Welcome to Nakdimon's Page
In this
essay we will examine more claims of rabbi Tovia Singer and see if they are
accurate. This time we are going to look at Zechariah 12:10. This verse is also
quoted in the New Testament. Let�s take a look at it from Zechariah:
Charge
#1: John needed to change Zechariah 12:10 to make it fit Yeshua. (2:45)
This is
the first claim of rabbi Tovia Singer. But did John really have to change the
text? The way John quotes Zechariah 12:10 actually doesn�t change anything
about the meaning of the verse. The point John wants to make is that Yeshua is
the pierced one. It would have been a loose/loose situation anyway, cause had
John quoted it as in Zechariah, then he would have been accused of trying to say
that Yeshua was God and that therefore God was pierced, etc, you name the
accusations. Instead, all John was trying to communicate to his readers is that
Yeshua is the pierced one.
Notice
also that John doesn�t quote the entire verse, but leaves out the mourning
part. John is not saying that this prophecy is fulfilled there and then. He is
trying to make clear that He is the one they will look upon, the pierced one. It
is in Revelation that he actually quotes the entire verse including the mourning
and then this prophecy will come to it�s fulfilment. But whether it says
�they will look upon me� or, �they will look upon him� makes no
difference to the message of John. Also the verse from Zechariah doesn�t say
that they will look upon the pierced one there and then, meaning that the
pierced one is pierced there and then. In order for them to look upon the
pierced one, he must be pierced first and when this will happen is not told in
the text. If this must still happen, then this will be very unusual in this time
and age of guns and missiles. Rarely is someone in current wars being thrusted
through. Bottom line is that John didn�t have to change anything to try to
make Yeshua fit this prophecy. The point he wanted to make remains the same.
Charge
#2: Et asher (11:20)
Rabbi
Tovia Singer claims that the words �et asher� means �because of the one�.
Is this true? And if it isn�t, is this just a slip of the tongue by the rabbi?
Since there is an enormous pride in the anti-missionary community and an
emphasis of knowledge of the Hebrew language, one may be lead to the logical
conclusion that rabbi Singer either knows enough Hebrew to know what the meaning
is or that rabbi Singer studied this out enough to know what he is talking about
and, most importantly of course, we would find nothing to contradict that view
the Tenach. The fact, however, is that rabbi Singer is completely wrong! The
meaning of the words �et asher� is totally dependent on the context it is
written in. Meaning, that it depends on whether it refers to a situation
or it refers to a person. If it refers to a situation it means �because
of� or �regarding� or �that which� (or anything
similar), but if it refers to a person it means �whom� or �who�
or �whosoever� (or anything similar).
I could
find a total of 18 instances in 17 verses where the words �et asher� is used
in relation to a person and I have noticed one thing: not 1 single instance can
it be translated with �because of the one�, the translation rabbi Singer so
confidently recommended, without making a total mess of the verse. I will give
you some key examples of the application of �et asher� which clearly show
the false claims of rabbi Singer:
The
first example from 1 Samuel 16:3 is a striking example of what I have been
saying above. The first �et asher� refers to a situation and is translated
as �what�, whereas the second refers to a person and can�t mean �because
of the one�, but plainly �whom�. The last example of Jeremiah has an exact
same grammatical structure as Zechariah 12:10! I wonder how rabbi Singer can put
his strongly suggested translation in this verse if �et asher� really means
�because of the one�:
So where
does this leave the claim of rabbi Singer? And I wonder how rabbi Singer can put
his strongly suggested translation in this verse if �et asher� really means
�because of the one�. How did he come to that conclusion? Fact is that rabbi
Tovia Singer�s claim is false. The correct translation of this verse is:
�And they will look to Me, Whom/the
One they have pierced, ��. Since rabbi Singer practically
accuses others for not knowing Hebrew and therefore unable to know the true
meaning of certain words, didn�t rabbi Singer really know the meaning of the
simple Hebrew words �et-asher� himself? I will let you decide if this was
just a �slip of the tongue� of rabbi Singer or that this was a deliberate
attempt to misinform his audience. But to me, this reveals to what lengths he
will go to try to disprove Messianic Jewish faith.
Additional
comments
As for
the interchangeable use of �Me� and �Him�, this is common in the Hebrew
Bible. I would point you to Genesis 18:17-19
And
YHWH said: 'Shall I hide from Abraham that which I
am doing; seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and
all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? For I have
known him, to the end that he may command his children and his household after
him, that they may keep the way of YHWH, to do righteousness and
justice; to the end that YHWH may bring upon Abraham that which He
hath spoken of him.'
In
addition, I would like to address a common charge of anti-missionaries. It goes
�Jews never pierced Jesus, it were the Romans. So this prophecy couldn�t
possibly be about Israel piercing Jesus because nothing like that ever happened.�
This
argument is also contrary the testimony that the Hebrew Bible gives us. Let�s
look at the story of David and Uriah in 2 Samuel 11. David sleeps with the wife
of Uriah and wants to cover up his adultery, because he tried to have Uriah
sleep with Batsheva so that people would think that Uriah was the father of the
child she was carrying. But when Uriah didn�t go along with the game, David
decided to get rid of Uriah in order to take Batsheva as his wife and all would
be well. So he ordered to have Uriah put in the line of fire in the war with the
Ammonites and make sure that he wouldn�t survive. And so happened. But look at
how God thought about this act of David in 2 Samuel 12:9;
Wherefore
hast thou despised the word of YHWH, to do that which is evil in My sight? Uriah
the Hittite thou hast
smitten with the sword, and his wife thou hast taken to be thy wife,
and him thou hast slain
with the sword of the children of Ammon.
So we
see here that God smashes David for the death of Uriah although David was many
miles removed from the battlefield. However God knows that David ordered and
arranged the death of Uriah and God reckoned it as if David himself had
personally slain Uriah. Likewise there is no denying that Yeshua�s death was
ordered and arranged by leading men amongst the Jewish community.
Another
common argument is the �mourning of the living�. This is how the
anti-missionary argument basically goes: �If Jesus was to appear and we would
see him alive, then why would we mourn? We would rejoice instead because
Moshiach has finally arrived!�
I would
say that, considering the way anti-missionaries think about Yeshua and all they
have spoken against him and how they have resisted him to the extend that his
name is even forbidden to be mentioned in a lot of traditional Jewish homes and
is even a curse word! (Remember that Hitler and Muhammad are names that aren�t
banned from Jewish homes and are persons that can be discussed freely!) If this
same despised Yeshua would appear and reveal himself as Moshiach, whom the
Jewish people have been longing for, for centuries and centuries and if
everything we have said about him appears to be true and everything rabbinic
Judaism has been saying about him appears to be wrong, from the moment he was
rejected up until this day, do you really think that there would be a rejoicing?
Just go to a search engine on the
internet and type in the word �anti-missionary� or �counter missionary�
and go to those websites and see what is the basic consensus among those groups
about Yeshua. Now bare in mind that those aren�t words just to be making a
statement, casual words. Those are words from the very heart! If all that
violent rejection of what would suddenly appear to be Moshiach [i.e. Moshiach of
��
- Ani ma�amin�],
all this time actually has been the rejecting of the Anointed of YHWH, I doubt
very strongly that there would be any rejoicing whatsoever taking place. Just
listen to the lectures of rabbi Tovia Singer and his insults when he repeatedly
speaks about �leaving skid marks�! Just think about that, that when reality
hits home and reality shows that Yeshua is the One, Melech Moshiach ben David.
What will your reaction be?