-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 >