Sunday Sermons

Rock of Offense - Part 2

Mark Dunagan
03/17/02 - Sunday Morning

Rock of Offense II

In this lesson we want to consider various doctrinal objections that many modern Jewish people have to Christianity.

“Jews believe in one God, not three”

The passage that is often cited to prove that God is one person is Deuteronomy 6:4 “Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one!” The verse does not mean that God is one person. The word “one” is also used when God speaks of Adam and Eve becoming “one” flesh (Genesis 2:24). So also, in Exodus 36:13, God instructs Moses to join the many pieces of the tabernacle together so that it will be “one”. The idea here is that God is a united one. Clearly there is more than one person involved in the term “God”, for God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness” (Genesis 1:27); “Come, let Us go down” (Genesis 11:7); “Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven” (19:24); “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” (Isaiah 6:8). Because of this oneness, the child of God can render undivided loyalty and love to God. What a blessing that we only have to please “one” God, Who in turn deals with us on the basis of a revealed, consistent, righteousness and understandable standard. “As one God, when He spoke there was no other to contradict when He promised, there was no other to revoke that promise; when He warned, there was no other to provide refuge from that warning” (Craigie p. 169). The verse means that the Lord is totally unique. He alone is God. The Israelites could therefore have a sense of security that was totally impossible for their polytheistic neighbors. The “gods” of the ancient Near East rarely were thought of as acting in harmony. Each god was unpredictable and morally capricious (fickle). So a pagan worshipper could never be sure that his loyalty to one god would serve to protect him from the capricious wrath of another” (Bible Knowledge Comm. p. 274). Jesus taught the same thing as revealed in Genesis 1:27. More than one person has the attributes of Deity, yet these persons are in complete agreement (John 10:30; Mark 12:28-30; John 17:3). Also compare with Deuteronomy 6:4 with 1 Corinthians 8:4-6; 1 Timothy 2:5-6.

“Claiming that Jesus is God is Idolatry”

First let us note that the New Testament condemns idolatry as well as the Old Testament (1 Corinthians 5:11; 1 Thessalonians 1:9). The New Testament clearly claims that Jesus is Divine (John 1:1; Hebrews 1:3); the Old Testament clearly predicts that the coming Messiah would be Divine. Consider the following passages: Isaiah 9:6 “For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; and the government will rest on His shoulders; and His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace”; Micah 5:2 “But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel, His goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity”: Psalm 110:1 “The Lord says to my Lord”. In the New Testament, Jesus quoted this last verse to demonstrate that as Messiah, He was more than just David’s son, since David in Psalm 110 called him “My Lord” (see Matthew 22:42-45). In addition, consider Psalm 45:6 “Thy throne, O God is forever and ever…Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated wickedness; therefore God, Thy God, has anointed Thee with the oil of joy above Thy fellows”. In this Psalm a royal descendant of David is called “God”.

“God does not have a Son”

Obviously, none of us believe that God had a son in the same way that a human father would have a son. We are fully aware that the Creator of the universe is not married. Yet the Old Testament does teach that the Messiah will be God’s Son: “I will surely tell of the decree of the Lord; He said to Me, ‘Thou art My Son, Today I have begotten Thee” (Psalm 2:7). The word “begotten” does not suggest that Jesus had a beginning, for He is eternal (John 1:1-3), rather this begetting refers to the resurrection (Acts 13:33).

“Jews don’t believe in a suffering Messiah”

On this point Brown notes, “That is not true. From the Talmud until our own day, important Jewish traditions have acknowledged the Messiah’s sufferings. In addition, many Jews believe in two messiahs, a triumphant reigning king called Messiah ben David and a suffering warrior called Messiah ben Joseph. More importantly, the Hebrew Scriptures speak clearly of the Messiah’s sufferings” (Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, volume two, Michael L. Brown, pp. 220-221). Moses ben Nachman, a medieval Jewish scholar, applied Isaiah 53 to the Messiah. Nachman does go out of his way to avoid the obvious fact that the Messiah did indeed die (Isaiah 53:9,12). Instead he attempts to explain that the Messiah was willing to die, that heexpected to die, that it would be reported that he was cut off from the land of the living, and that evil Israelites, together with wicked Gentiles would devise all kinds of death for him. “It would be much truer to the text to speak plainly of the Messiah’s death, explaining the references to his seeing offspring and having long life in terms of his resurrection” (Brown p. 227).

“God doesn’t care for Sacrifices”

The above is a misunderstanding of such texts as Hosea 6:6 “For I delight in loyalty rather than sacrifice and in the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings”. From this misunderstanding, people then try to argue that the entire sacrificial system was unimportant and therefore the idea of Jesus being a sacrifice for our sins is entirely unnecessary according to the Old Testament, yet Hosea is not teaching that God rejects the sacrificial system, for God Himself gave that system to Israel. Over and over in the Law of Moses, sacrifices and offerings are described as a pleasing aroma to God (Exodus 29:18,25,41). Malachi emphasized the importance of sacrifices by soundly rebuking the priests for bringing defective sacrifices (Malachi 1:6-14). What God was saying through Hosea was that unless sacrifices were offered in the context of obedience and true devotion to God, they were meaningless and even offensive (cf. 1 Samuel 15:22; Micah 6:6-8). This is the same truth taught in the New Testament, that the greatest good works or gifts from God are meaningless if the motive in the heart is not love (1 Corinthians 13:1-3). Compare this with Isaiah 1:10-17: In this set of passages God not only repudiates their sacrifices, but all their festivals, assemblies, and prayers (1:15). Certainly, God is not against praying! Yet God is against all these things when sinful and hypocritical people are practicing them! (1:10, 16-17). God is against sacrifices in Hosea 6:6 just as God is against the prayers of wicked Israelites in Proverbs 15:8. Brown notes, “ Would anyone take this passage as a blanket statement indicating that God completely rejected the sacrificial system, along with prayer, worship, Sabbath, and Holy Day observance? Certainly not. When sacrifices are brought in righteousness, they are a delight to the Lord; when they are brought in sin or as a replacement for repentance they are an abomination” (pp. 79-80).

Consider also Micah 6:6-8 “With what shall I come to the Lord and bow myself before the God on high? Shall I come to Him with burnt offerings, with yearling calves? Does the Lord take delight in thousands of rams, in ten thousand rivers of oil? He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” “For Jews living in Micah’s day, there was no possible way they would think he was saying, ‘Forget about Moses! Throw out the Torah! No longer observe the Day of Atonement! Disregard the Passover lamb! Forget about the daily, prescribed offerings! Get rid of the priests and their sacrifices!’ Instead, his meaning was clear: ‘Sinner, God wants you to live right, not bring Him endless and pointless sacrifices and offerings’” (Brown p. 77).

“Blood Sacrifices are no longer Important”

Many Jews are taught that blood sacrifices were only necessary while the Temple was standing and that with the Temple gone, prayer and repentance replace the sacrificial system. Yet the verses used to prove these points are verses that: 1. Were written while the Temple was in existence (Micah 6:6-8; Isaiah 1:10-17). 2. Are verses that took place between the first and second temple (Ezekiel 18; Daniel 6:10). In addition, to argue that repentance in Ezekiel 18 replaces the need to offer sacrifices, would equally argue that repentance (while the Law was in force) replaced the need to pray, observe the Sabbath, observe the feast days, or observe the Ten Commandments, for none of those things are specifically mentioned in Ezekiel 18. The truth of the matter is that the man who turns from his sin in Ezekiel 18 and lives, is the same man who “observes all my statues and practices justice and righteousness” (18:21). In Daniel 6:10 it is argued that Daniel understood that prayer replaced the sacrificial system. Yet the text never says that. Such is an assumption that is as unfounded as saying that Daniel understood that prayer replaced any other statute in the Law, such as the Sabbath observance. Such a claim fails to understand that while Daniel was still in Babylon, many Jews had already returned to their land and rebuilt the altar for the purpose of offering sacrifices that God commanded (Ezra 1-3; Malachi 1:6-14).

“God is against Human Sacrifice”

This is the argument that God is against human sacrifice in the Old Testament and the death of Jesus on the cross according to the New Testament must be a human sacrifice, therefore it is not a valid sacrifice. Yet the Old Testament clearly teaches that there are times when people sacrifice themselves and it is not sinful. The book of Isaiah has the Messiah sacrificing himself for our sins (Isaiah 53:5-6,8,10). Sadly Jewish interpreters have read Isaiah 53 in terms of Israel’s hardships and deaths and claim that the sufferings of the Jewish people paid for the sins of the nations, but when Christians read Isaiah 53 in terms of the atoning power of the death of the Messiah, these same interpreters say, “The text has nothing to do with paying for anyone’s sins”. The truth of the matter is that no amount of suffering on my part or the part of any other mere mortal can atone for sin, for I have sins of my own! In addition, forcing someone to die for you, like a child, would have no atoning power as well. Yet Isaiah taught that there was one whose death would atone for our sins. Isaiah is not talking about the sufferings of the Jewish nation, because he is talking about someone who arose within the Jewish nation (53:2), someone who was unappreciated by this nation (53:3 “We did not esteem Him”; and one who died for the sins of the Jewish nation (53:8 “For the transgression of my people (Isaiah’s people) to whom the stroke was due?”) This unappreciated one who was scourged and crushed, oppressed yet silent, who went as a lamb to slaughter, who was assigned with wicked men but was buried in a rich man’s tomb was no other than Jesus! The challenge to the modern Jewish person is to find someone in history that better fits Isaiah 53 than Jesus of Nazareth. If the claim is made that such a person has not appeared yet, then it must be acknowledged that to this day the Jewish people do not have atonement for their sins, for the person mentioned in Isaiah 53 would accomplish that act.

Mark Dunagan/Beaverton Church of Christ/503-644-9017