That's just your interpretation!

A highly agitated performance by apostate Randal Rauser

https://randalrauser.com/2020/05/what-is-progressive-christianity-and-why-does-alisia-childers-think-its-so-dangerous/

1. Throughout the video, Rauser plays his dogeared hand about how conservative Christians collapse their interpretation of scripture into scripture itself. Yet his application of that distinction is totally one-sided inasmuch as he exempts his progressive interpretation from the distinction he urges on conservative Christians. The conservative understanding is just their interpretation whereas his progressive interpretation is true. 

2. He says the OT prophets had a false understanding of God because they didn't believe in the Incarnation or the possibility of an Incarnation. But that fails to distinguish between lacking belief in something, due to ignorance, and denying something. For instance, they didn't know that Jesus would be the messiah. That doesn't mean they disaffirmed the messiahship of Jesus. They just had no idea who Jesus was. They didn't know who the messiah was going to be at that level of biographical detail. But that hardly implies that they'd be opposed to Jesus as the fulfillment of messianic prophecy.

Notice how radical Rauser's position is. The messiahship of Jesus requires OT validation. Yet Rauser says OT prophets had a false concept of the messiah. Evidently he interprets the OT in unitarian terms. 

The question at issue isn't whether OT prophets were consciously Trinitarian but whether OT theism is consistent with or open to the revelation of the Trinity and Incarnation. 

In addition, while the OT witness of the Trinity is oblique, the OT contains many passages that dovetail with the more explicit witness to the Trinity. This isn't a reversal of OT theism.

A fundamental purpose of the OT is to correct false views of God. Pagan views. Not to substitute a different false view of God.

3. He also attacks the imprecatory psalms as expressing false views of God. That's another hobby horse of his. 

He says we should use Jesus as our standard of comparison to correct the OT. But that's duplicitous because, as he's expressed elsewhere, he regards Jesus as a fallible, timebound, culturally-conditioned teacher, based on Rauser's Kenotic Christology. Rauser's yardstick isn't Jesus but Rauser's moral intuitions. 

“He will see light” in Isaiah 53:11

http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2020/04/he-will-see-light-in-isaiah-5311.html

Encountering Messianic Judaism

https://voice.dts.edu/tablepodcast/encountering-messianic-judaism/

Includes transcript. 

Jewish visions of Jesus

The video also has an interesting anecdote by another commenter:

Open Eyes

A few of you asked me what exactly I saw that made me believe in the Messiah Jesus. I was a Marine, and deployed to Iraq 4 times, and was struggling with PTSD really bad, I was loosing more of my friends to suicide than to combat, something you don't hear on the news. One night I was having a particularly difficult night, I finally fell asleep and had a vision, not a dream. I was in space, standing on a sheet of crystal, or glass....I was looking at all of the galexies and the earth, sun, moon, stars, standing right there next to me was Jesus Christ....My soul knew who He was, He didn't say anything verbally it was all telepathic, and He never looked at me, just looked straight ahead, He said telepathically " I created everything that I am showing you, and I had you In my plan from eternity past"....that changed my life.......He had dark short curly hair, wore a very bright white robe that went down to His feet, and he had a Gold sash.....I will NEVER forget that

Edit: Open Eyes' testimony on video. More "I met Messiah" testimonies from Jews.

Lecture series on the Psalter

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLnNXzYjQerJjLNpD_rBJhJTLqTl1QNzoI

Why be Christian rather than Jewish?

A friend asked me how I'd argued against Rabbinic Judaism. What makes Christianity right and Rabbinic Judaism wrong. The question is significant in part because Rabbinic Judaism is the only serious religious rival to Christianity. And it's significant in witnessing to Jews. 

1. I'm distinguishing pre-Christian Judaism (OT Judaism/Second Temple Judaism) from post-Christian Judaism (Rabbinic Judaism). 

2. There's a sense in which it's easier to prove pre-Christian Judaism backwards. Begin with Christianity, then prove pre-Christian Judaism in reverse. There's less evidence for Judaism, considered in isolation, than Christianity. It's easier to make a case for Christianity than Judaism apart from Christianity.

3. The evidence for Christianity includes the argument from prophecy. In many cases, OT prophecies fulfilled in Jesus or NT times. But of course, Rabbinic Jews don't think those prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus and the new covenant. This means that according to Rabbinic Judaism, the OT still contains many outstanding prophecies. Yet when centuries or even millennia pass and nothing happens, that raises the nagging suspicion: are these genuine prophecies remaining to be fulfilled or failed prophecies which will never happen?

4. In fairness, Rabbinic Jews might level the same charge regarding the Second Coming of Christ. But there's a difference:

i) The first coming of Christ gives us a downpayment or precedent. That's reason to believe there's more to come, and it's not just wishful thinking.

ii) Christianity is a global missionary religion in a way that Judaism is not. Therefore, Christianity requires centuries to achieve its goal. In the nature of the case, Christianity takes a long-range view, to save as many of the elect as God has chosen, through many generations in time and space. 

5. If we had nothing but the OT to go by, some oracles seem to be failed prophecies. For instance, the new temple in Ezk 40-48 appears to envision what awaits the exiles when they return to the Promised Land. But of course, nothing like that happened. Christianity has room and resources to accommodate that vision in a way that an OT boundary does not. 

6. There's also the question of whether it's too late for some OT prophecies to be fulfilled if they haven't come true by now. For instance:

There is only one Messiah, but there are two parts to his mission, hence two comings, but the first had to precede the destruction of the Second Temple as we learn from Haggai 2 (where God promised to fill the Second Temple with greater glory than the First Temple, yet the Second Temple did not have the Shekhinah or the divine fire or even the ark of the covenant); Malachi 3 (where the Lord Himself promised to visit the Second Temple and purge the priests and Levites); and Daniel 9 (where the measure of transgression and sin had to be filled up, atonement made for iniquity, and everlasting righteousness ushered in). 

Yeshua fulfilled these prophecies, bringing the glory of God to the Temple with his own presence and sending the Spirit to his followers there, and as the Lord, visiting the Temple and purging and purifying the Jewish leadership. And the measure of transgression was filled up when the Messiah was crucified, at which time he made atonement for iniquity and ushered in eternal righteousness. And so Haggai, Malachi, and Daniel testify that the Messiah had to come before the Second Temple was destroyed. 

This is why we also have two pictures of the Messiah’s coming, one meek and lowly, riding on a donkey (Zech 9:9), the other high and exalted, riding on the clouds (Dan 7:13-14). But these are not either-or pictures, they are both-and pictures. First he comes riding on a donkey, to be rejected by our people, to die for our sins, only to become a light to the nations of the earth; then he will return riding on the clouds, bringing judgment on the wicked, regathering his scattered people, and establishing God’s kingdom on the earth. 

https://askdrbrown.org/library/dr-brown-notes-debate-yisroel-blumenthal-real-jewish-messiah

These are keyed to Second Temple Judaism. If it didn't happen before the temple was razed, then we passed the last exit on the freeway 2000 years ago. There are no future opportunities for their fulfillment. Jesus is the best and only viable candidate. 

7. Another problem is that Jews have been unable to practice the Mosaic Covenant for 2000 years. That makes for a truncated religion. But how can Judaism still be the right option if it can't be practiced, as commanded, for such long stretches of time? What Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox Jews practice isn't Judaism as divinely prescribed in the OT, but a faith-tradition reinvented by rabbis to adjust to a world without the Mosaic cultus. Yet to that extent it's just a human construct.  

It might be said that the Babylonian Exile provides a partial precedent. But that had a portable tabernacle in the form of the chariot-theophany and the Shekinah (Ezk 1; 10; esp. 11:16). The Shekinah tabernacle followed them into exile. But what's the counterpart in the experience of Rabbinic Jews?

8. Another evidence for Christianity is the argument from miracles, answered prayer, special providences, and Christophanies. But do Rabbinic Jews have the same  experience?

On the one hand I'm not suggesting that God never answers the prayers of Rabbinic Jews. On the other hand, I'm not suggesting that God always answers Christian prayer. But consider the secularized Judaism of Mordecai Kaplan. Is that conditioned in large part by the despairing experience of a God who doesn't answer Jewish prayers. Of a God who doesn't intervene in Jewish lives? Do miracles, answered prayer, and special providences cluster around Christianity in a way that's not the case for Rabbinic Judaism? Consider evidence for an uptick in miracles when Christian missionaries break new ground on a virgin mission field, reaching the unreached. They're often opposed by indigenous paganism, witchcraft, and demonic attack. They must respond with exorcisms and healing miracles. 

And what about the role of Christophanies in church history, up to the present? Take Muslims who experience dreams and visions of Jesus, which are instrumental to their conversion. 

In the same vein it would be useful to have a representative survey comparing the experience of Rabbinic Jews with Messianic Jews. Is God more manifest in the lives of Messianic Jews than Rabbinic Jews? Michael Brown tells me there's big difference. 

9. What is the ultimate point of the sacrificial system in the Mosaic covenant? Christianity has an explanation.

Walking on water

A Facebook exchange I had with Lydia. There are some other participants as well. 

Lydia

I am inclined to think that when Jesus says, “It is I” in Mark 6:50 he is merely trying to calm the disciples’ fears, not to make an “I am” claim to deity.

Hays

While it's true that ego eimi is not a claim of deity in itself, the setting of the claim inevitably evokes and invites parallels with OT statements about Yahweh's control over the sea.

Lydia

My argument would be that it would scare them more for him to make a claim to deity while walking out of the night on the water, whereas it seems that he's trying to make them feel better and calmer by saying it, since they're already terrified. That would fit more with saying, as we would in like circumstances, "It's okay, guys, it's me."

Hays

Lying in the background of Lydia's statement about Synoptic Christology is her legitimate concern that some "evangelical/inerrantist" scholars treat the deific statements of Jesus in John's Gospel as legendary embellishments. The narrator wrote a script which he makes Jesus, like a fictional character recite. And one of Lydia's concerns is the cavalier notion that John's Gospel isn't a pillar of high Christology (Trinity, Incarnation).

Lydia

Right, I do think John is necessary to a full-orbed defense of high Christology, especially if we're focused on what Jesus himself said, not simply how the author portrays him or thinks of him. I don't think John is epistemologically extraneous and that you can get all you want from the Synoptics anyway, etc. OTOH, I hope that I'd be objective enough (hope?) to recognize high Christology in the Synoptics even if this somehow made John less necessary. One example that I actually like that I got from Jonathan McLatchie and was new to me in this past year: Jesus' reference to Psalm 8 in the Temple in Matthew. The leaders suggest that he should rebuke the children for singing Hosanna to him, and he asks them if they are not familiar with the Scripture that says, "Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings you have perfected praise." This would be at least faintly blasphemous if he were not God, since the one being praised in Psalm 8, the one being addressed in that verse, is Yahweh. So there is something pretty strong in that answer: "I'll see you and raise you five," basically.

Hays

I'd add that there's an intensely practical aspect to this issue. Imagine if the NT was ambiguous about the deity of Christ. Maybe Jesus is God Incarnate or maybe not. The NT witness could be read either way. That would be completely untenable from a religious standpoint. False worship is a huge issue in biblical piety. Are we supposed to worship him as God or not? The NT can't afford to be ambivalent on that question. Believers can't take a noncommittal position. There is no middle ground.

Lydia

Exactly. Thank goodness that we have all the evidence, incl. John. Especially since it's not enough just to say, "Well, that's what Paul thought." I mean, for sure some Arian or Unitarian is going to say Paul just got it wrong and attributed things that Jesus never taught himself. Obvs. that's what the liberal scholars say anyway, which is why they try to dismiss John as non-historical.

I should say that when I look at a verse like that I try to ask myself how it would look to an audience member who was not ill-disposed toward Jesus but who just was not expecting the Incarnation, was not expecting even the Messiah to be God Incarnate. That seems to me a reasonable question, because it seems to me a reasonable position for a devout Jew to be in at the time. I imagine there are some who will disagree with me there, but I think Jesus' own disciples were non-culpably in that situation for a lot of the time while Jesus was on earth. The doctrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity were new and seemed shocking to them. They may even have tried to interpret some of the things Jesus said in ways that didn't imply such a thing because they thought that was being charitable and that it was his enemies who attributed such claims to him and considered them blasphemy. 

So for that example, my initial reaction is that it is suggestive and can be seen in hindsight to be an allusion to Jesus' deity but that a Jew at the time who heard it for the first time would have been likely to try to find some other way to interpret it. It would be indirect and non-obvious to him. (You'll notice that nobody tries to stone Jesus when he says that and nobody is recorded as expressing shock or dismay, unlike in response to the claims in John or the claim to forgive sins in Mark 2.) Since it's a prophecy he's interpreting, they may have said to themselves that prophecy is often fulfilled in weird ways and is cryptic, that perhaps he's saying that John the Baptist is foretelling some kind of final apocalypse (which John the B's own preaching gave some excuse for thinking), or that the Messiah will be the messenger of Yahweh in an even more direct way than John the B. was. One can say that they should have taken it more literally, but if they thought that doing so would be attributing blasphemy to Jesus himself, then it's understandable if they didn't catch the allusion to his deity.

Hays 

"my initial reaction is that it is suggestive and can be seen in hindsight to be an allusion to Jesus' deity"

i) The retrospective viewpoint is a useful distinction. That said, it's not uncommon for people to believe or entertain something in the abstract, but when it becomes a concrete reality in their lives they're not ready for it. It takes them awhile to make the intellectual and emotional adjustment. Like planting ideas in people's minds. They may not be ready for what you have to say at the time you say it, so there's a delayed effect. In that respect it doesn't have to be something new. They just weren't prepared for it at a practical level. So long as it remains at a safe distance, they don't have to come to terms with it.

ii) In addition, it would be very unnerving, even for Christians, to think they're in the tangible presence of God. Imagine it dawning on the disciples that when they see Jesus face-to-face, they are gazing into the face of God. Even in theophanies, which are a step removed, that was very unnerving.

"The doctrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity were new and seemed shocking to them."

Depends on what you mean by "new". There are no divine incarnations in the OT. There's no list of messianic prophecies. And there's no single verse which says messiah will be Yahweh Incarnate. What we have are lots of oracles about someone who will fill certain roles. Are these one and the same individual or more than one individual? Might be hard to sort out ahead of time, but easier to recognize in retrospect. There are indications of divine plurality. Indications of a divine messiah. Indications of a dying and rising messiah. But it helps when they coalesce in the person of an actual individual who combines these scattered motifs.

Lydia

The extent and number of indications of divine plurality and indications of a divine messiah are where I would probably disagree with various people, including Jonathan, various of the Triablogue-ers, and Michael Heiser. I have really grave doubts about this extensive Jewish "binitarianism." And even Heiser admits, as far as I've been able to figure out, that even on his theory this supposed "binitarianism" didn't go as far as believing that there would be a man, born of a woman at a particular time and place, who would be Yahweh Incarnate. The "dying and rising messiah" is indicated in Isaiah 53, I agree, and said that in my Phil. Christi paper on messianic death prophecy some years ago. Isaiah 9:6 is an indication of a divine Messiah, I would grant that.

Hays

It's a case of reading the OT through pre-Christian Jewish eyes. For instance, I myself wouldn't appeal to a shift from first-person to third-person discourse by Yahweh as an indication of divine plurality. Yet it's striking that the Rabbis did find that puzzling. There are, however, stronger arguments involving the Angel of the Lord, which also caught the attention of the Rabbis.

Lydia

My argument would be that it would scare them more for him to make a claim to deity while walking out of the night on the water, whereas it seems that he's trying to make them feel better and calmer by saying it, since they're already terrified. That would fit more with saying, as we would in like circumstances, "It's okay, guys, it's me."

Hays

That depends on how narrowly or holistically we view the incident. Jesus may have more than one motive. 

At one level he may be walking on water because it's an efficient mode of transportation.

If, however, he knows that the disciples will witness the miracle, then presumably another motive is to provide them with a dramatic nature miracle. 

But over and above that, if Jesus anticipated (or even arranged) this rendezvous, then the primary purpose isn't to allay their panic but to furnish a stage in which he manifests himself to them as Yahweh.

So do we view the incident as an occasion where Jesus and the disciples just happen to cross paths, or is the whole thing a premeditated setup?

Lydia

Certainly it is premeditated. And certainly he is trying to show them that he is more than a mere man. But his immediate purpose in telling them that it is he, himself, and not to be afraid, is to calm their immediate terror. I would argue that the colloquial meaning of, "It is I" serves better for that purpose than any allusion to the divine Name.

Hays 

A related issue is the intended audience. At one level, his contemporaries are the immediate the audience for what he says and does. But at the same time he also speaks and acts with a view to posterity. Or, to take a different comparison, who's the audience for the binding of Isaac? At one level, Abraham and Isaac. But from a providential standpoint, it's primarily for the benefit of future Jewish and Christian readers.

To take another example, who's the audience for the Bread of Life discourse? At one level, those who were there. But surely Jesus also has posterity in mind.

There are other passages about Yahweh's delivering his people in the Red Sea crossing. While poetic, the refer back to a real event, and poetry is a way of succinctly and memorably celebrating and commemorating that event. 

I don't think the walking on water episodes were ever meant to evoke one particular OT verse. Rather, they were designed (in addition to their practical function) to trigger a range of associations with OT texts and related events. The walking on water episodes aren't a reenactment of the Red Sea crossing, but function to invite comparison. 

Jews and Jesus

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/was-god-deceiving-his-people-by-raising-jesus

I think it is far more plausible to think that God has the sovereign freedom to do something new and unexpected in Jesus than to think that He has the character of a Deceiver such as you describe. How confident are you that you’ve got it all sewed up so nice and neat that you know that God would not bring along a Messiah like Jesus? Maybe you’re mistaken about that. How can you be so sure? 

That's a variation on the same bad argument Craig used in his dialogue with Ben Shapiro. But the messiah is supposed to correspond to OT paradigms. The messiah might do some new and unexpected things in addition to OT paradigms, but not as a substitute. 

Part of the difficulty here is that I don’t think we have any good reason to think that the God of the Hebrew Bible exists apart from Jesus and his resurrection. It’s because I believe in Jesus that I believe in the Jewish God. For that reason, it’s not correct to equate Jesus with a false prophet who says “Let us follow and worship another god” (Deuteronomy 13.1), for the God worshipped and proclaimed by Jesus of Nazareth was the God of the Hebrew Bible! It’s because of Jesus that I believe in the Jewish God. But take away Jesus and his resurrection, and what’s left? Then we must ask, why believe that the God of the Old Testament exists? There just aren’t many proofs of Judaism apart from Jesus. So it’s hard to see why, if Jesus was a deceiver or a fanatic, one should be Jewish.

i) Now that's a marked improvement over what he told Shapiro. That's a powerful argument. Pity he didn't challenge Shapiro with that argument. 

ii) At the same time, we'd need to distinguish between the epistemic situation of pre-Christian Jews and post-Christian Jews. Surely Jews during the OT period and Inter-testamental period had good reason to believe in Yahweh's existence.  

On the other hand, to admit that God, the God of the Hebrew Bible, actually raised Jesus from the dead but was just testing people strikes me as rather desperate. It reminds me of saying that God placed the alleged fossil remains of prehistoric life in the rocks in order to test our faith in a 6,000 year old creation. Neither the God of the Bible nor of natural theology is that kind of Deceiver. Think of what you’re implying about the character of God! Would God mislead billions of the world’s people to believe in Jesus by raising him from the dead, knowing that they thereby be alienated from the life of God and His covenant? 

i) It would be better to argue that Deut 13 can't be used to subvert OT theism. That would be self-defeating. That's the opposite of what was intended. 

ii) So one issue is whether, even if billions are deceived by a false religion, it's possible to discern the true religion. Has God left evidence sufficient to make that discrimination? The issue is not confined to Judaism. What about Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Mormonism (or Catholicism)? 

iii) Another issue is whether those who adhere to a false religion because they were in some sense divinely deceived (it might be indirect) are still culpable? We might distinguish between those who were already blameworthy on other grounds, so that religious delusion is punitive for their prior culpability. 

The Moody Handbook of Messianic Prophecy:

Michael Rydelnik wrote an outstanding monograph on messianic prophecy, so this may well make an exceptional contribution to the field:

https://www.amazon.com/Moody-Handbook-Messianic-Prophecy-Expositions/dp/0802409636/

Until Shiloh comes

Gen 49:8-12. Since antiquity Christians have understood this passage to be a prophecy about the Messiah. Many ancient Jewish interpreters also understood this as pointing to the Messiah. Josephus notes this messianic interpretation among his contemporaries. He calls this passage "an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their [e.g. the Jews'] sacred writings, how, about that time [i.e. during the 1C], one from their country should become governor of the inhabited earth" (Jewish War 6.3.312). As such, it would be the last of the messianic promises in Genesis, tracing a path from Eve's promised descendent (3:15) through Noah's son Shem (9:26) to Abraham (12:2-3; 18:18; 22:18), Isaac (26:4) and Jacob (28:14), and finally now to Jacob's son Judah (vv10-12).

Jacob's words to Judah begin with a triple play on words: Judah…praise you…your hand (v8)–in Hebrew, yehuda…yoduka…yadeka. The opening verse depict the brothers acknowledging Judah's leadership both in praise and by bowing before him. This sees a future where instead of bowing to Joseph and acknowledging his leadership (37:10; 50:18), the tribes of Israel will give that honor to Judah. The word for praise is seldom applied to humans in the OT–perhaps only at Job 40:14 & Ps 45:17; 49:18. Thus, there is already a hint of divine majesty connected with Judah. Between the two poetic lines describing the acceptance of Judah as the leading tribe of Israel is a description of Judah's defeat of his enemies with his hand on their necks, a portrayal of triumph over those who threaten his people.

After directly addressing Judah in the opening of this oracle, Jacob continues by speaking of Judah in the third person. Here Judah is compared to a young lion returning from the kill with his prey. Similar imagery will also describe the fierceness of the tribes of Gad and Dan in the Blessing of Moses (Deut 33:20,22). In his den Judah lies down like a lion or lioness. With the rhetorical question who dares to rouse him? (v9), Jacob states that it would be as foolish to oppose Judah as it would be to rouse a lion with its prey. This figure of Judah as a lion is employed by later Scripture passages. It is referred to twice in Balaam's prophecies (Num 23:24; 24:9) where it is used to describe Israel as a whole–probably a type of synecdoche where Israel is described by reference to its chief part, the leading tribe of Judah. The figure of a lion that must not be roused is taken up by Isaiah (Isa 31:4). There the lion is Yahweh, and he will come to defend Zion–perhaps a reference to the Messiah from Judah who is also depicted as divine. This theme is developed further in Rev 5:5-14 where Jesus is depicted both as a Lion of the tribe of Judah and as one who is worthy to received worship. 

Next Jacob turns to prophesy Judah's permanent place of leadership. He depicts Judah as having the signs of kingship: a scepter and a leader's staff. The staff is said to be between his feet (v10. Since antiquity this reference to feet has been understood as a euphemism for the sexual organs, thereby describing Judah as providing royal leadership throughout coming generations (cf. Deut 33:21; Mic 5:2). See 49:10, LXX: "A ruler shall not be lacking from Judah and a leader from his thighs"; also Targum Pseudo-Jonathan XII: "Kings or rulers shall not cease from the house of Judah, nor scribes teaching the law from his seed"; and Targum Onkelos XII: "He who exercises dominion will not pass from the house of Judah, nor the scribes from his children's children forever." 

The next line of v10 has been one of the most difficult passages to interpret in the entire OT, and there has been no consensus among ancient or modern interpreters as to its meaning. While there have been many suggestions, there are only a few that do not require radical emendations to the text. The most often discussed are the following:

1. The line could be taken as written to mean "until he comes to Shiloh". This apparently would be a prophecy of a Judean ruler coming to the city of Shiloah in the territory of Ephraim, perhaps to assert his control over all Israel. There are several problems with this interpretation, however, While Shiloh was an important Israelite center for a while when the tabernacle was there (Josh 18:1; 1 Sam 1-4), it apparently was destroyed by the Philistines before David's day and never again became an important city in Israel. In addition, the name of the city is never spelled elsewhere in the OT as it is here. 

2. Many of the versions take it to mean "until he to whom it [i.e. the scepter] belongs comes", which involves only a slight change in the Hebrew vowels. This would be a messianic prophecy that the leadership of Judah among the people of Israel would last until the coming of the Messiah to claim it. This interpretation appears to be as old as the LXX…There are various problems with this interpretation, not the least being that the spelling of "whose it is" in Hebrew is invariably lo, not loh, as it is in this verse. The normal spelling for "whose it is" (i.e. lo) is found in the very next line, calling this interpretation into question. 

3. Another popular interpretation is to read the line as "until tribute comes to him". This reading has the advantage of forming a nice parallel with the next line, which attributes obedience of the nations to the Messiah from Judah. Thus, the nations will bring tribute to him. However, once again, this interpretation involves a slight adjustment of the Hebrew vowels. In addition, it also divides the word Shiloh into two words– say loh–whereas all manuscripts record this as one word, not two. Moreover, like the previous interpretation, loh is again taken to be a variant of the usual Hebrew lo. 

4. Finally, the Hebrew text can be read as it stands: "Until Shiloh comes". This would understand Shiloh not as a common noun, but as a proper noun naming the Messiah. 

An objection to this interpretation is that Shiloh would be a feminine noun but the verb he comes is masculine (e.g. Hamilton [1995: 659]). However, if Shiloh is understood to be a proper noun naming a man and not a common noun naming a city (which is always feminine in Hebrew), then that objection is moot.  

The name most likely ought to be derived from the Hebrew root slb, meaning "to be at ease", "to rest", "to be prosperous" (Job 3:26: 12:6; Ps 122:6; Jer 12:1; Lam 1:5). Thus, it would picture the Messiah as a man coming from the tribe of Judah to bring rest and prosperity to Israel and the nations (see Mt 11:28; Rom 14:13). Several ancient Jewish interpretations of this passage simply substitute "Messiah" for Shiloh here: 

Until the coming of  the Messiah of Righteousness, the Branch of David, for to him and to his descendants has been given the covenant of the kingship over his people for everlasting generations.

(4Q Patriarchal Blessings)

Until the Messiah comes, whose is the kingdom and unto whom shall be the obedience of the nations.

(Targum Onkelos)

Until the time that the King the Messiah shall come, the youngest of his sons, and on account of him shall the peoples flow together

(Targum Pseudo-Jonathan)

What is his [i.e. the Messiah's] name?–The School of Rabbi Shila said: His name is Shiloh, for it is written, until Shiloh comes.

(Talmud,  bab Sanhedrin 98b)

In addition, Christians have traditionally understood other OT passages as giving descriptive names to the Messiah (e.g. Isa  7:14 [Mt 1:23]; 9:6; Jer 23:6; Zech 3:9), so this type of interpretation is neither unique nor unexpected.

The final line of v10 notes that the obedience of the peoples belongs to him. This is a reference to the Messiah's dominion over all peoples, an extension of the promise of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that all people would be blessed through their descendant (12:3; 18:18; 22:18; 28:14).

Vv11-12 go on to depict in highly figurative terms the lush benefits of the Messiah's reign. He will tie his donkey to a vine. Later messianic passages associate the coming of the Messiah with a donkey (Zech 9:9; Mt 21:5; Jn 12:15). Normally one would not tie one's donkey to a valuable grapevine  since the donkey would eat it. However, the picture is one of such abundance that the loss of a vine is seen as inconsequential. Moreover, the Messiah will wash his clothes in wine. Once again, the picture is that normally expensive wine will be as common as water so that the Messiah will not hesitate to use it to wash his clothes. Note that the expression blood of grapes (v11) refers to the juice used to make wine (Deut 32:14). Finally, the Messiah's beauty is described as his having eyes darker than wine and teeth whiter than milk (v12). A. Steinmann, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentary (IVP 2019), 454-59. 

Happy Hanukkah

I doubt it's coincidental that when Jesus calls himself the light of the world (Jn 8:12; 9:5), that's a lead-in to the account of Jesus at the temple during Hanukkah (Jn 10:22). And on the other side of the festival is the fate of those bereft of light, to be overtaken by darkness (Jn 11:9). The statements bookend Hanukkah.  

Unlike the Mosaic festivals, this was a customary festival, commemorating the Maccabean revolt. With intentional irony, Jesus appropriates the Festival of Lights to make it witness himself. This all hearkens by to the divine identity of Jesus in the Prologue as the Creator of sunlight, moonlight, and starlight. And it may not be coincidental that the Menorah symbolism in Revelation (e.g. Rev 1:12ff.) recalls Hannukkah as well as the tabernacle. Even Jews who reject the messianship of Jesus unwittingly celebrate Jesus whenever they celebrate Hanukkah.

The in-gathering

To my knowledge, the in-gathering is associated with messianic Judaism. The in-gathering is the antithetical counterpart to the diaspora. Messianic Jews believe God will regather Jews, or at least messianic Jews, who over the course of the millennia were scattered to the four winds by exile, war, pogroms, deportation, the Shoah, and so forth. They will return to their ancestral homeland in Israel. 

There is, however, a sense in which the in-gathering has a more expansive scope. Because human beings are brought into existence by other human beings, we are widely separated from each other in time (as well as space). We come into being at different times during the course of history. The human race is spread out in lineal stages. Ancestors and descendants. Most human generations are far removed from one another in point of origin. 

Add to that human mortality, and most generations lived and died in isolation from other generations. We are strangers to each other, like long-lost brothers. So the concept of the diaspora extends to the human race generally. The generational chain constitutes a chronological diaspora. A diaspora in time as well as place.  

The resurrection of the just will be a large-scale in-gathering. Not only will there be a reunion of Christians who knew each other in this life, but a reunion of all God's people across the ages. 

Going to church

I started attending church around the age of 5. In the past 55 years I've attended a wide variety of churches. I'll just comment on the most significant or interesting examples. 

I've done hundreds of posts critiquing Roman Catholicism. However, I don't critique Catholicism entirely as an outsider observer. Although I'm not a cradle Catholic, after my evangelical conversion as a teenager I did look into Roman Catholicism. Initially, I attended Mass at Saint John Vianney, up the hill from where I lived. At the time, it rented the chapel of the defunct St. Thomas Seminary, adjacent to the defunct St. Edward Seminary. Both closed after the priesthood shortage in the 60s. It was located on a sprawling, scenic, parklike setting, with wooded trails leading down to the shores of Lake Washington. The chapel itself was elegant. However, the celebrant was a guitar-strumming hippie priest. 

I found the folk Mass so off-putting that after a few visits there I took the bus into Seattle and attended Mass at Blessed Sacrament, on the outskirts of the U. District. It had a tasteful, capacious sanctuary and decent music. In addition, the church was staffed by Dominicans, so the homilies were more intelligent. Mind you, that doesn't mean they were exegetically accurate. On one occasion the homilist talked about how wine is a living substance, and drew theological parallels. But that's completely off-base. In Scripture, sacrificial blood doesn't represent life but violent death. Shed blood.

I sometimes attended Mass downtown at St. James Cathedral. It had a large handsome sanctuary, although it was no match for European cathedrals. Music was fairly good. Sometimes had a dulcet cantor to lead the congregation in song. The homilist was Fr. Gallagher. He had a charming, avuncular demeanor. 

This was during the stormy tenure of Archbishop Hunthausen. Ironically, Donald Wuerl, who later rose through the ranks to become the disgraced Cardinal Archbishop of DC, was tasked by the Vatican to curb Hunthausen's progressive agenda. 

Of course, attending Mass isn't the only way to evaluate Catholicism. You need to study the theology and assess the arguments. At a later date I used to do research at the Seattle U. library up the hill, where, among other things, I read many volumes of Rahner's Theological Investigations. Rahner had an interesting technique of replacing traditional, but obsolete Catholic dogmas with modern substitutes. It was revealing to see Catholicism defended by throwing away the offending parts and reconstructing the remainder with newfangled parts. A backdoor admission that traditional Catholicism was indefensible.  

However, there are Catholic apologists who think you can't properly evaluate Catholicism as a detached observer. It's something you must experience, in community. Having sampled Catholicism, I was ultimately unpersuaded. For one thing, I was too Bible-centered to warm to it. 

In addition, I think Catholic piety, even among the faithful, is about professing or affirming Catholic doctrine, not from any sense of direct conviction, but from the sense that as a good Catholic, it's your duty to affirm these things. So there's that underlying disconnect. 

For several years I attended a black church down in the hood. The pastor was an extemporaneous preacher. In addition to that church, I befriended some black guys at a church up the street. We were about the same age.

It was an instructive experience, musically and socially. That's when I cultivated an interest in black Gospel music, which I still listen to, on occasion. 

I saw a lot of talent that wasn't properly fostered and focussed. I saw young kids in church who were on the way to becoming juvenile delinquents, because the adults were preoccupied with having an ecstatic worship experience. I saw one guy I got close to revert to drug addiction. 

The church I attended had a Filipino guy who became a policeman. Some of his friends disowned him because he crossed over to the enemy side!   

The same church had two sister who belonged to the Lummi tribe. Both of them natural vocalists. One of them told me a story about how a relative had been hexed. The indigenous witchcraft was still a force to be reckoned with. 

After that I attended a messianic congregation: Beth David. Saul Wallach was the pastor. As I recall, he was originally groomed for the Rabbinate before he converted to Christianity. Despite many years of Hebrew instruction, when he first went to Israel and ordered something in Hebrew, the cashier responded to him in English!

The worship service had sacred dance, to Eastern European melodies. Tasteful. Not something you see in the average Presbyterian church. 

However, the preaching had an emphasis on the modern state of Israel. The restoration of Israel. The ingathering and all that.  While that's natural for a messianic Jew, it's not something I can relate to personally. I support the state of Israel, but that's hardly central to my theological outlook. And I have no emotional attachment to the land. 

The Resurrected Servant in Isaiah

John Barry's The Resurrected Servant in Isaiah (Biblica/Paternoster 2010) is an important and, from what I can tell, neglected monograph on Isa 52-53, with special emphasis on messiah's resurrection. Although I don't agree with the entirely of his argument, he makes a strong case for the primary thesis. I'll quote some representative excerpts. These are backed up by detailed supporting arguments that I won't be quoting. (For that, you have to read the book!)

Isa 49:5 distinguishes between Israel and the servant: "And now Yahweh says, who formed me in the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob back to him, and that Israel might be gathered to him, for I am honored in the sight of the Lord, and my God has become my refuge". Here Jacob and Israel (which may be synonyms) and the servant are separate figures…In Isa 49:5-6, Jacob and Israel are being gathered by the servant, raised up by him, and restored by him. The juxtaposition of Israel and Judah against the servant suggests that we should understand Isa 49:3's line, "You are Israel my servant," as an annunciation of a new servant, who will fulfill all or part of Israel's role.

It should be mentioned that the majority of times this inflected form of "guilt offering" is used in the Hebrew Bible it evokes the priestly sense of an offering (e.g. Ezk 40:39; 43:13; 44:29; 46:20) and even atonement (e.g., Lev 5-7; and Num 5:8). If Isa 53:10 is placed within a priestly context, as it seems it should be based on this analysis, we may be able to even assert, once again, that the servant's act has atoning affects [effects?]. In other words, as once thought, he may be a vicarious sufferer….In summary, the cultic idea of "sprinkling" in 52:15 and possibly Zion/Jerusalem being the group that makes sacrifice suggests that the events in 53:10 should be understood particularly in light of the cultic and priestly spheres. This presents the option that the servant could be both priest (Isa 52:15) and offering (53:10)…

Isa 53:10c also states that the servant will "prolong days"…It is difficult to determine which of these ideas is being referenced in Isa 53;10, but no matter which specific idea is being referenced it is clear from this examination that the servant will life a long life after he is made a guilt offering. 

Isa  53:11a also emphasizes the servant's postmortem life when it says, "out of trouble (anguish labor, or toil) of his life [the servant] will see [light]…It will be argued in chapter three that.. the most probable Urtext says that the servant "will see light." Every instance in which "light" follows "to see" in the Hebrew Bible…is a reference to something that occurs in life…Ps 49:20 (49:19 in English) uses the same metaphor to illustrate the opposite concept (death) when it speaks of people who "go to the company of their ancestors, who will never see the light". Likewise, Job says in Job 3:16, "why was I not buried like a stillborn child, like an infant that never sees the light?" At the end of the book, Job rejoices by saying the opposite–God has kept "my soul from going down to the Pit, and my life shall look upon light [33:28]…Thus, the "light" variant is a very clear reference to the servant's resurrection. 

In Isa 53:1 and 12 some of the language evokes war imagery…Isa 53:1 sets up the way that "Yahweh's arm" appears or is revealed. The phrase "Yahweh's arm" is used in Exod 15:16 to describe Yahweh's victory over the Egyptians and his future victories over Edom, Moab and Canaan…Yahweh's arm is spoken about in descriptions of the Exodus event (e.g., Exod 6:6; Deut 26:8; 2 Kgs 17:36); and the same imagery is evoked to describe Yahweh's plan to be victorious in the battle against other gods for his people (Deut 4:34)….In light of passages like these, it is clear that "Yahweh's arm" would have evoked images of him battling for his people. Thus, the one through whom his arm is revealed would be viewed as Yahweh's divine warrior in battle. 

In Isa 53:12, the prophet states: "with [the] strong ones [the servant] shall divide bounty, because he exposed his life to death and was counted with the transgressors, and…carried the sin of many and will intercede for transgressors." Every time "divide" and "bounty" are coupled together, there is an actual or hypothetical bounty from a battle being divided (e.g., Gen 49:27; Exod 15:9; Josh 22:8; Judg 5:30; Zech 14:1; cf. Ps 68:13; Prov 16:19). The servant is likely being given the bounty of the people's reconciled relationship with Yahweh–the idea being that he shares in it. This war is not only Yahweh's but is also the servant's–they are battling together for God's people and God's land. 

It has been demonstrated in this book that the "he will see light" or "he will show him light" variant in the DSS and the LXX, respectively, in Isa 53:11 is the most probable Urtext. It has been suggested that this variant is a sign that the servant experiences postmortem life, though it is not the only sign.  

After a long battle as Yahweh's warrior, the servant vicariously suffers and dies (53:10a). He is then resurrected (53:10b). In his long postmortem life, he sees how his death as a guilt offering carried the sin of his offspring, restoring them to their land (possibly), and witnesses their relationship with Yahweh subsequently reconciled (53:10-12). The servant is a warrior for Yahweh, a bringer of righteousness to many (53:11b), and an intercessor. In this regard, after the servant has seen light (life again)… Ibid. 32, 65, 69-72,139-41, 144.

Jewish law and Jewish people in the NT

From the perspective of a messianic Jew and progressive dispensationalist:

https://www.beesondivinity.com/the-institute-of-anglican-studies/podcast/2019/Jewish-Law-and-Jewish-People-in-the-New-Testament

full transcript:

https://www.beesondivinity.com/the-institute-of-anglican-studies/podcast/2019/transcripts/Via-Media-Episode-11-Bock.txt

Assessing the Craig/Shapiro dialogue

Orthodox Jewish culture warrior Ben Shapiro recently interviewed William Lane Craig:

https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2019/05/shapiro-interviews-craig.html

Craig is pushing 70. Looks great for his age, and remains mentally sharp. Although the entire interview is worth viewing, I think the reason most of us tune in is to see their exchange about the messiahship of Jesus, so I'll focus on that. 

One brief point: Craig mentions the trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin in Mk 15. He notes the reference to Dan 7. There is, however, a combined reference to Dan 7 and Ps 110. Now let's shift to the heart of the exchange: 

Shapiro: In the Gospels, Jesus's vision of himself is completely different from the prior vision of what the Jewish messiah is, and is actually outside the scope of how Jews described the messiah or really have ever described the messiah. The messiah in Judaism has always been a political figure who is destined to do certain things–restoring the kingdom of Israel, maintaining control of that kingdom, bringing more Jews back to Israel…but the idea of messiah as the embodiment of God is something foreign to Jewish religious philosophy, going all the way back to the beginning. So even the idea that the Sanhedrin would be questioning him in those terms and would get from that that what he means is "I am God"–which would a much more punishable offense, actual blasphemy–is an oddity. 

Craig: I think you're absolutely right in saying that Jesus's understanding of the messiah was radically different from the prevailing cultural understanding of the messiah among the chief priests and the common people, and he didn't meet their expectations. Indeed, that's what helped to get him crucified…Why should we believe Jesus's reinterpretation of the messiah rather than the one that the chief priests and the people held? And I think the answer to that is his resurrection from the dead. 

I don't think that's a good answer to Shapiro's challenge:

i) How do we determine "the prior vision of what the Jewish messiah is?" That can't be determined by Rabbinic Judaism inasmuch as Rabbinic Judaism isn't prior to Jesus, but developed in conscious reaction and opposition to Christianity. So the view of the messiah in Rabbic Judaism is, in some measure, reactionary and anachronistic. 

ii) In asserting that the Jewish messiah has always been a political figure, there's the danger of circular methodology. Are you beginning with the OT? Are you basing your concept of messiah on prophetic passages about a future figure who will do certain things? Or do you begin with a preconceived notion of messiahship, and use that as an a priori criterion to differentiate messianic passages from non-messianic passages? Christians/messianic Jews think the OT contains more messianic prophecies than Rabbinic Jews. Who do Rabbinic Jews think these allegedly non-messianic passages are referring to? 

iii) Did Second Temple Judaism have a monolithic conception of the messiah? Jacob Neuser talks about Judaisms (plural). 

iv) Are 1C chief priests good representatives of Jewish theology? From what I've read, the 1C chief priests, and Sadducees generally, were puppets of the Roman occupation force. They were chosen, not for their orthodoxy, but for their loyalty to their Roman overlords. So even if Jesus didn't conform to their conception of the messiah, what makes their conception the standard of comparison?  

v) And even that may be too idealistic. The trial of Jesus was just a pretext to get a public nuisance out of the way. They weren't operating from religious or theological motives. 

vi) There's a practical tension in Judaism. On the one hand, for a creature to claim to be Yahweh is the epitome of blasphemy. 

On the other hand, in OT narratives, Yahweh sometimes appears to people in a form that's phenomenologically indistinguishable from a human male. Although a theophanic angelophany is different from a divine Incarnation, my point is that in both cases, there's no empirically detectable difference between a man and God appearing in humanoid form. How could the Sandhedrin tell that Jesus isn't the Angel of the Lord? 

My point is that it's not automatically blasphemous in Judaism for someone who, to all appearances, seems to be human or merely human, to claim to be Yahweh. So that presents a certain conundrum when assessing whether the claim is true or blasphemously false. 

vii) One differential factor is whether the claimant not only says things only God is supposed to say, but also performs miracles. That at least shows a supernatural element is in play. 

viii) Craig seems unaware of the two-Yahwehs tradition in Second Temple Judaism. That's been documented by scholars like Alan Segal and Michael Heiser. 

Shapiro: One of the counterclaims is that the Gospels are written significantly after Jesus lives. The earliest Gospel is written 70 CE, somewhere 40 years after Jesus is crucified…especially when you're talking about events 2000 year ago.

i) Craig responds with his minimal facts trope.

ii) It's arguable that Mark's Gospel was written as earlier as the 40s (see John Wenham). It's arguable that Acts was written before Paul's execution. If so, then Luke's Gospel may be dated to the late 50s (give or take). Matthew's Gospel could be written in the 50s or 60s. I happen to think the epilogue to John (Jn 21) is best explained by the death of Peter. So I date John's Gospel to the 60s.

iii) But the key issue is whether the Gospels are based on living memory. 

iv) Shapiro's skepticism about the Gospels is inconsistent with his belief as an Orthodox Jew that the OT is a reliable record of events which transpired thousands of years ago. If the 2000 year gap is a problem for the Gospels, there's a much greater gap regarding OT history. 

In the same general connection, Shapiro mentions some disciples of the late Rabbi Schneerson. Although he died 20 years ago, some of them believe he's still alive. But that's a very loose comparison:

Is his tomb empty? Are there apparitions of Rabbi Schneerson? Even if there were, does he have conversations with the living? Can he be touched? Does he consume food?