How to respond to jewish criticisms

[Anna_Scott]

King Hezekiah, son of King Ahaz yet to be born, was considered to be a type of the
‘Messiah’. During the reign of King Hezekiah, the Assyrian Empire under Sennacharib invaded Israel and then surrounded Jerusalem threatening to destroy her. King Hezekiah aprayed to God and during the night the ‘angel of the Lord’ destroyed 185, 000 foot soldiers of the Assyrian army.

. . . (2 kings 19:15-20)

Inserted between these two texts from 2 Kings 19, there is a prophecy and a sign given to King Hezekiah.

. . . . (2 Kings 19:35-36)

The Jewish scholars have legitimate responses to many of our assertions,
it takes faith and the Holy Spirit to sort through them.

God’s peace

micah

Micah,
I agree that Jewish scholars have legitimate responses to many of our assertions. I think we need to provide legitimate responses to their objections.

So, how would you respond, apart from faith and Holy Spirit (which you may have noticed is insulting to the Jews)?

Well if we put aside the implication that the Jews are too feeble minded to understand their own scriptures or that Jews are so character flawed that they unable or unwilling to acknowledge the obvious truth of Christian beliefs, where does that leave us? . . . .

Anna

 

[Tomdstone]

God the Son has his specific role within the Trinity, and part of that is submission and humility, and part of that humility is not knowing the day and hour of God the Father’s date for the second coming.

So are you saying here that God the Son was not all-knowing? Because St. John of Damascus says that Jesus was all-knowing:
“But we declare Him to be Master and Lord of all creation, the one Christ, at once God and man, and all-knowing.”
newadvent.org/fathers/33043.htm
I suspect that a Jew would not accept this teaching of Jesus that He was all-knowing.

 

[mercytruth]

Micah,
I agree that Jewish scholars have legitimate responses to many of our assertions. I think we need to provide legitimate responses to their objections.

So, how would you respond, apart from faith and Holy Spirit (which you may have noticed is insulting to the Jews)?

Anna

Anna,

My intention was not to infer that the Jewish people do not have faith, nor the Holy Spirit.
We who have faith that Jesus is the Messiah, can only attempt to answer their objections with the help of the Holy Spirit. In other words, rationally responding to their objections from the Torah which was originally given to the Jewish people is not sufficient, it requires inspiration from the Holy Spirit.

To interpret the ‘sign’ that was given to King Ahaz, and also his son Hezekiah (who may have been a very young co-regent with his father at the time) is not a simple matter if we are to look at this ‘sign’ from the historical context.

The chronology of events is very contested and jumbled. King Pekah of Samaria, of the Northern Kingdom of Israel was assasinated by Hoshea in what most scholars think to be the year 732 AD. According to 2 Kings 16, King Jotham, the father of Ahaz was alive in his last year of his 20 year reign at the time. So, I do not know if this event would require a ‘sign’.

The prophet Isaiah says that in 65 years Samaria, the seat of the Northern Kingdom would come to an end. If this prophecy was given to King Ahaz in about 735 AD (and possibly Hezekiah who may have been a co-regent with his father at the time), then by 670 AD the extinction of Samaria as the seat of the Northern Kingdom of Israel would be complete.

This is the date which historians think the King of Assyria brought citizens from Assyria to Samaria to intermarry with the few remaining inhabitants of Samaria. Who subsequently were taught the rudiments of the Torah, hence the bias against Samaritans by the religious Jews in the days of Jesus.

701 AD is the date most historians place for the invasion of King Sennacharib into Judea with his threat against King Hezekiah. Samaria, the seat of the northern kingdom of Israel had already been conquered by 722 AD. The prophet Isaiah tells King Hezekiah that he was to be given a ‘sign’. Reasonably, the sign was the destruction of the 185,000 man army of Sennacharib by the angel of the Lord during the night. According to Jewish tradition this was Passover, and a re-enactment of the avenging angel who slew the firstborn of Egypt on the very first Passover.

As far as the name that is given in Isaiah 9:6. the Septuagint version is most often quoted by the early church fathers as, “The messenger (or angel) of great counsel”

There are theophanies, or christophanies in the Torah, especially Genesis and Exodus which the early church fathers recognized to be appearances of the pre-incarnate Christ in the form of an angel or messenger of God. One of these appearances was to Abraham and later to Lot. Genesis 19:24 speaks of two YWYH’s one of which was with Lot and his family: " YWYH reigned down fire and brimstone from YWYH out of heaven" This did not go unnoticed by several of the early church fathers, including Justin Marytr, Ireneaus and Eusebius the historian.

Other instances of ‘theophanies’ mentioned by the early church fathers, are the angel of the Lord in the burning bush who appeared to Moses and who declared the name of the LORD. This is most likely the angel of the Lord who went before the Israelites in the pillar of cloud by day, and the pillar of fire by night. The 'captain of the hosts of the LORD who appeared to Joshua. The angel of the Lord who wrestled with Jacob and so on.

Thus, in the NT Jesus declares that he is the I AM. At the same time, he says that 'no one has seen God (the Father) at any time, only the only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father he has declared him.'

There are other details in the life of Hezekiah which have possible prophetic announcements of Jesus apart from the name of Hezekiah’s wife.

Just a few examples, Hezekiah re-instituted the Passover that had been neglected.

Hezekiah destroyed the brazen serpent which had become an object of worship. Up till this time, the brazen serpent had not been mentioned in the Tanakh since the time of Moses when he was instructed by the LORD to fashion it. It was Jesus who brings up the analogy of the brazen serpent to his sacrificial death on the cross in his conversation with Nicodemus.

There is one scripture in Lamentations that is quoted by the early church fathers, and has significance to me as one who has some familiarity with certain ‘charismatic’ Hasidic Jews of the past.

"The breath (spirit) of our nostrils, the messiah (anointed) of the LORD was taken in their pits, of whom we said, under his shadow we shall dwell among the nations."
(Lamentations 4:20)

These responses are not necessarily of the Holy Spirit, but a small gathering of the insights of some of the early church fathers regarding the subject of the Messiah as foretold in the Tanakh

God’s peace be with you

micah

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

So are you saying here that God the Son was not all-knowing?

With all due respect, are you reading what I’m saying? It’s just that I would appreciate a little more interaction with my explanations than just repeating a question.

So, how would you respond, apart from faith and Holy Spirit (which you may have noticed is insulting to the Jews)?

I think Christians should keep in mind that:

1. All men, before regeneration, reject truth, not just unbelieving Jews.
2. Scripture’s teaching that it takes the Holy Spirit and God’s grace to bring us to a knowledge of the truth is not meant to make us feel superior, but humble. It reminds us, as Christ told Peter, that it wasn’t our own doing, but the doing of God, which opens our minds to holy things (Mt 16:17).

Now I recognize that unregenerate people don’t like being told they’re unregenerate, in the same manner that fat people hate being told they’re fat or lazy people hate being told they’re lazy. All the same, as Christians that’s a spiritual truth we can’t deny. I’ve had atheist homosexuals tell me to my face that they aren’t suppressing God’s truth, but that’s clearly what scripture says they’re doing (Ro 1:18).

Our mindset from this, however, shouldn’t be to throw our hands up in the air and say, “Oh well, they’re unregenerate. I give up.” We should preach the truth. However, we shouldn’t rely solely on our own selves or our argumentation, and if we meet with fierceness or resistance, we shouldn’t lose heart. We have to remind ourselves that, just like our own conversion, it wasn’t about us, but it was about God. God will use us to spread the seed of the Gospel, and He alone will cause the growth.

 

[mercytruth]

With all due respect, are you reading what I’m saying? It’s just that I would appreciate a little more interaction with my explanations than just repeating a question.

I think Christians should keep in mind that:

1. All men, before regeneration, reject truth, not just unbelieving Jews.
2. Scripture’s teaching that it takes the Holy Spirit and God’s grace to bring us to a knowledge of the truth is not meant to make us feel superior, but humble. It reminds us, as Christ told Peter, that it wasn’t our own doing, but the doing of God, which opens our minds to holy things (Mt 16:17).

Now I recognize that unregenerate people don’t like being told they’re unregenerate, in the same manner that fat people hate being told they’re fat or lazy people hate being told they’re lazy. All the same, as Christians that’s a spiritual truth we can’t deny. I’ve had atheist homosexuals tell me to my face that they aren’t suppressing God’s truth, but that’s clearly what scripture says they’re doing (Ro 1:18).

Our mindset from this, however, shouldn’t be to throw our hands up in the air and say, “Oh well, they’re unregenerate. I give up.” We should preach the truth. However, we shouldn’t rely solely on our own selves or our argumentation, and if we meet with fierceness or resistance, we shouldn’t lose heart. We have to remind ourselves that, just like our own conversion, it wasn’t about us, but it was about God. God will use us to spread the seed of the Gospel, and He alone will cause the growth.

Although your comments are not directed to myself, I would disagree that the Jewish people of faith are berefit of the Holy Spirit. “The gifts and calling of God are without repentance”. It is my belief that Jews, especially Jews who believe in the Tanakh have a measure of the Spirit of God.

“Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”

Further, the apostle Paul says, "And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news"

We know that the apostle Peter was sent to preach to the good news to the Jewish people. Do we know who is sent to bring the good news to the Jewish people today? And by whose authority?

God’s peace be with you

micah

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . .I think Christians should keep in mind that:

1. All men, before regeneration, reject truth, not just unbelieving Jews.
2. Scripture’s teaching that it takes the Holy Spirit and God’s grace to bring us to a knowledge of the truth is not meant to make us feel superior, but humble. It reminds us, as Christ told Peter, that it wasn’t our own doing, but the doing of God, which opens our minds to holy things (Mt 16:17).

Now I recognize that unregenerate people don’t like being told they’re unregenerate, in the same manner that fat people hate being told they’re fat or lazy people hate being told they’re lazy. All the same, as Christians that’s a spiritual truth we can’t deny. I’ve had atheist homosexuals tell me to my face that they aren’t suppressing God’s truth, but that’s clearly what scripture says they’re doing (Ro 1:18).

Our mindset from this, however, shouldn’t be to throw our hands up in the air and say, “Oh well, they’re unregenerate. I give up.” We should preach the truth. However, we shouldn’t rely solely on our own selves or our argumentation, and if we meet with fierceness or resistance, we shouldn’t lose heart. We have to remind ourselves that, just like our own conversion, it wasn’t about us, but it was about God. God will use us to spread the seed of the Gospel, and He alone will cause the growth.

Mr. Wolf,
I’m not in any way attempting to diminish the role of faith and the Holy Spirit; and I agree 100% that we should not rely only on ourselves or our own argumentation.

If a Jewish forum member said we just have to accept what they are saying through faith; would that answer any of the issues?

My point is that in answering Jewish criticisms or objections; we should be able to answer Jewish criticisms and objections.

Anna

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Although your comments are not directed to myself, I would disagree that the Jewish people of faith are berefit of the Holy Spirit. “The gifts and calling of God are without repentance”. It is my belief that Jews, especially Jews who believe in the Tanakh have a measure of the Spirit of God.

“Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”

Further, the apostle Paul says, "And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news"

We know that the apostle Peter was sent to preach to the good news to the Jewish people. Do we know who is sent to bring the good news to the Jewish people today? And by whose authority?

God’s peace be with you

micah

Romans 8 (especially v. 9-11 and 16-17) makes it clear that those who are a dwelling place for the Holy Spirit are those who are in Christ. God is a Trinitarian God - you cannot call upon the Son without the Spirit (1 Co 12:3), and you cannot have the Father without the Son (1 Jo 2:23). If an unbelieving Jew rejects Christ as Lord and Messiah, then he does not have the Spirit. If they did have the Spirit, they would confess Christ as Lord, as would all men who had the Spirit.

You cite Ro 10:14 and 17 as if the apostle is saying that those who hear the word of God have the Spirit - that isn’t the case. In the context, he’s clearly talking about the Gospel. In fact, Ro 10:17 actually says: “through the word of Christ” (there’s a textual variant there, but the earliest manuscripts support the reading of “Christ”, and only later manuscripts support “God”). The apostle Paul is saying that men must be preached to so that all, Gentile and Jew, may hear the Gospel and be saved. Paul is in no way saying that Jews who read the Tanakh have the Spirit.

Returning to the topic of this thread, this is why it is so important that all believers preach the truth to all men, Jew and Gentile. Let us be used of God as instruments of His will and His Spirit, in the name of His Son, and let us remember that it is not because we are somehow better, but because God is truly good.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

If a Jewish forum member said we just have to accept what they are saying through faith; would that answer any of the issues?

My point is that in answering Jewish criticisms or objections; we should be able to answer Jewish criticisms and objections.

I agree with that 100% as well. I’ve been trying to assist in answering Jewish objections in this thread. And I would never respond to an objection with, “I dunno, just have faith, yo!” If you read Acts, you’ll see the apostle Paul spent plenty of time answering Jewish objections. We shouldn’t confuse God’s will with God’s commands (that’s the danger of Hyper-Calvinists, who recognize it is all up to God, but think that means we shouldn’t do any evangelism). All the same, I’ve encountered people who seem to be more concerned with winning arguments than winning souls, and seem to think methodology trumps theology. That’s why in threads such as this I sometimes overemphasize God’s will.

 

[mercytruth]

Romans 8 (especially v. 9-11 and 16-17) makes it clear that those who are a dwelling place for the Holy Spirit are those who are in Christ. God is a Trinitarian God - you cannot call upon the Son without the Spirit (1 Co 12:3), and you cannot have the Father without the Son (1 Jo 2:23). If an unbelieving Jew rejects Christ as Lord and Messiah, then he does not have the Spirit. If they did have the Spirit, they would confess Christ as Lord, as would all men who had the Spirit.

You cite Ro 10:14 and 17 as if the apostle is saying that those who hear the word of God have the Spirit - that isn’t the case. In the context, he’s clearly talking about the Gospel. In fact, Ro 10:17 actually says: “through the word of Christ” (there’s a textual variant there, but the earliest manuscripts support the reading of “Christ”, and only later manuscripts support “God”). The apostle Paul is saying that men must be preached to so that all, Gentile and Jew, may hear the Gospel and be saved. Paul is in no way saying that Jews who read the Tanakh have the Spirit.

Returning to the topic of this thread, this is why it is so important that all believers preach the truth to all men, Jew and Gentile. Let us be used of God as instruments of His will and His Spirit, in the name of His Son, and let us remember that it is not because we are somehow better, but because God is truly good.

I know that it is Baptist teaching that all men are to bring the gospel to both Jew and Gentile. However, I do not find scriptural support for that claim. Not all have the Spiritual gift of being an ‘evangelist’. Those who have the gift of evangelism, by whose authority are they sent?

The Roman Catholic church was told by St. Paul that “by your mercy, they shall obtain mercy”. I think as Catholics we need to show the Jewish people mercy, rather than preach the gospel to them. Unless one has the gift and calling to the Jewish people, I do not think we as laypeople can answer the objections of the Jewish people adequately.
We just need to be good listeners, and not make presumptions about their relationship with God.

God’s peace be with you

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . .As far as the name that is given in Isaiah 9:6. the Septuagint version is most often quoted by the early church fathers as, “The messenger (or angel) of great counsel”

There are theophanies, or christophanies in the Torah, especially Genesis and Exodus which the early church fathers recognized to be appearances of the pre-incarnate Christ in the form of an angel or messenger of God. One of these appearances was to Abraham and later to Lot. Genesis 19:24 speaks of two YWYH’s one of which was with Lot and his family: " YWYH reigned down fire and brimstone from YWYH out of heaven" This did not go unnoticed by several of the early church fathers, including Justin Marytr, Ireneaus and Eusebius the historian.

Other instances of ‘theophanies’ mentioned by the early church fathers, are the angel of the Lord in the burning bush who appeared to Moses and who declared the name of the LORD. This is most likely the angel of the Lord who went before the Israelites in the pillar of cloud by day, and the pillar of fire by night. The 'captain of the hosts of the LORD who appeared to Joshua. The angel of the Lord who wrestled with Jacob and so on.

Thus, in the NT Jesus declares that he is the I AM. At the same time, he says that ‘no one has seen God (the Father) at any time, only the only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father he has declared him.’. . . .

There is one scripture in Lamentations that is quoted by the early church fathers, and has significance to me as one who has some familiarity with certain ‘charismatic’ Hasidic Jews of the past.

"The breath (spirit) of our nostrils, the messiah (anointed) of the LORD was taken in their pits, of whom we said, under his shadow we shall dwell among the nations."
(Lamentations 4:20) . . . . .

micah

Micah,

I posted questions to Chosen People about the Jewish understanding of these events. I appreciate your posting a Christian perspective.

Still hoping to hear from Chosen People.

Chosen People,

In posts 78, 79, 80, I posted passages regarding the Spirit of God, the Spirit of the Lord, the Holy Spirit, and God’s presence. I was just wondering how you see these references to God and the way in which He manifests Himself.

Also, what is the Jewish understanding of the appearances of HaShem to the following people? In what way did He manifest Himself?

**Abraham And Sarah At Mamre **Gereshit - Genesis 18:1-33

Hagar Bereshit - Genesis 16:9-13

**Jacob At Peniel **Bereshit Genesis 32:24-43 Did Jacob truly wrestle with God?

Moses In The Burning Bush Shemot- Exodus 3:2-4;17

Gideon Shoftim - Judges 6:11-24
**
Samson’s Parents Shoftim - Judges 13:2-23

In The Fiery Furnace Daniel 3:23-29**

The Holy Scriptures - The Tanakh

jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/copyrightGraphic.gif

---

Looking forward to hearing your perspective.

Peace and blessings,
Anna

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

I know that it is Baptist teaching that all men are to bring the gospel to both Jew and Gentile. However, I do not find scriptural support for that claim.

Not all have the Spiritual gift of being an ‘evangelist’. Those who have the gift of evangelism, by whose authority are they sent?

The Roman Catholic church was told by St. Paul that “by your mercy, they shall obtain mercy”. I think as Catholics we need to show the Jewish people mercy, rather than preach the gospel to them. Unless one has the gift and calling to the Jewish people, I do not think we as laypeople can answer the objections of the Jewish people adequately.
We just need to be good listeners, and not make presumptions about their relationship with God.

Your quotation of Romans 11:31 is again out of context. Let’s read the whole thing:

As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all. [Romans 11:28-32]

Paul is not speaking to the “Roman Catholic Church,” but to Gentile believers in Rome (go back to v. 13), and reminds them, after speaking of the unbelief of most Jews, that “you were at one time disobedient but now have received mercy because of their disobedience,” 30), and says that the unbelieving Jews have, like the formerly unbelieving Gentiles, become disobedient so that the mercy shown to Gentiles might also be shown to Jews (v. 31). That is, it is not over for the Jews - some Jews in the past have come to believe in Christ, and many more in the present and future shall come to know and believe in the name of Christ (I pray God uses this thread and Anna’s efforts to do that). This mercy comes from God, not us.

Now, while some are perhaps not gifted by God to be the new John Wesley or Jonathan Edwards, that doesn’t mean we can’t serve as witnesses to the truth, at least to the limit of our faith and knowledge. Christian history testifies that during the early years of the faith, during the midst of Roman persecution, Christianity was an evangelical society, and all served a “ministry” of some sort. It was clear even the apostolic days that the good news of Christ was preached even by lay people (Acts 11:19-21), even those not directly labeled evangelists in their duty or “job title” so to speak (2 Ti 4:5).

As for “presumptions about their relationship with God,” I am again only speaking what scripture states about the heart of man. Those outside of Christ are spiritually dead and children of wrath (Eph 2:1-3), and only in Christ can they find true knowledge of God. To say that is no more a presumption than presuming a person who has cancer is suffering from health problems. It is because of our knowledge of this that, out of love, we preach the good news to Jews, and answer any objections or questions they might have.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I agree with that 100% as well. I’ve been trying to assist in answering Jewish objections in this thread.

I know you have, and I love your posts and resources. You put serious effort into what you post. Though we don’t agree on everything (we can’t all be Anglicans ); you know I’m a fan. :clapping:

And I would never respond to an objection with, “I dunno, just have faith, yo!” If you read Acts, you’ll see the apostle Paul spent plenty of time answering Jewish objections.

[sign]I dunno, just have faith, yo![/sign] I dunno, that’s kinda catchy, yo!

We shouldn’t confuse God’s will with God’s commands (that’s the danger of Hyper-Calvinists, who recognize it is all up to God, but think that means we shouldn’t do any evangelism).

Evangelism is a good thing, as the quote in my signature line stresses.

All the same, I’ve encountered people who seem to be more concerned with winning arguments than winning souls, and seem to think methodology trumps theology. That’s why in threads such as this I sometimes overemphasize God’s will.

I understand and I hope I haven’t appeared argumentative. Though, I was told on CF (in a PM from a friend) that I can be a bit “abrasive.” I’m not usually this: :kiss4you:. Can’t help it. LOL

Strong personalities in a discussion make things interesting.

Peace and blessings, Mr. Wolf,
Anna

 

[mercytruth]

Your quotation of Romans 11:31 is again out of context. Let’s read the whole thing:

As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all. [Romans 11:28-32]

Paul is not speaking to the “Roman Catholic Church,” but to Gentile believers in Rome (go back to v. 13), and reminds them, after speaking of the unbelief of most Jews, that “you were at one time disobedient but now have received mercy because of their disobedience,” 30), and says that the unbelieving Jews have, like the formerly unbelieving Gentiles, become disobedient so that the mercy shown to Gentiles might also be shown to Jews (v. 31). That is, it is not over for the Jews - some Jews in the past have come to believe in Christ, and many more in the present and future shall come to know and believe in the name of Christ (I pray God uses this thread and Anna’s efforts to do that). This mercy comes from God, not us.

Now, while some are perhaps not gifted by God to be the new John Wesley or Jonathan Edwards, that doesn’t mean we can’t serve as witnesses to the truth, at least to the limit of our faith and knowledge. Christian history testifies that during the early years of the faith, during the midst of Roman persecution, Christianity was an evangelical society, and all served a “ministry” of some sort. It was clear even the apostolic days that the good news of Christ was preached even by lay people (Acts 11:19-21), even those not directly labeled evangelists in their duty or “job title” so to speak (2 Ti 4:5).

As for “presumptions about their relationship with God,” I am again only speaking what scripture states about the heart of man. Those outside of Christ are spiritually dead and children of wrath (Eph 2:1-3), and only in Christ can they find true knowledge of God. To say that is no more a presumption than presuming a person who has cancer is suffering from health problems. It is because of our knowledge of this that, out of love, we preach the good news to Jews, and answer any objections or questions they might have.

Quoting from your quote of Romans 11:31:But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers.

If the Jewish people are beloved of God for the sake of their forefathers,
it is incumbent upon us to demonstrate the love of God to them.

I would think that one first must be a disciple before one can be a witness of any type to anyone. Thus, our focus should be directed on becoming disciples of Jesus Christ, rather than teachers and preachers of the word of God.

We have our differences of perspective, which are not fatal in remaining as brothers in our Lord Jesus Christ.

God’s peace be with you

micah

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Quoting from your quote of Romans 11:31:But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers.

If the Jewish people are beloved of God for the sake of their forefathers,
it is incumbent upon us to demonstrate the love of God to them.

I would kindly suggest you practice looking at the fullness of what a verse says, not just grabbing the first thing that you think proves your point. Once again, look at the full context, especially what Paul says afterward:

For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. [v. 30-31]

They are not “beloved of God” in the same context of Romans 8 and believers. Rather, they are beloved in the sense that God has not completely abandoned the Jews (see v. 1-6). Jews shall receive mercy as Gentiles have received mercy. By God’s grace, there will be many Jews today who deny the name of Christ and yet will come to repentance and saving faith and shall on the day of judgment bow before Christ as king, Lord and Messiah.

I would think that one first must be a disciple before one can be a witness of any type to anyone. Thus, our focus should be directed on becoming disciples of Jesus Christ, rather than teachers and preachers of the word of God.

Of course one must first have some level of spiritual maturity. Can you yourself tell me, or show from scripture, upon what level of discipleship one can be at to become a witness? If one were focused solely on “becoming a disciple,” no one would be reached, and the earliest Christians would all be at fault for serving as witnesses for the hope that is within them (cf. 1 Pe 3:15).

The fact is, we can’t just answer Jewish objections in the sense of saying “You’re wrong, I’m right.” We have to answer objections with the idea of “You’re wrong, but God is right and just.”

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

[sign]I dunno, just have faith, yo![/sign] I dunno, that’s kinda catchy, yo!

I should put that on a t-shirt. It summarizes a lot of what people call “apologetics” these days.

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . .To interpret the ‘sign’ that was given to King Ahaz, and also his son Hezekiah (who may have been a very young co-regent with his father at the time) is not a simple matter if we are to look at this ‘sign’ from the historical context.

The chronology of events is very contested and jumbled. King Pekah of Samaria, of the Northern Kingdom of Israel was assasinated by Hoshea in what most scholars think to be the year 732 AD. According to 2 Kings 16, King Jotham, the father of Ahaz was alive in his last year of his 20 year reign at the time. So, I do not know if this event would require a ‘sign’.

The prophet Isaiah says that in 65 years Samaria, the seat of the Northern Kingdom would come to an end. If this prophecy was given to King Ahaz in about 735 AD (and possibly Hezekiah who may have been a co-regent with his father at the time), then by 670 AD the extinction of Samaria as the seat of the Northern Kingdom of Israel would be complete.

This is the date which historians think the King of Assyria brought citizens from Assyria to Samaria to intermarry with the few remaining inhabitants of Samaria. Who subsequently were taught the rudiments of the Torah, hence the bias against Samaritans by the religious Jews in the days of Jesus.

701 AD is the date most historians place for the invasion of King Sennacharib into Judea with his threat against King Hezekiah. Samaria, the seat of the northern kingdom of Israel had already been conquered by 722 AD. The prophet Isaiah tells King Hezekiah that he was to be given a ‘sign’. Reasonably, the sign was the destruction of the 185,000 man army of Sennacharib by the angel of the Lord during the night. According to Jewish tradition this was Passover, and a re-enactment of the avenging angel who slew the firstborn of Egypt on the very first Passover.

MIcah,

All very interesting possibilities in relating the prophesy to both contemporary and future events.

If the events of the Isaiah prophesy were accomplished in the time of King Ahaz (the contemporary element of the prophesy), that would mean the events happened before the child knew how to refuse the evil and choose the good. It would also mean a young woman/maiden/virgin conceived and bore this child in the time of King Ahaz—would it not? This brings us back to the question I asked before: Are we not left with the problem of two “virgins”?

There is still another issue. Suppose I have a 10 year old daughter, and I say to her, “Someday you will have a child of your own.” I am essentially saying, “You, my virgin daughter, will conceive and bear a child.” I have not said that my child will still be a virgin upon/after conception.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

I should put that on a t-shirt. It summarizes a lot of what people call “apologetics” these days.

There ya go, Mr. Wolf. A new career is born.

That reminds me of my son relying upon free t-shirts for a large part of his college wardrobe. It didn’t matter what the slogan said. If it was free, he got. He wore it. Now that he is out of college and working; I still tell him it seems strange to see him wear shirts that bear no slogan.

It’s Friday, Mr. Wolf! Hope you have a great weekend!

Anna

 

[mercytruth]

MIcah,

All very interesting possibilities in relating the prophesy to both contemporary and future events.

If the events of the Isaiah prophesy were accomplished in the time of King Ahaz (the contemporary element of the prophesy), that would mean the events happened before the child knew how to refuse the evil and choose the good. It would also mean a young woman/maiden/virgin conceived and bore this child in the time of King Ahaz—would it not? This brings us back to the question I asked before: Are we not left with the problem of two “virgins”?

There is still another issue. Suppose I have a 10 year old daughter, and I say to her, “Someday you will have a child of your own.” I am essentially saying, “You, my virgin daughter, will conceive and bear a child.” I have not said that my child will still be a virgin upon/after conception.

Anna

“Prophecy is of no private interpretation”. So there would be only conjectures and possiblities.

An unlikely conjecture is that the prophecy was looking backwards in time to when Ahaz at the young age of 11,or 12 possibly fathered Hezekiah of Abi who was a very ‘young woman’. If such a conception occurred it would have been considered somewhat miraculous to Ahaz backwards in time, especially if God revealed to Ahaz that this was
a miraculous birth.

Another possible conjecture is that this prophecy may also have been directed toward Hezekiah as a possible co-regent with King Ahaz at the time. If so, then one might consider the ‘miraculous’ birth of Hezekiah’s son, Manasseh of Hephzibah. This birth would not have happened if Hezekiah had died according to the words of Isaiah.

King Hezekiah became severely ill just after the miraculous sign of the angel of the Lord slaying the 185,000 man army of Sennacharib in 701 AD. Hezekiah begged God to heal him, and Hezekiah was healed and lived for another 15 years during which time Manasseh was conceived.

King Ahaz also immolated one of his sons during this time to a pagan god.

None of these are likely possibilities, but the book of Isaiah is full of prophecies that are neither sequential, or completely concurrent with a future fulfillment. For myself, King Hezekiah as a type of Messiah as to the events and details surrounding his reign seems to be anticipatory of a future perfect Messiah.

So, I plead ignorance to your question about the possibility of two young virgins, or young maidens, giving birth…one concurrent and one future as being the intent of this prophecy.

God’s peace be with you

micah

 

[Tomdstone]

With all due respect, are you reading what I’m saying? It’s just that I would appreciate a little more interaction with my explanations than just repeating a question.

It is just a simple question as to whether or not God the Son is all-knowing. (yes or no). I don’t want to misquote you or misunderstand you, but if I am reading you correctly, you say no, God the Son is not all-knowing, because He did not know the hour and it was only the Father who knew the hour?
However, this contradicts what a Saint has said. This has reference to a jewish criticism of Jesus, as they would not agree that Jesus was all-knowing.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

It is just a simple question as to whether or not God the Son is all-knowing. (yes or no). I don’t want to misquote you or misunderstand you, but if I am reading you correctly, you say no, God the Son is not all-knowing, because He did not know the hour and it was only the Father who knew the hour?
However, this contradicts what a Saint has said. This has reference to a jewish criticism of Jesus, as they would not agree that Jesus was all-knowing.

Yes, Jesus is all knowing, as I demonstrated in an earlier post. What might help is that the verb used here may possibly refer more so to “make known” or “reveal,” and hence it would more properly mean “no one reveals the day or the hour but the Father” (though this is a minor opinion). What might also help is to remember that Christ was fully man and fully God, and hence many believe that Christ refers here more so to his human nature than divine. As a man, Christ certainly developed as others did, experiencing growth and development as we all do to some degree (cf. Lk 2:40).

As for “this contradicts what a Saint has said,” I don’t hold the words of saints to be the final authority on how my theology is derived. Only the word of God was ever labeled as theopneustos (“God-breathed”). There have been many things said by “saints” that contradict the word of God.