Kitabı oku: «Answers for a Jew»

Yazı tipi:

Translator Evgeniy Terekhin

Translator Valeriy Sterkh

Compiler Valeriy Sterkh

ISBN 978-5-4490-3638-4

Created with Ridero smart publishing system

Introduction

Some time ago I watched a Youtube video featuring a debate between Judaism and Christianity. It was a conversation between a local rabbi and a visiting Christian professor from a Bible school in New-York (most likely Protestant) that happened in Bet Gabriel. Last time I checked, this video was at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_ryO65eVQY

You can watch it if you like. Here’s the gist of it. The Rabbi was trying to explain why contemporary Jews reject Jesus Christ, and asked challenging questions about the New Testament and the Christian faith. The Christian opponent tried his best to answer the questions. He succeeded in part. However, some questions were left unanswered or the answers were not specific enough.

The reasons why this happened are not so important. To put it in a nutshell, the Christian may not have been properly prepared. Getting involved in a debate without first acquiring sufficient knowledge of the subject was a brave but reckless thing to do. I do not know whether this discussion was continued or whether the rabbi got his answers, but I decided to answer him.

The questions of Yosef Mizrachi during the debate (I am giving a short version of them with a few slight modifications in wording which do not in the least affect the meaning) as well as my answers are given below.

Is Jesus a descendant of David?

Question: How can Jesus be a descendant of David if he is not the son of Joseph by birth?

Answer: This question has to do with the prophecy about the Messiah coming from the tribe of Judah: “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh [Peacemaker] come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be” (Gen 49:10; compare 1 Kings 2:4; Ps 132:11).

According to the Gospels, Jesus was conceived by Mary through the Holy Spirit, and Joseph (from the tribe of Judah – David’s line) was not his father according to the flesh. Concerning Mary’s genealogy, the Holy Tradition teaches: her parents, Joachim and Anna, were from the tribes of Judah and Levi, respectively. The Gospel of Luke mentions Mary’s relative Elizabeth, who was “from the line of Aaron” (Lk 1:5, 36), that is from the tribe of Levi.

Mary’s relation to the tribe of Judah is further substantiated by the following considerations. When Ceasar Augustus announced a census “all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child” (Lk 2:3—5).

Mary, as the only daughter, was required by the Law to get married: “And every daughter, that possesseth an inheritance in any tribe of the children of Israel, shall be wife unto one of the family of the tribe of her father, that the children of Israel may enjoy every man the inheritance of his fathers. Neither shall the inheritance remove from one tribe to another tribe; but every one of the tribes of the children of Israel shall keep himself to his own inheritance” (Num 36:8—9). That is why Mary was engaged to Joseph who was also from the tribe of Judah.

At the time of the census, Mary wasn’t Joseph’s wife; they were “pledged to be married” [ἐμνηστευμένῃ αὐτῷ] (Lk 2:5). That’s why she had to show up for the census as the only heiress to her parents’ property.

So, Jesus, the son of Mary, was “from the seed of David according to the flesh” (Rom 1:3; see Rev 5:5; 22:16).

Why do the Gospels contain two genealogies of Joseph?

Question: If Jesus was not the son of Joseph by birth, why do the Gospels mention his genealogy? And why are Joseph’s genealogies in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke different?

Answer: In his comments on the genealogy according to the Gospel of Matthew, Blessed Theophilact of Bulgaria writes: “Why does it give us the genealogy of Joseph, but not of the Blessed Virgin? What part did Joseph play in the Virgin Birth? Since Joseph was not Jesus’ birth father, we cannot trace the genealogy of Jesus from Joseph. But listen: It is true that Joseph played no part in the birth of Jesus; therefore, it was necessary to give the genealogy of Virgin Mary. However, since the Law did not allow for a person’s lineage to be traced through the mother [Num 36:6], Matthew did not mention the genealogy of the Holy Virgin. But after giving the genealogy of Joseph, he gives Mary’s genealogy also, and for the following reason: the Law forbade taking a wife from a different tribe, clan, or family – only from your own tribe and clan. Since such was the prescription of the Law, in giving the genealogy of Joseph it was fitting to give also the genealogy of the Holy Virgin. For she was from the same tribe and clan as he was. For if it was not so, how could she have been engaged to him? So, the Gospel writer, in recording Mary’s genealogy after Joseph’s, obeyed the Law which forbade tracing one’s lineage through the mother. He referred to him as the husband of Mary according to the common usage, for we have a tradition of calling a man engaged to be married as “husband” even before the actual marriage” (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Mt 1:16).

Eusebius of Cesarea wrote the following on the differences in the genealogies: “Because of inconsistencies in the genealogies of Jesus found in Matthew and Luke, there are many Christians who erroneously think of them as contradictory. Many are trying to come up with their own explanations without knowing the truth. Here is what we have learned about them from Aristid’s letter in which [Sextus Julius] Africanus, to whom we recently referred, writes about a way to reconcile the Gospel genealogies. Rejecting the opinions of the rest as erroneous and contrived, he tells a story of what he had heard in the following words:

“In Israel, the names of generations were reckoned either according to the flesh or according to the Law – according to the flesh, when there was a succession of lawful sons, and according to the Law, when a brother of a deceased man, who had died with no sons of his own, would give his child the name of his deceased brother [Deut 25:5—10]. There was no clear hope of resurrection at that time, and so the fulfilment of the future promise was connected to “fleshly” resurrection – so the name of the deceased man would never be blotted out from Israel. That is why some of the ancestors listed in the genealogy were lawful or “natural” descendants of their fathers while others were sons according to the Law, that is, they were born by one father but named after another. And it was customary to mention both – the actual fathers and those whose names were thus restored. So, the Gospels make no mistake in recording their names according to the natural birth and according to the Law. Descendants of Solomon and Nathan were thus intertwined due to the age-long process of “bringing from the dead” those who had no sons, remarrying of the mothers and “restoration of the seed”, that one and the same person could be legitimately regarded as a son of his actual father as well as the son of his “sort of” father. Both narratives, therefore, are correct, and they both come to Joseph the right way, though it may seem like a meandering.

To clarify this seeming confusion, I will try to explain what caused it in the first place. If we reckon the generations from David through Solomon, the third one from the end will be Matthan, who begat Jacob, the father of Joseph. According to Luke, the third one from the end, after Nathan, the son of David, was Melki [Matthat (Lk 3:23) – note. V.S.], whose son was Heli, the father of Joseph. Since we are looking at the genealogy of Joseph we must explain why two people are recorded as his father: Jacob, the descendant of Solomon, and Heli, the descendant of Nathan. Why would Jacob and Heli be brothers? And why would their fathers, Matthan and Melki [Matthat], be Joseph’s grandfathers, though they belonged to different lines. Matthan and Melki [Matthat] were both married to the same woman, one after the other, and begat uterine brothers, since the Law didn’t forbid un unmarried woman to remarry, whether she was divorced or widowed. First, Matthan, who was from the line of Solomon, begat Jacob from Esta (this woman’s name according to the Tradition). After Matthan’s death, Melki [Matthat] from the line of Nathan married his widow (as I said, he was from the same tribe but from a different line) and begat his son Heli. So, we will discover that Jacob and Heli were uterine brothers, though belonging to different lines. Heli died without producing children, and Jacob married his wife and begat Joseph (the third generation), who was his son according to the flesh (and according to Scriptures: “Jacob begat Joseph”), and the son of Heli, for his brother Jacob “raised up his seed”. So, we must not reject his genealogy. Matthew, the Gospel writer, says: “Jacob begat Joseph”. Luke’s genealogy is ascending: “He was the son, so it was thought (he added), of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Melki [Matthat]”. One could not think of a clearer way to express his sonship according to the Law, so Luke, in speaking about such “births”, consistently avoids using the word “beget”. His list ends with Adam and God.

All of this is not without a basis and is not arbitrarily contrived. Our Savior’s birth relatives left us the following true story, whether to glorify themselves or purely for our instruction. When a band of marauders from Idumea raided Ashkelon in Palestine, they seized not only the loot from Apollo’s temple, but also Antipater, the son of a certain Herod, who was a hierodule. Because the priest could not redeem his son, Antipater was brought up according to Idumean customs. Later he was well-favored by Hircanus, the high priest of Judea. As an ambassador sent to Pompea on some errand from Hircanus, he obtained for him the kingly authority, which had been usurped by his brother Aristobulus. As to Antipater himself, he prospered; he was appointed the curator (epimelet) of Palestine. After his death – he was murdered out of envy for being so fortunate – his position went to his son Herod. This Herod was later appointed king over the Jews by Antonius and Augustus, as decreed by the Senate. His sons – Herod and others – were tetrarchs. Of these events we also know from the Greek history.

Until then, the archives had kept genealogies of both Jews and ancient Proselytes, such as, for instance, the genealogies of Achior the Ammonite and Ruth the Moabite, as well as genealogies of Egyptians who intermarried with the Jews. Having no connection whatsoever to the Jewish people, Herod, ashamed as he was of his ignoble blood, ordered that all the records of genealogies be burnt in hope that he could be reckoned as a noble-born, if no one was able to trace his line to Patriarchs, Proselytes or Gyiurs (converts to Judaism) using the public records. As a result, there were very few people who retained any memory of their ancestry. If they did, it was by keeping their own genealogical records or just by remembering the names of the ancestors, or keeping their own lists. People were proud of preserving the memory of their high blood. Among them were also the above mentioned “desposiny” – those related to the family of the Lord. Natives of Jewish settlements, Nazareth and Kohaba, they spread wide across the land and compiled the above-mentioned genealogy based on the “Book of Days”, as best they could.

Whether it is so or not, it would be hard to come up with a better explanation – this is my opinion as well as that of any reasonable person. To this we will hold, even though it has not been confirmed by evidence – because there nothing better or more correct to hold on to. And as to the Gospel, it is all true, to say the least”.

At the end of the same letter, Africanus adds: “Matthan, a descendant of Solomon, begat Jacob. After the death of Matthan, Melki [Matthat], a descendant of Nathan, begat Heli by the same woman. Therefore, Heli and Jacob must be uterine brothers. Heli died childless; Jacob raised up his seed by begetting Joseph who was his son according to the flesh, and Heli’s son according to the Law. So, we can say that Joseph was the son of them both”.

This is the testimony of Afrikanus. If such was the genealogy of Joseph, then Mary had to be from the same tribe, for, according to the Law, it wasn’t allowed to marry outside your tribe. The Law said that a man should take a wife out of the same town and the same family so that the inheritance would not go from one tribe to another. With this let us end” (The History of the Church, 1,7).

The explanation offered by Africanus is correct, though he confused Melki with Matthat. The genealogy in Matthew lists births according to the flesh; the one in Luke is according to the Law. It must be added that the levirate links between the two genealogies are found not only at the end, but also in the beginning. This conclusion is obvious because both genealogies intersect in the middle at Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel (see Mt 1:12—13; Lk 3:27). Nathan was the older brother; Solomon was younger, next in line after him (see 2 Sam 5:14—16; 1 Cron 3:5), therefore he was the first candidate to a levirate marriage (compare Ruth 3—4; Lk 20:27—33). The Old Testament is silent on whether Nathan had children, so we may very well conclude that he had none. Solomon, however, had much capacity for love: “And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines” (1 Kings 11:3). So, in theory, he could have married Nathan’s widow. If this is so, Mattatha is the son of Solomon according to the flesh and the son of Nathan according to the Law. In light of the above-mentioned circumstances, the differences between the two genealogies no longer present a problem.

Does the prophesy of Isaiah refer to a maiden or a virgin?

Question: Isaiah 7:14 talks about a maiden or a young woman. But why do Christians translate the Hebrew word “Alma” as “Virgin”?

Answer: Isaiah 7:14 was first applied to Jesus by Matthew: “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin [παρθένος] shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us” (Mt 1:18—23).

Let’s compare it with the prophesy in Isaiah: “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin [παρθένος] shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel [heb. ‘Emmanuel’ = God with us]” (Is 7:14; compare Is 8:8—10).

Both the Greek text of the Gospel and the Greek translation of Is 7:14 use the same word παρθένος (virgin). This is how the Hebrew word “alma” is translated in both cases. One can certainly argue about the nuances of translating “alma” as “maiden” or “virgin”, but in reality, there is not much semantic difference between the words “maiden” and “virgin”. Practically, they are the same. To limit the translation of the word “alma” to “a young woman” is a later invention of Judaism, which has very little in its favor.

The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Old Testament ordered by Ptolemy II Philadelphus, the king of Egypt, in the 3rd century BNE. This translation was completed by 72 Jewish scribes; thus, each Semitic tribe was represented by 6 people. The Septuagint translates “alma” as παρθένος. It makes perfect sense to trust the ancient Jewish scholars who certainly knew how to translate “alma”, and had no reasons to distort the meaning of the prophesy.

Some interpret the prophesy from the first book of Moses in much the same way: “And I will put enmity between thee [great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan (Rev 12:9)] and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel” (Gen 3:15), so the Victorious One who will defeat the Devil will be born without the seed of a man.

Besides, Mary’s eternal virginity is also based on Ezekiel’s prophecy: “Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut” (Ezek 44:2).

Ücretsiz ön izlemeyi tamamladınız.