the entire Jewish milk and meat issue has emerged. The words in Hebrew are
 
 
From this verse the rabbis have decided that this verse tells us that it is prohibited to draw any benefit whatsoever from the combination of milk and meat in any way shape or form! I often wonder how you can get all that from this verse. If you look at the texts, of the three instances this commandment occurs, two are related to sacrifices. Those are the instances in Exodus. As to say that if you are going to bring an offering to God, you should not bring an offering where you boil a kid in it�s mother�s milk. This may have had something to do with the pagans that did these things while living in the Land and were removed for that reason. Only the last one is in the context of consummation. However, the commandment remains the same. It is still �You will not cook�� and didn�t change into �You will not eat�� Let�s look at all the prohibitions in the text on Deuteronomy 14. After a long list of clean animals follows a list of unclean animals. Now the word for �to eat� in Hebrew is  אכל  (achal) and the word for �to cook� is  בשּל  (bashal). Now look at the wording:
 
See the distinction: don�t eat this, don�t eat that, don�t eat so, don�t boil the kid... All the things we cannot eat, the Torah says that we cannot eat. Why doesn�t the Torah also tell us not to eat milk and meat but only not to boil a kid in it�s mother�s milk? And why, if milk and meat are generally forbidden to consume together, does the Torah explicitly say that you can�t boil a kid in the milk of it�s mother? So, since we are into nitpicking, than it's totally justified to eat a chicken sandwich with a milkshake, since we run no risk whatsoever that the chicken is mixed with the milk of it's mother! Why isn�t there a general ban on eating milk and meat? Obviously, this had nothing to do with consuming milk and meat together, but this was one of the pagan rites of the Canaanites. It is perfectly okay for us to consume a cheeseburger or baloney sandwich with a hot cup of coco without waiting hours to drink a cup of coffee with cream after having eaten meat. The prohibition is totally baseless, since it is based on a verse that is repeated three times verbatim, that has nothing to do with dietary laws.
 
 
There is so much more that can be said about rabbinic interpretations and exegesis from Scriptures. I want to direct you to a lecture of Dr. Michael L Brown about the high standards of rabbinic authority, how rabbinic authority even surpasses prophetic authority. You can listen to the lecture here: http://www.realmessiah.com/Listen/Entries/2008/12/11_Are_the_Rabbis_right.html

Nakdimon

Email me!

Back to the main page

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1