Welcome to Nakdimon's Page
Tovia Singer Answers Questions
He used
Messianic Jews to bring the news of the Messiah of Israel to the Gentiles so
that His testimony would be preserved.
He used
Rabbinic Jews to preserve the testimony of His people.
He used Secular
Jews to bring His people back to the land he promised to Abraham Isaac and Jacob,
fulfilling His vow.
For
the references to atonement, see the section �Sin and atonement�.
Bottom
line is that rabbi Tovia Singer doesn�t answer that question and that�s
truly understandable, because it only works against what he wants his audience
to believe. Instead of giving the man the answer he requested, he starts
criticizing Messianic Jewish beliefs and attacking Sadducees. Very subtle.
Jeremiah 31:31 raped? (22:15)
Rabbi
Tovia Singer then accuses the writer of Hebrews of changing the text in chapter
8:9 to do away with Israel, claiming that this is the agenda of the writer of
Hebrews. Rabbi Singer says that the writer of Hebrews �had to literally rape�
the text of Jeremiah 31:31 to get rid of Israel. What an accusation! A lot of
untrue accusations too, if I may. First of all, the writer of Hebrews didn�t
have to �get rid of Israel�, because he himself, as a Jew, was part of that
very same Israel. Second, and I hate to remind you again, the writer didn�t
change a thing in the text, since he was quoting from the Greek text of the LXX
(Septuagint), which was the dominant Greek text in Jewish circles in that time.
You simply don�t accuse someone of changing the text when he quotes from a
translation, in this case, the dominant Jewish translation of the day. And third,
look at the preceding verse that doesn�t make any sense if he wanted to �get
rid of Israel�: �For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days
come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:�
Since
the New Testament gets accused of changing texts to fit it�s agenda all the
time, why didn�t the author of Hebrews come up with the idea of just chopping
the verse in half and leaving out all the offending references? The authors
could have easily done that, but he didn�t because there was no �offensive
part�.
And
of course I am aware of the stories that the LXX has been manipulated by the
church. This is something rabbi Singer claims in a few lectures. But it would be
hard to believe that the authors of the New Testament would have quoted from a
LXX that didn�t say what they claimed it said. It doesn�t make sense to
claim that the LXX says something that it doesn�t, especially when people
could verify it. Most Jews spoke Greek so therefore it would be really silly to
think that you would deceive those people you wanted to reach by manipulating a
text they were familiar with. And the story that it was only the Torah that was
translated by the 72 rabbis and not the Prophets and the Writings, so, therefore,
only the translation of the Torah is to be considered valid. Again, we need to
ask; why would people not only read from the Torah translation of the LXX in the
synagogues, but also from the Prophets and Writings if those translations were
considered inaccurate and misleading? Obviously people recognized the entire
Tenach translation in those days as an accurate and authoritative Greek
translation. This actually shows us the exact opposite of what the
anti-missionaries claim.
Sins of the fathers� (29:15)
Then
rabbi Singer goes on to Exodus 20 where verse 4 speaks of God visiting the
iniquities of the fathers up to 3 and 4 generations of those that hate Him.
Rabbi Singer uses this to prove that there is no such thing as vicarious
atonement. Although I agree with the fact that this text doesn�t speak of
vicarious atonement, I still wanted to address something that the rabbi said. He
speaks of �three OR four generations of those that continue to sin�
and continues his analysis based on this reading. Notice the rabbi emphasizes
the words in bold? They are nowhere to be found in the text and since
rabbi Singer argues about the smallest detail when it comes to Christian
translations, allow me to return the favour. The text speaks of
�al-sh�lishe�im w�al-ribe�im�, which means �third AND
fourth�. Also the words �that continue to sin� are completely absent from
the text. What we do see is the word �leson�ai� which means �to
those that hate me�. So therefore, rabbi Singer�s whole analysis to disprove
vicarious atonement is not only based on a wrong text but also on a wrong
translation of the text, which makes this entire analysis completely baseless.
What the text is simply saying is that God is slow in His anger and abundant in
His mercy. (Hence the contrast �3 and 4 generations of haters� and �1000
generations of lovers�)
Luke written after the fact (58:40)
Then
rabbi Singer has a ball with the prophecy in the New Testament that the Messiah
made and was written by Luke. He first claims that Yeshua�s prophecy isn�t
accurate, because he said that not one stone would be left on top of another,
and points his audience to the fact that the Western Wall is still standing. But
if we want to nitpick as far as the New Testament is concerned, then we can�t
be liberal when it comes to the Tenach, because that would be judging by
double standards. If we want to press rabbi Singer�s point that the prophecy
is incorrect because of the Western Wall still stands (although the Temple
itself is completely gone to the point that you can�t see where it used to be,
which happens to be the whole point of Yeshua�s prophecy in the first place)
then how many false prophets do we have in the Tenach, if we are to examine
every minor detail of a prophecy? Even God Himself can�t prophesise when we
apply rabbi Singer�s criteria! So let�s get nitpicky: In 1 Kings 19 God
tells Elijah that he [i.e. Elijah] will go to Aram to anoint Haza'el as king of
Aram then to Yehu
to anoint him as king of Israel and then anoint Elisha as a prophet in his stead.
But Elijah first gets to Elisha (1 Kings 19), then is taken away (2 Kings 2) and
Yehu
is anointed by neither Elijah nor Elisha, but by another prophet (2 Kings 9).
Yet the initial prophecy is that this would all be done by Elijah. We can go on
and point out that Jeremiah is also a false prophet by the standards of rabbi
Singer. Obviously this is all about understanding the prophetic language. But
rabbi Singer wants to cherry-pick when it comes to the New Testament, but when
it comes to the Tenach, he uses other standards. If you have to use one standard
for one source to disprove it, yet go out of your way to use another standard
for another source you try to endorse, what does that say about the strength of
your argument?
Then
he goes on to ridicule the New Testament that the accounts of the destruction of
the Temple were written after the fact. Well, if we use that strict criterion as
a measuring rod for the New Testament, then we can throw out a good portion of
the Tenach as well. A lot in the Tenach is written after the fact. How, then, is
it possible that rabbi Singer makes these claims of invalidity in regard to the
New Testament, but on the same note he ignores these same invalidities in the
Tenach? And if Luke was written after the fact and wanted Yeshua to look good
then he wouldn�t have made the claim that Yeshua said that not one stone would
be upon another. He would have written the prophecy and adjusted it to fit the
destruction to the tiniest detail, so that at some point in time, someone called,
let�s say, rabbi Tovia Singer, wouldn�t be able to make the claim that
Yeshua is a false prophet because the Western Wall still stands! But I know for
a fact that if, of all the stones, only two would be on each other and all the
others would have been scattered, rabbi Singer would still make the ridiculous
claim that the prophecy wasn�t fulfilled. Obviously the message was that the
destruction of the Temple would be enormous, a horrendous event and a
devastating experience for the Jewish people. As someone once said:
�It
seems a little petty to admit that Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple
in the lifetime of his hearers, and for the temple to be destroyed forty years
later, and then to claim Jesus was a false prophet because a few stones remained
on top of each other. I can imagine a Jewish survivor
standing amidst the rubble of the temple, having lost his whole family to
the sword or the flame, witnessing one of the most horrific events that has ever
happened to the Jewish people, and bellowing, �False prophet! Jesus was a
false prophet! Part of one wall remains standing.� How petty is that? The
point of the prophecy, not its technical accuracy to the letter, determines the
validity of the prophet.�
And nothing more needs to be said.
Nakdimon