-17-
More Answers to Anti-missionary
Objections
Objection #1: If Jesus is the perfect
atonement for sin as the book of Hebrews suggests, why then will there be a
temple with Levitical priests offering sacrifices in the Messianic kingdom to
come (Ezekiel 40-47:12)?
Answer: Christian expositors are divided in their interpretation
of the Messianic temple depicted in Ezekiel. Many say that there shall indeed be
a literal temple. However, the sacrifices offered will be only retrospective,
that is memorial in nature. Even after accepting Jesus as the perfect atonement
for their sins, the early Christians continued to offer sacrifices at the
temple, yet with a new understanding as to their symbolic meaning (Acts
21:17-26; 22:12).
Others see the references to a
rebuilt temple as typifying the salvation offered by Jesus. Though both
positions are plausible, I favor the latter view for the following reason. The
anti-missionary claims that when the Messiah appears he will restore the nation
to perfect obedience to the Mosaic Law. But how can this be reconciled with
Jeremiah's prophecy regarding the Ark of the Covenant?
And when you increase and are fertile in the land, in those days declares
the LORD men shall no longer speak of the Ark of the Covenant of the LORD, nor
shall it come to mind. They shall not mention it, or miss it, or make another.
At that time, they shall call Jerusalem 'Throne of the LORD,' and all nations
shall assemble there... (Jer. 3:16-17 NJPSV).
The Ark of the Covenant was at
the very heart of the temple system prescribed by God. It resided in the Most
Holy Place containing the stone tablets (representing God's will for Israel), a
sample of manna miraculously preserved (God's provision for Israel), and Aaron's
rod which had budded. The mercy seat was located on the top of the ark's lid
between the two cherubim. (Exodus 25:20). It was there that the Lord appeared via
the Shechinah glory (a non-biblical term used by the Jews to describe the divine
manifestation and presence of God) and communed with Israel (Exodus 25:22,
40:35; Lev. 16:2; 1 Kings 8:10). The blood of the bullock and goat from the sin
offering was to be sprinkled by the priest onto the mercy seat (Lev. 16:14-15).
You cannot have a perfectly
restored Mosaic system without the Ark of the Covenant. Jeremiah prophesied that
there will be no ark in the Messianic kingdom. In stark contrast, Ezekiel
foretold the Shechinah glory reinhabiting the temple implying that it would once
again be "enthroned between the cherubim" (Psalm 80:1). So how do we
solve the seeming contradiction between these prophecies? One plausible answer
is to view Ezekiel's prophecy allegorically, finding fulfillment in the
sacrifice of Jesus. A foundational principle of Bible interpretation is to take
a passage at its literal face value, unless other plain passages of Scripture
force you to seek a non-literal meaning. If we take Ezekiel's Messianic vision
literally, we run into at least two significant problems. First, we have already
demonstrated that Ezekiel's vision could not be taken literally for that would
sharply contradict Jeremiah's unequivocal declaration that the ark of the
covenant would not exist or come to mind in the Messianic kingdom (Jer.
3:16-17).
Second, the description of
Ezekiel's vision seems to suggest a non-literal interpretation:
The Ezekiel temple was atop a
'very high mountain.' Mount Moriah, the site of Solomon's temple, is a very
small mountain. The size of the temple (42:20) is larger than the whole city of
Jerusalem itself and nearly as large as the whole of Judea. The city of
Ezekiel's vision has an area of between three and four thousand square miles,
including the holy ground set apart for the prince, the priests and the Levites.
This dimension would thus reach beyond the Jordan river, although this river, in
Chap. 47.17, is made the border line of the same.1
Why will the Ark of the Covenant
not be missed in the Messianic kingdom? The answer is obvious: because "One
greater than the temple" (Matt. 12:6) will be there!
Objection #2: Aaron's priesthood and the
commands of the law are forever in duration. It is impossible that a new law or
priesthood could replace them.
Answer: Tragically, at least one Messianic Jew has left the
ranks because of this objection. "He left the group and stopped believing
in Jesus when his mother proved to him that the word 'forever' in the Torah
meant just that: forever. God's laws are forever, not just until someone else
comes along and gives you new laws."2
The word forever (Heb. "olam")
does not necessarily mean for eternity:
Then his master shall bring him
unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and
his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for
ever (olam) (Exodus 21:6).
Will this slave be serving his
master in the Messianic kingdom? Does the anti-missionary advocate the return to
slavery? Here the word "forever" simply means a lifetime. If it can
mean a lifetime, it can also mean "age-lasting," i.e., the Old
Covenant age. Incidentally, at the very heart of the New Covenant are the moral
laws of the Decalogue. In fact, nine of the ten commandments of the Law of Moses
are specifically reiterated in the New Covenant.
Furthermore, we have proven that
the Ark of the Covenant, an integral part of the Law of Moses, will be forever
erased from the memory of the Jews. True, Aaron's priesthood is said to be
"everlasting" (olam) (Exodus 40:15). But Melchizedek's priesthood,
which was to supersede Aaron's, is also said to be "forever (olam)"
(Psalm 110:4). We must conclude, therefore, that the word
"everlasting" in respect to Aaron's priesthood means "age
lasting."
Finally, olam describes
the origin of the Messianic ruler prophesied in Micah 5:1: "whose goings
forth are from of old, from everlasting (olam)." For some strange reason,
the anti-missionary, in combating the idea that Jesus is from eternity, is quick
to say that olam here simply means from "days of old" or "from
creation" thus capitulating his categorical assertion that "'forever'
in the Torah meant just that: forever."
Objection #3: The New Testament misapplies
certain prophecies. For example, Matthew applies Hosea 11:1: "Out of Egypt
have I called my Son" to Jesus’ flight to Egypt (Matthew 2:14). But Hosea
11:1 refers to the nation of Israel coming out of Egypt. It could not be a
prophetic reference to Jesus. The same with "...Rachel weeping for her
children, refusing to be comforted, because they are no more" (Matt. 2:18).
Answer: One must consider the claim of the New Testament that
the "Law is only a shadow of the good things that are to come not the
realities themselves" (Heb. 10:1 NIV). There are incidents in the Old
Covenant that serve as types for New Testament truths. The Holy Spirit only
chose to make application of a few of them. One might argue that anyone can
arbitrarily make type and anti-type applications to prove anything. This is
true. This is why I do not accept Jesus as the Messiah solely on type--anti-type
fulfillments. We have proven that Jesus literally fulfills numerous Messianic
prophecies. The fact that Jesus fulfilled such passages as Isaiah 53; Psalm 22;
Psalm 110:1, etc., is unassailable. Therefore, since He is the Messiah, then the
New Covenant writings that testify of Him are true. And if true, the typical
applications made by the Holy Spirit must be accepted.
This should not be too bitter a
pill for the anti-missionary to swallow, seeing how he reveres the Talmud and
the Kabbalah with all their allegorical and mystical interpretations. Note the
following:
Adodath Kakkodesh (43): The
Messiah exists as a Living One in the Paradise till today. Psiqta Babbati (Psqa
36): For it says (Gen. 1:4), “And God saw the light, that it was good.” That
teaches us that the Holy One looked on the Messiah and His work before the
creation of the world and He preserved beneath the throne of His glory the
original light of the Messiah and His generation. Then said Satan: “Lord of
the world! For whom is that light predestined which is preserved beneath the
throne of thy glory?” God answered: “For Him, who one day will throw you
back with outrage and disgrace.” Then asked Satan: “Lord of the world, show
Him to me!” God said: “Come and see Him!” As he saw Him, he got alarmed
and fell on his face. Fearfully he cried out: “This is surely the Messiah, Who
will cast me and all the princes of the people of the world into hell, as it
says (Isaiah 25:8), 'He hath swallowed up death for ever, and the Lord God will
wipe away the tears from off all faces.'”3
Midrash Rabbah (to Exodus
19:6,7): Just as I have made Jacob a firstborn (Comp. Genesis 32:28), for it
says: “Israel is My firstborn (Exodus 4:22) so will I make the King Messiah
firstborn, as it says I also will make him firstborn” (Psalm 89:27).4
If Talmudists are allowed some
non-literal applications, should not the writers of the New Testament be
accorded the same privilege?
Objection #4: When the Messiah comes, he is to
bring peace to the world by causing all wars and fighting to cease (Isaiah
2:1-4). Jesus could not have been the Messiah, for he did not usher in worldwide
peace. In fact, things have gotten worse since his appearance.
Answer: The proper way to
interpret the Tanakh is to gather all the truths on any given subject and add
them together. Moses taught this in principle when he said "Man shall not
live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of
God" (Deut. 8:3).
The various prophecies about the
Messiah are scattered throughout the Tanakh like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. To
get the full picture of the work and mission of the Messiah, we cannot pick one
piece of the puzzle to the exclusion of others. Yes, the Messiah, according to
Isaiah 2:1-4; and Isaiah 11, is to establish worldwide peace. But, as we have
seen, He is also to suffer and die for the sins of the people. Isaiah 53 gives
us the chronology of events. First the Messiah was to be killed "cut
off," (v. 8) then buried in a "tomb" (v. 9). Then God
"prolongs his days" (v. 10). Then God gives Him "...a portion
with the great. And he shall divide the spoil with the mighty" (v.12).
Jesus fulfilled the first phase
of the Messiah's mission at His first coming. When He returns, He shall indeed
rule over the world and establish universal peace and share this reign with
those who are "mighty" in faith. Some say that the idea of two comings
of the Messiah was a Christian invention devised to cover over Jesus' failure to
fulfill the prophecies concerning the conquering Messiah. However, the idea of a
two-fold mission of the Messiah is not solely a Christian interpretation. Even
Jewish scholars from the past recognized that the Messiah had two separate and
distinct missions except some predicted that two completely different Messiahs
would fulfill them! "Messiah Ben Joseph" was to come and die for
Israel. "Messiah Ben David," they said, was to come and triumphantly
reign. The Talmud, on the other hand, said that if Israel were disobedient, the
Messiah would come to them riding on a donkey (Zech. 9:9), but if Israel were
obedient, He would come riding on the clouds of heaven (Daniel 7:13).
I find it exceedingly troubling
that the anti-missionary discredits Jesus for failing to establish world peace,
but accepts the mythological "Messiah ben Joseph" who fails to bring
world peace. According to Tovia Singer, Messiah ben Joseph will be a great
Jewish general who dies in battle at the end of days. His death will be
demoralizing to the Jewish people and bring a time of great testing.
Objection #5: The central message of the New
Testament is to believe in the Messiah. Yet nowhere in Scripture are we told to
believe in the Messiah.
Answer: The anti-missionary begs the question here. He presumes
that there will not be a suffering Messiah whose death atones for the sins of
Israel. We have proven that there will be a suffering Messiah. Isaiah's question
"Who hath believed our report?" implies that faith is necessary and
that His first coming would be in the natural realm. It must be reiterated that
Messiah's death was predicted to be a "stone of stumbling and a rock of
offense to both the houses of Israel..." (Isa. 8:14).
Objection #6: How could the Jewish people be
justly charged with the murder of Jesus, when it was actually the Romans who put
Him to death?
Answer: My father once told me how his brother was accosted with
the words: "You Christ-killing Jew." To this my uncle replied: "I
never met the man." My uncle misunderstood the corporate solidarity of the
human race. With the fall of Adam, all men were bound to the curse of sin and
death. That is why there is no man who does not sin. As fallen
"sinners" we are fully dependent on God's grace appropriated through
the blood atonement. We need not to have personally met God to be at variance
with Him. We all, Jew and Gentile alike, indirectly killed Jesus, in that it was
our sins that necessitated His atoning death. The pagan "Christian"
who self-righteously calls us "Christ-killing Jews" manifests a great
ignorance of the Scriptures. True, the apostles were unequivocal in their
indictment of their Jewish brethren for the crucifixion of Jesus (Acts 2:36;
3:14-17). The fact that it was actually the Romans who killed Jesus doesn't
exonerate the Jewish nation of their guilt. David was considered the actual
murderer of Uriah even though he did not actually do the killing.
However, the apostles were just
as pointed in their indictment of the Gentiles for their involvement in Jesus'
death: "For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both
Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles gathered together..." (Acts
4:27).
The Jews of Jesus' day share a
greater guilt in that it was to them that Jesus first presented Himself, and it
is the Jewish religion that has been His greatest adversary. To this day she
boasts, to her shame, that she is the only religion that puts Jesus in a totally
negative light thus demonstrating the same sentiments as her first century
fathers.
Objection #7: Does not the New Testament
account of Pilate's desire to set Jesus free conflict with the historical
testimony of his bloody despotism?
Answer: This objector presumes that notoriously wicked and
despotic leaders cannot be convicted and acknowledge true godliness for brief
periods of time. There is Biblical precedent for such an occurrence. Take
Nebuchadnezzar for example. He was a wicked and ruthless king who did not blink
at seeing people who failed to worship him burned alive in a fire. Yet, even he
was moved to acknowledge the God of Israel. He even issued a decree that all
nations honor the God of Israel. (Dan. 2-3). This account should stretch the
credulity of the critic far more than Pilate's limited episode. Yet the
anti-missionary accepts the former without question but flatly rejects the
latter.
Objection #8: Isn't the virgin birth story
just a plagiarism of the story of Buddha? Certainly the similarities are too
striking to be a coincidence.
Answer: First, should we conclude that Moses plagiarized the
Hammurabi Code, written 400 years previously, to form his own law, because there
are even greater similarities between the two? Second, the two stories are
hardly the same. As Bales notes:
Some differences are: First,
there are many centuries between the time of the actual life of Buddha and the
stories concerning an unusual birth. Second, the oldest accounts mentioned
nothing unusual about his birth. He mentions his father and his mother. Third,
the later writings which speak of something unusual about his birth do not
present it as a virgin birth. Instead, his father, his mother, and the being to
be born are all involved. Fourth, the noble elephant legend says that when he
was conceived his mother dreamed: 'A noble elephant, white as silver or snow,
having six tusks, well proportioned trunk and feet, blood-red veins, adamantine
firmness of joints, and easy pace, has entered my belly...'5
Objection #9: Matthew says that Jesus took up
residence in Nazareth: "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the
prophets, 'He shall be called a Nazarene'" (Matt. 2:23). Nowhere in the
Tanakh is it written that the Messiah would be called a "Nazarene." We
must conclude, therefore, that Matthew was in error and thus uninspired.
Answer: The phrase "which was spoken" does not
necessarily mean that the quotation was taken from a written source. It must be
remembered that only a fraction of what was orally communicated by the prophets
is actually recorded. Isaiah prophesied for nearly 60 years. Jeremiah prophetic
ministry bridged a period of about 45 years. Similarly, the Gospels record only
a small fraction of what Jesus said and did (John 21:25). Paul referred to
something Jesus said that is not written in the four Gospels (Acts 20:35).
Apparently the prophets had spoken that the Messiah was to be a Nazarene. The
anti-missionary with his belief in the Talmud should be the last to discount the
possibility that Matthew was quoting from a true prophetic oral tradition.
Objection #10: Zechariah 13:6 prophesies of
the false prophet who is noted for having "wounds in [his] hands.."
This is a distinct warning concerning the coming of the false Messiah, Jesus
Christ.
Answer: Some Christian scholars make a tactical blunder in
ascribing this passage to Jesus. Tovia Singer in his tape series quotes Josh
McDowell and Sid Roth's application of Zech. 13:6 to Jesus, then points out that
the one with the wounded hands is a false prophet (Zech. 13:4-6). Therefore
Jesus is a false prophet. But, the Hebrew word translated "wounds in [his]
hands" is not universally translated hands. One Jewish translation states:
"What are those sores on your back?" Then in the footnote it says:
"Lit. 'Sores between your arms'", cf. 2 Kings 9:24. Sores are
sometimes symptoms of hysteria" (Zech. 13:6 NJPS). Furthermore, the false
prophet was a farmer from his youth (13:5). Jesus was a carpenter from his
youth. The passage has nothing to do with Him.
Objection #11: "Christian missionaries
claim that Jesus came into the world expressly to offer himself as a willing
sacrifice to atone for mankind's sins. If that was the case, why did he hesitate
and pray for the reversal of the fate prescribed for him? ‘And going a little
way forward, he fell upon his face praying and saying: “My Father, if it is
possible, let this cup pass from me. Yet, not as I will, but as you
will’" (Matthew 26:39; see also Mark 14:35-36, Luke 22:41-44, Sigal, p.
227).
Answer: Suppose a soldier courageously volunteers for a perilous
front line assignment where he is almost certain to perish. Then on the eve of
his deployment, he becomes severely anxious and prays to God: "Father if
there is some other way for this country to be delivered, let it be so. Yet, not
as I will, but as you will, let it be done." The soldier then proceeds out
to the battle line, knowing deep down that there really was no other way. There
he suffers a horrible death. Who would suggest that his prayer invalidates or
contradicts his "willing sacrifice" that brought him to the
battlefront? Who would dare to attribute anything but praise and commendation to
the soldier for his selfless and willing sacrifice for his country? Certainly
not the anti-missionary. Nevertheless, he, time and time again, fails to
acknowledge Jesus' willing sacrifice.
Since he cannot understand the
incarnation he argues, "...Why did Jesus, the god-man, need an angel to
strengthen him...?" (Sigal p. 227). Actually, the fears and apprehensions
expressed by Jesus on the eve of His crucifixion beautifully authenticates the
doctrine of the Messiah’s incarnation. We learn from Philippians 2:5-11 that
in order for Jesus to indwell a human body, He had to forsake His exalted
position in heaven, putting aside numerous divine prerogatives. This is why He
hungered, ate, drank, slept, and needed strengthening just like any other human.
"For we do not have a High
Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted
as we are yet without sin" (Heb. 4:15).
If Jesus had not temporarily set
aside certain divine attributes, He could not have subjected Himself to the same
temptations as mankind. Jesus, in His garden prayer, set the perfect example for
anyone who finds himself in an overwhelming situation. He expressed the feelings
of His heart, then cast them aside with a choice of the will: "Yet, not as
I will, but as you will."
Objection #12: I am Jewish! I cannot become a
Christian, for that would mean that I must forsake my Jewish heritage.
Answer: Jesus, His apostles, and the first several thousand
converts to Christianity were all Jewish (Acts 2:36-41, 4:4, 6:1)! Paul, without
apology, confessed, "I am indeed a Jew" (Acts 22:3). The early Jewish
Christians even continued to observe certain practices of the Law of Moses with
the understanding that these observances were by no means the basis of their
justification before God (Acts 21:20-25, 22:12; Rom. 3:28). Ironically, when the
first Gentile converts starting coming into fold, the question that arose was
not must Jews become Gentiles to be saved, but rather, did Gentiles have to
become Jews (Acts 15). Actually, it is more "natural" for Jews to
become Christians then it is for the Gentile
(Rom.11: 24).
<
Chapter 16 | Chapter18 >