QUESTION/COMMENT: Why don't you missionaries leave us alone?

RESPONSE: What would I have others do unto me? I would have them instruct me in the truth. So therefore I must do to them as I would have them do to me.

Now, what I really wish is for people to share with me not just what they think is the truth, but that which is in fact the objective truth. Every person should have a desire for objective truth, whatever this truth might turn out to be. And yes, I want people to listen carefully and attentively when an objective truth that they did not know is being proclaimed. I want this to be so, regardless of who the speaker is: be he the Pope, be he my sinful self, be he Mohammed, be he the Chief Rabbi.

But am I obligated to listen if someone presents a view I disagree with? Obviously, it would seem I would want to listen to them only when I agreed that they were right. But in practice, usually I should listen respectfully to the other side and examine their arguments and strive to understand them, even if I am firmly convinced they are wrong. The reason for this examination is not so much my lack of certainty as to my rightness, but rather is a respect for the other person as a person, and a desire to help them. And there may be some truths in their arguments, some truths perhaps grasped more clearly than I grasp them, even if the final end of the argument is wrong. Moreover, it is my duty as an apologist to listen to the arguments of the other side - as carefully as possible - that I might help the other person to see and overcome the limitations in those arguments. And I must do all this very respectfully, respecting that perhaps the person is deceived. All this respect can be given without abandoning my conviction of being right.

When should I tell the truth to someone who doesn't want to hear it? I think this is a prudential judgment dependent on circumstances. I am obliged to convey this truth to him - but if he is not willing to receive it at the moment, then prudence may dictate that the best way is not to speak to him at the moment about it, depending on the circumstances. On the other hand, it would be demeaning for a person to be thought incapable of receiving the truth; so perhaps we should be a little careful in this kind of prudential judgment.

Suppose we spread this 'good news' about Yeshua to everyone EXCEPT Jews. That would be anti-Semitic in itself, because we would be withholding something that we believe to be good - indeed, the highest good - from the Jews simply because they are Jews.

We believe the messiah has come. Would you think highly of us if we kept this secret from you? If we believe that he has come, then it is our duty to inform others of this. Imagine at the last judgment, HaShem asking us, "So you thought My messiah had come but you didn't bother to tell anyone else about it?" No! If we believe that the Messiah has come, then we should not keep such weighty news to ourselves only.

QUESTION/COMMENT: We Jews have our own religion; we don't need yours!

RESPONSE: Yes, Jews already follow a religion which is derived largely from scripture (and so, since we believe that scripture is the revelation of the truth to man, this religion is thereby closer to the truth than are the religions devised by men, such as Hinduism or Buddhism.) But HaShem also ordained that Yeshua should come to the Jewish people (and not to the Romans, or to the Greeks, or to the Anglo-Saxons). Yeshua said to Nicodemus, "You must be born again." Nicodemus was a master in Israel, well-versed in Jewish practice. Yet even to him, Nicodemus, Yeshua explained that traditional practices alone were not enough, there had to be something more.

For a Jew to be most truly a Jew, he must also believe in his messiah. And that Faithfulness to the Torah and to G-d requires this. The Torah says that prophets whose prophecies come true are to be followed. Yeshua prophesied his own death and resurrection. IF he truly rose from the dead, then the Torah requires that his teaching be followed. Now, of course, you might dispute the premise that he rose from the dead. However, since we do believe this, we must also believe as a logical consequence that the Torah commands us to follow Yeshua of Nazareth's teachings. Since you dispute the premise, you do not see this consequence.

The late Roman Brandstaetter (a well-known Polish poet who came to believe in Yeshua) once said, "Conversion is for pagans". He said that as a Jew he was never a pagan so he never considered that he had "converted" into anything (even though he became a member of the Roman Catholic church). A more correct description of the process would be "Coming to the fullness of G-d's plan". A Jew who receives his messiah does not repudiate the Torah, but he believes that by following the messiah he is fulfilling the fullest and ultimate meaning of G-d's intent in giving the Torah to Moses. If this is so, then a Jew who receives his messiah does not lose his Jewish identity; rather, it is by doing so that he becomes most fully a Jew.

QUESTION/COMMENT: What you want to do is complete Hitler's work. You want Judaism to disappear!

RESPONSE: The survival of the Jewish people as a people does not (and never did) depend upon their adherence to a set of rules made by the rabbis. The survival of the Jewish people has always depended upon their adherence to what is required of them by HaShem. If HaShem has in fact sent them a messiah, then listening to His messiah will not lead to their disappearance.

You apparently believe that the Gospel is incompatible with faithfulness to Torat Moshe. You apparently believe that faithfulness to the Gospel destroys Am Yisrael. However, precisely the opposite is true: that it is in the Gospel that Torat Moshe finds its highest meaning, and that the Jewish people will attain their greatest glory when they understand and accept their messiah...As long as we hold these beliefs, we must act on our beliefs, and not on the beliefs of others.

QUESTION/COMMENT: Why should we listen to anyone who talks about Yeshua?

RESPONSE: Judaism is a "waiting" religion. It is "waiting" for the redemption, for the coming of the messiah. It is an "expectant" religion. Jews are looking for prophecies to be fulfilled. It would therefore be normal and proper for them to consider opinions on whether or not the one who is expected has come.

QUESTION/COMMENT: The G-d of Judaism would never assume human form or inhabit a human body; this is a Pagan idea!

RESPONSE: (Notwithstanding Isaiah 6, in which it certainly appears that HaShem is assuming a human-like form, "seated up a throne", and so that Isaiah says, "My eyes have seen HaShem" - verse 5 - thus making it clear that it is not merely an angel he is observing; and notwithstanding that the prophet here also says that he heard "the voice of the L-rd" - verse 8 - saying, "Who will go for us?" - and that a voice is certainly as much an anthropomorphic characteristic as a hand or an arm) it should be remembered that HaShem also promised to come and dwell with His people in a tent in the wilderness for 40 years (and longer).

Now, there is not that much difference between the Almighty Ruler of the universe saying he will "tabernacle" with His people from the inside of a tent, and His saying that He will "tabernacle" with them for a similar period of time from within a human-flesh form.

I do not understand "how" the Almighty can assume a human nature in addition to His divine nature any more than I can understand "how" the Almighty can part the Red Sea. The way I would express the "what" of what happened (though the "how" is a mystery) would be with some technical vocabulary. We must distinguish between "person" and "nature". A "person" (and this is a technical term; it applies not only to human persons but also to G-d and angels) is in some way an individual, an "I", a subject. For instance, I am a person. Likewise, "personhood", or even triple "personhood", can be found in G-d. A given "person" USUALLY possesses a single "nature". Thus, I possess a human nature, which is just another way of saying that I am a man. The angel Gabriel could say about himself, "I am an angel". That would be an assertion about a "person", namely Gabriel who is the "I" in the sentence "I am an angel", and about a "nature", meaning that this person possesses an angelic "nature", i.e., is an angel.

So what we believe is that in Yeshua there is a single subject, a single "person", a single "I". But that "person" possesses two "natures"; one human, the other Divine. They are both present in Yeshua without mixing. The divine "nature" does not change by being present in one "person" with human "nature".

QUESTION/COMMENT: Judaism does not believe in a Divine Messiah!

RESPONSE: What about Daniel 7:13? "In my vision at night I looked and there was one before me like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into His presence. He was given authority, glory, and sovereign power. All peoples, nations, and men of every tongue worshipped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed."

The word used here for "worship" is "pelach". Pelach occurs ten times in Tanach. In every case it refers to the "serving" or "service to" or "worship" of a god (or G-d). See: Ezra 7:24, Daniel 3:12, 14, 17, 18, 28; Daniel 6:16, 20; and Daniel 7:27.

In each of these cases the word "pelach" refers to the service to or worship of a divine being. In fact, in some instances there seems to be a use of Semitic parallelism (Daniel 3:12, 3:14, 3:18) between the words "worship" and "pelach" ("They neither serve...nor worship"; "Is it true...that you do not serve...nor worship?"; "we will not serve...nor worship") Thus, the Son of Man in Daniel 7:13 appears to be receiving the "service" or "worship" of a kind which is only afforded to a divine being in the Tanach.

A related word, "pulchana", occurs in the great Kaddish, meaning "worship". And Brown-Driver-Briggs defines this word as meaning "PAY REVERENCE TO deity".

And what about Zechariah 12:8-10? "On that day the L-rd will shield those who live in Jerusalem, so that the feeblest among them will be like David, and the House of David will be like G-d, like the Angel of the L-rd going before them..." Here the head of the House of David, the king, will be like G-d, or like the Angel of the L-rd, the specific designation of the special Angel of G-d who, in Exodus 23:21, is said to bear the Name of G-d, and to have the power to forgive sins. This Angel is also given the name "Wonderful" in Judges 13, which is the same word used in Isaiah 9. And this Angel receives the worship of Joshua (Josh. 5:14,15), who bows down before him and is told to remove his shoes, as the place where he is is holy ground.

This all suggests that the defender of Jerusalem is going to be someone who is more than a merely human figure.

QUESTION/COMMENT: Isn't the whole nativity story worked up from Pagan myths?

RESPONSE:

• "When Abraham Avinu was born, one star from the east came and swallowed up four stars at the four corners of the heavens. The wise men said to Nimrod, 'At this hour a son is born to Terah and a nation will issue forth from him...." (Ma-ase Avraham; Sefer HaYashar 18a-19a)
  
  
• "When the patriarch Isaac was born, G-d intensified the light of the sun forty-eight times its usual brilliance." (Pesikta Rabbati)
  
  
• "When Moses was born the house was filled with light: 'And when she saw that he was good', and it is written elsewhere, 'And G-d saw the light that it was good'." (Sota 12a)
  
  
• Num 24:17 - "A star shall rise out of Jacob, a scepter will rise out of Israel."
  
  
• "...they went on their way, and the star they had seen in the east went ahead of them and stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced greatly" (Matthew 2:9,10).

And Josephus ("Antiquities") says of the birth of Moses:

• A soothsayer warned Pharaoh that a child was about to be born who would destroy his kingdom.
  
  
• Pharaoh was seized by fear at this (Herod was seized by fear at the announcement of the wise men that they had come seeking one who was born "King of the Jews").
  
  
• Pharaoh ordered all newborn Israelite children slain to eliminate this child (Herod ordered all newborn infants at Bethlehem slain).
  
  
• Moses' father, while asleep, was told by G-d not to be afraid, that he would have a son who would be the deliverer.
  
  
• "And Pharaoh charged all his people." R. Jose b. Hanina said, "He imposed the same decree upon his own people", (to kill the male newborn children because the soothsayers warned him that a boy was soon to be born who would overthrow him)." (Sota 12a)
  
  
• Exodus 2:23 - Pharaoh dies.
  
  
• Matt. 2:19 - Herod dies.
  
  
• Exodus 4:19 "The L-rd said to Moses in Midian: '...return to Egypt, for all those who were seeking your life are dead.'"
  
  
• Matt. 2:19-20 - "The angel of the L-rd said to Joseph in Egypt: '...go back to the land of Israel, for those who were seeking the child's life are dead.'"
  
  
• Exodus 4:20 - "Moses took along his wife and children and returned to Egypt."
  
  
• Matt. 2:21 - "Joseph took the child and his mother and went back to the land of Israel."
  
  
• Deut. 18:15 "The L-rd will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him."

Thus the sequence of events for the birth of Yeshua as depicted in Matthew followed what contemporary Jewish tradition would have expected for the birth of this "second Moses" ("like the first redeemer, so the last Redeemer") who would lead the "second redemption" of the Messianic Era.

QUESTION/COMMENT: There is no Jewish belief that the messiah has to be born in Bethlehem!

RESPONSE: Some modern Jewish commentators try to make the remarks in Micah 5:2 ("But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, yet from you will come for Me one who will ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old....") mean only that the messiah will come from the line of David, who was from Bethlehem. But earlier comment was more specific. For example, in Bereshith Rabbati, there is the famous story about the mother of the Messiah:

"On the day on which the Temple was destroyed, Elijah of blessed memory was walking along the road." Elijah is despairing, but eventually a heavenly voice calls to him to tell him that the Redeemer has already been born. "Where is he?" Elijah asks. "In Bethlehem of Judah." Apparently there was no question but that the Messiah should come from this little town, obscure though it was.)

Further, the writers of the Gospels, who were contemporary with the Second Temple, go to great lengths to indicate that Yeshua was born in Bethlehem. It is illogical to assume that they would do this (i.e., include the entire census story, which they credit as having affected the entire Roman world), UNLESS they felt that they HAD to demonstrate that he was born in Bethlehem. And why was that? Again, the logical assumption is that there was such a contemporary belief about Bethlehem held among the people of their time.

QUESTION/COMMENT: Judaism does not believe in a concept of original sin!

RESPONSE:"Original sin" means that people are generally born without being in a loving relationship with G-d. People are not born obeying the second line of the Shema ("You shall love HaShem your G-d with all your heart and all your soul and all your might"). People do not know G-d as Adam and Eve did. Just by looking at people we can see that people need to be TAUGHT about G-d; they do not know Him from the beginning of their lives. The Shema says to TEACH our children, and is this not (at least in part) because children are born without knowing G-d? People are nowadays not born by nature loving G-d; this is original sin.

And we aren't in Eden now, are we? And everyone is still dying, aren't they? So the EFFECTS of Adam's disobedience must still be with us. (The scripture is quite clear that the reason for barring Adam from the garden after his disobedience was because had he remained, he might have lived in that condition forever.) And since even infants die - those who are much too young to have committed any intentional sin, it seems that these effects - which are a result of the sin of Adam - are inherited at birth.

What Adam chose to do was to doubt G-d. He believed the insinuation that G-d was trying to keep something back from him; and also that He had lied, by saying that Adam would die if he ate from the tree. Adam doubted, and he acted on this disbelief about the nature of G-d, and found out that he had been lied to - not by G-d, but by the serpent. And mankind has been finding that out ever since.

It is interesting that the greatest celebration of the year for Isreal is NOT one to commemorate the giving of Torah. (In fact, there is NO divinely ordained celebration commanded to remember this - which seems odd if it were originally intended that obedience to Torah was to be the centerpiece of the faith.) Instead, the greatest celebration is to commemorate the escape from death at Pesach, when the Angel of death passed over Israel.

There are some people who believe that by following 613 rules punctiliously, they will be able to reverse the effects of Adam's sin. (They believe this despite the fact that Adam was unable to keep even ONE rule perfectly.) But there are others who, from the example given in Tanach, believe that redemption from death can come only through the covering of the blood of the lamb.

QUESTION/COMMENT: If Yeshua was so important, why was he ignored by the contemporary Jewish literature of his day?

RESPONSE: Why were the great rabbis of his day ignored by the "contemporary" literature of his day? What "literature" written at the time of the Second Temple mentions Hillel and Shammai? (Whatever was written about them was not set down to paper for centuries.) Does this mean that they were not major figures?

What about Philo, a great Jewish thinker, and probably a representative of an entire faction of Jewish thought of his time? He is not even mentioned in the Talmud. (Do you think that the Talmud provides a complete picture of Judaism as it existed prior to the destruction of the Temple?)

What about the leaders of the Sadduccees and the Essenes? We know they led important sects of Judaism; but were we to base everything we know on them from what we can derive from the Talmud, we would not have very much to go on.

QUESTION/COMMENT: If Yeshua was the messiah, why wasn't he accepted by the majority of the Jewish people?

RESPONSE: He was accepted by some of them - but the believing remnant of Israel has always been just that - a remnant. In the time of Elijah there remained only 7000 faithful to the G-d of Israel. Don't you think they were scoffed at because they were in the minority?

The Messiah isn't chosen by majority vote. G-d appointed David to be king over Israel, but it was many years before everyone would accept him. Similarly, the majority has yet to accept their messiah. But the final decision isn't theirs to make; it's G-d who selects and anoints the King.

QUESTION/COMMENT: If Yeshua was the messiah, why didn't the rabbis ofhis day accept him?

RESPONSE: Some of the greatest scholars of his day DID accept him. (Paul [Saul] was a student of Gamaliel - not a country hick. Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea were also prominent in Jerusalem.) But as noted above, selection of the Messiah is G-d's choice, not man's. Acceptance or non-acceptance by the sages and scholars guarantees nothing, as Rabbi Akiva and company made so abundantly clear in the case of Bar Kochba.

QUESTION/COMMENT: How can we trust the Gospels since they rely on oral traditions which could have become corrupted over time?

RESPONSE: As shown by the work of Carmignac, Tresmontant, and others, the Gospels were either originally written in a Semitic tongue, or else they were based on documents written in a Semitic tongue; which testifies to these records being set down at a very early date. The culture from which the Gospels came was a very literate culture. In contrast to the pagan religions, a Jewish man might find it necessary to read aloud from the scrolls in a synagogue; or he might be asked to expound upon the meaning of a certain verse. The local schools which existed to teach Torah therefore undoubtedly also concerned themselves with literacy, at least to a certain extent. (A comparison might be made with the schools in Yemen at the end of the last century, where perhaps one book would have to be shared by an entire class--yet the learning went on anyway.)

And we know that written accounts were kept of debts and property transactions; that there were perhaps as many as thirty-eight different kinds of legal documents, some of which were already prepared and had blank spaces which could be filled in; that there was a letter service of some type (at least for prominent people or the government); and a kind of wall placard, or newsheet, in the cities, which sometimes also posted government notices. (One wonders whether an official announcement of the crucifixion of Yeshua of Nazareth may have been made in this way.) The same Tosefta (Shabbat 17:5,8) which speaks of the placards also mentions hosts who keep lists of their guests. (See also Edersheim, Vol. I, Bk II, chp. 2, p. 131; and Vol. IV, Bk IV, chp. 18, pp. 272-273).

Judea was furthermore surrounded by a number of other cultures, such that it would be natural for residents to become at least partly multi-lingual - in Greek, Latin, and Aramaic, for example. (A comparison with the Shtetles of Eastern Europe may be in order, in which education persisted and a rate of literacy was achieved, even in the most dire poverty, and villagers might be expected to know a smattering of Russian, Polish, German, Yiddish, Hungarian, or Romanian, as well as Hebrew.)

In such a culture, it would be unusual for a religious sect to maintain only an oral tradition, without writing anything down. And it is noteworthy that the Essenes, who had texts of their own separate from the scriptures, and the Therapeutae in Egypt, mentioned by Philo, both maintained their own written books.

Yeshua was not only a rabbi; he was a rabbi whom many of his talmidim believed to be the messiah. It would be illogical to suppose that they would not have copied down his words, his teachings, his story illustrations, as well as his deeds, in order to share them with others. (When the late Lubavitcher Rebbe spoke on Sabbath, several of his hearers with excellent memories would sit in the front rows and record mentally what he had to say; they would then transpose this to paper as soon as the Sabbath was ended. They had great respect for the Rebbe and many hoped he would be the messiah. They wanted others to be able to share in his words and teaching. They did not wait for decades, even up to half a century, before putting anything into written form. It is tempting to suppose that disciples of a prominent rabbi in the Second Temple period might have felt the same about their rabbi, and likewise have put his words to paper almost immediately.)

QUESTION/COMMENT: Yeshua made no impact at all on the Judaism of his day!

RESPONSE:Franz Delitzsch wrote, "I believe I can show by convincing historical proofs, that the preaching of Jesus [Yeshua] and of primitive Christianity in its original Jewish form has been a power, through...which a stream of brightness as it were has diffused itself through the Talmudic literature. No doubt this shows itself more in the structure of the liturgy and in the more unfettered course of thought in the Aggada than in the legal teachings of Halacha, dependent as this was on certain traditional principles and rules of interpretation." (Delitzsch, "Was D. August Wohling beschworen hat und beschworen will")

For example:

• "He who is merciful to others will receive mercy from heaven." (Shab. 151b);
  
  
• "Let your yes be yes and your no be no". (Baba Metzia 49a);
  
  
• "Do they say, 'Take the splinter out of your eye'? He will answer, 'Take the beam out of your own eye.'" (Baba Batra 15b).

These sayings were committed to paper long after (perhaps three to four centuries after) the Gospels; and the sayings are such that they might have been remembered and retained in the culture even though their source could have been forgotten.

R. Tarphon is credited with saying, "The day is short and the task is great, and the laborers are lazy; but the wages are high and the master of the house is urgent." (Avot 2:15) This is reminiscent of Matthew 9:37,38: "The harvest is plentiful but the laborers are few. Pray the lord of the harvest, therefore, to send out workers into the harvest field."

The Talmud also says (Yevamot 6) "Do not be afraid of the Sabbath, but rather of Him who has ordained the Sabbath". And (Meklita on Exodus 31,13) "The Sabbath was given to you, and not you to the Sabbath." (Compare Mark 2:27)

These and many other passages in the later Jewish writings suggest that the teachings of Yeshua had spread throughout and influenced the Jewish culture, even if their origin was denied; and perhaps had been found more acceptable than would be admitted.

QUESTION/COMMENT: Didn't the early followers of Yeshua turn their backs on Judaism?

RESPONSE:The early followers of Yeshua believed that a mocked and ridiculed rabbi, who had been crucified under Pontius Pilate, was actually the promised messiah. They expressed great confidence in this view, because they asserted that everything that had happened to him, including his rejection, had been foretold and outlined long before in Tanach.

It was clear to them that scripture talked of almost nothing else, from quite literally the very beginning. For example, the opening words of Genesis 1:1 are usually translated as "In the beginning...." But the Hebrew word "reshith" ("beginning") can also have the meaning "firstborn son". And so, one could translate the passage, "In the firstborn son G-d created the heavens and the earth." (Jerome quoted Aristo of Pella - who, according to Origen, was a Nazarene - Quaest.heb.Gen.1.1) as stating in the "Dialogue of Jason and Papiscos" that the verse would be translated this way. Iraneus also translated this as "The son in the beginning; then G-d created the heavens and the earth". (Dem.43) Tertullian noted the same possible meanings: "in the beginning"; "in the head"; or "in the son". (Tract.Psalm 2.2) The modern French author Danielou noted the comparisons between these meanings and I Cor. 1:15-18, where Saul (Paul) seems to write of the same three meanings: "He is the image of the invisible G-d, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created...And he is the head of the body...he is the beginning and the firstborn.... "This would suggest, according to Danielou, that there was perhaps already extant a rabbinical tradition explaining the passage in these several ways, which Saul employed.

In Ezekiel 9:4, G-d instructs someone to go through Jerusalem and put a mark on the forehead of those who are righteous so that they will not be hurt in the coming judgment against the city. (This is similar to the blood of the lamb of Pesach.) However, the Hebrew does not say, "mark"; it instructs that the Hebrew letter "t" be placed on the foreheads of the righteous. In the pre-exilic days of Israel - a time which directly preceeded that of Ezekiel - this letter was formed in the shape of an "X" , or the shape of a cross. Thus, the righteous were to be marked with a cross. Similarly, in Revelation 7:2,3, an angel comes down from heaven and gives instructions to mark the foreheads of the servants of G-d. Revelation 14:1 and 22:4 suggest that this mark might be the Name of G-d and the Lamb. Some authors believe that the cross came to be the symbol of the Nazarenes not because it represented the crucifixion, but because it represented the Name. (It was later, by this reasoning, when Greek influence became predominant, that it was easily assimilated and used to stand for "Christos" (or Messiah).

In Luke 9:31, Moses and Elijah are shown talking with Yeshua about what is usually translated as his "departure"; but in fact the Greek word used here is "exodus", so that they are talking about his "exodus" to be fulfilled in his crucifixion.

The earliest catechism of Nazarene belief (the "Didache", or the "Teaching") is thought to be simply a revised Jewish catechism of the Second Temple period. Among its many points:

• Didache 6:12...if you are able to bear the whole yoke of the L-rd, then you will be perfect...but if you are not able, then do as much as you can. (The "yoke" of the L-rd is a traditional Jewish expression, and usually refers to keeping the mitzvot or the halacha. If you are not able to keep all of the commandments, then traditionally Judaism has urged that you keep as many or as much as you can.)
  
  
• Didache 7:1 urges that those who are to be baptized be baptized in "living" water (i.e., running water), which is the same requirement as for a mikvah.
  
  
• Didache 8:1 refers to the sixth day of the week as "the day of preparation" for the Sabbath. (It is hardly likely that a gentile would have referred to it in this way, especially after Sunday became came to take precedence over Saturday.)
  
  
• Didache 9:2 contains a blessing for wine; Didache 9:3 a blessing for the bread. In neither blessing is the word "G-d" used, but rather, "Our Father".
  
  
• Didache 10:3 gives thanks for food and drink, which G-d gave to men to enjoy. (Here again the phraseology is very similar to Jewish practice, and again the word "G-d" is avoided and He is addressed simply as "Almighty Master", similar to the Jewish expression "Master of the Universe" used in most Jewish blessings.)
  
  
• Didache 13:3 instructs that the "firstfruits" of one's produce and livestock should be given to the "prophets", because they are (like) your chief-priests (or high priests).
  
  
• Didache 13:4 says that if there is no prophet, then these firstfruits should be given to the poor. (Likewise a Jewish practice from Tanach.)

These are the sort of rules, in other words, which would likely be formed by a traditional Jewish community, and by the followers of Yeshua, who did not see their belief in him as something that was separate from Judaism, but instead was only a continuation of that same Judaism.

The early followers of Yeshua also continued the practice of referring to G-d as the "Name". In Acts 5:42 the apostles rejoiced that "they were counted worthy to suffer for the Name". Ignatius in his letters wrote that "You heard I was...in bonds for the sake of the Name" (3.1). And he spoke of those who "carry the Name to every place" (7.1). The Shepherd of Hermas likewise makes mention of "those ...who have suffered for the sake of the Name" (1:9). And Clement wrote extensively about the power of the Name (of Yeshua) and compared it to the Divine Name used in Tanach (Strom V, 38:6).

QUESTION/COMMENT: But didn't the followers of Yeshua separate themselves from the rest of the Jewish people?"

RESPONSE: According to the sources, Rabban Gamaliel (the grandson of the Gamaliel who is mentioned in the NT) inquired among the sages who could formulate the proper wording for a "blessing" (in reality, a curse) against the new Nazarene sect. This "blessing" (the "birkhat haMinim") would be inserted in the daily prayers; those who refused to recite such a curse could therefore be expelled from the synagogue, since they would be suspected of having "Nazarene" tendencies. The principal phrase ran something along the lines of a copy found in the Cairo Genizeh, "...may...the Nazarenes and the heretics perish in a moment and be blotted out of the Book of Life and may they not be inscribed with the righteous". A further stipulation was added, that anyone who claimed he could not remember the correct wording of this prayer, or who stumbled while reciting it, was also to be suspect. (Ironically, Samuel the Small, who was the composer of this "blessing", himself claimed only a year later that he could not remember it. He was not made suspect - though his memory lapse may in this case be considered to be very unusual.)

As a result of this insertion into the prayers, the Nazarenes found themselves unable to participate in the regular synagogue services. This had been the intent of the new prayer. Earlier, other changes had been made as a reaction to the new sect. For example, the recitation of the Ten Commandments was dropped as part of the daily service (Mishnah Tamid V.1). Apparently this was done so that the followers of Yeshua could not claim that the rest of the halacha, the Oral Torah, was not of equal status. "And why do we not recite them? Because of the misrepresentations of the heretics, that they might not say, 'These alone were given to Moses on Sinai'" (Ber. 3c, Yerushalmi). "Even in the surrounding districts (of Jerusalem) they sought to recite (them); but they had already discontinued it because of the carping of the heretics" (Ber. 12a). (In addition, there seems to have been an early - if unorthodox - opinion that the Ten Commandments at one time constituted the entire Law; but that after Moses was forced to come down the mountain a second time, the rest of the Law was added, because the people had worshipped the golden calf. (See Jakob Jocz, "The Jewish People and Jesus Christ", pp. 48-49, note 225)

Also, the benedictions were altered. The practice of saying in a soft voice "Blessed be His Name, whose glorious kingdom is forever and ever" after part of the Shema was dropped. This was probably so that members of the new sect should not be able to include (in an equally soft voice) some surreptitious mention of the name of Yeshua haMoshiach during the prayer. "They ordered that men should say it in a loud voice because of the carping of the heretics; but in Nehardea, where there are no heretics, they even now say it in a whisper" (Pes. 56a).

And finally, the use of the Septuagint was forbidden. In part this may have been due to anti-Hellenistic tendencies; but the Septuagint was also the Tanach version most in use among Greek-speaking adherents of the new sect - both Jewish and Gentile. It was used for proof-texting. (Some authorities - such as Justin - also believed that it originally included passages which were later cut from the Hebrew text, allegedly because they were too supportive of the new sect's beliefs. Around the middle of the second century C.E., Aquila, a convert to Judaism, attempted a new translation into Greek, a kind of "counter-version" which could be used by Greek-speaking Jews, but it failed to achieve popularity, largely because its grammar and syntax were strained and awkward and its Greek was sometimes "barbarous".)

But these measures of themselves had not been enough, and so finally the "birkhat haMinim" was introduced. Thereafter synagogue members could be watched for their orthodoxy. Other tell-tale signs of the new sect (noted in the Mishnah Megillah IV. 8.9) possibly included anyone wearing their phylacteries on the palms of their hands (instead of on the inner side of the left arm), perhaps in order to reflect the manner in which Yeshua died. (For a fuller discussion, see Jakob Jocz, op. cit., pp. 5lff; and R. Travers Herford, 'Christianity in Talmud and Midrash', pp. 199ff, "liturgical variations".)

Thus it was the older sect of Judaism, the Pharisaic sect, which, with the Nazarenes, was the only sect to survive the destruction of Jerusalem, which rigorously enforced a division between the two; it was never the Nazarenes who refused to meet with or join their fellow Jews in the synagogues. (And this pattern remains true to this day.)

QUESTION/COMMENT: But why didn't more than a handful of Jews choose to accept Yeshua in his day?

RESPONSE: How many Jews remained loyal during the days of Elijah? Only a remnant - 7000. That's why it's called a remnant. But there is substantial evidence that more than "a handful" of the Jews of his day chose to follow Yeshua.

First, there is the evidence of the extreme measures to which the opposition sect, the Pharisees, went to in order to exclude the Nazarenes from their own houses of worship. It is unlikely that they would have gone so far as to alter the liturgy and synagogue practices if the Nazarenes had been only a minor and sparse group. So great did the demand for separation become, in fact, that eventually even the very mention of the name "Yeshua" would be forbidden; it was to be replaced by an indirect reference, such as "that man", or "an anonymous one", or "a certain person", or even by "Yeshu", an acronym for "may his name be blotted out". There was to be no discussion, no debate, the matter of Yeshua of Nazareth was not even to be spoken of in hushed whispers. This suggests the response of fear; that Yeshua must have aroused a great interest, one which the leader of post-destruction (i.e., 70 C.E.) Judaism did everything in their power to forcibly stifle.

The gospel of John records (John 12:42) "at the same time even many among the leaders believed in him. But because of the Pharisees they would not confess their faith for fear they would be put out of the synagogues." An early Haggadah, cited by Edersheim (Appendix XVIII, "Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah") recounts how the elders of Israel became concerned because the Nazarenes were increasing in numbers to "thousands and ten thousands"; how "twelve wicked men" went out and preached, and "drew to themselves a large number from the children of Israel". (To deal with this, the sages in the story selected one of their own number, Simon Peter, to go among the Nazarenes and separate them from Isreal. This he did by causing them to cease their Jewish observances. At his direction they were to substitute the Nativity for Sukkot; the Crucifixion for Pesach; and so on; thereby they become the new Gentile church as represented by Rome, instead of another Jewish sect.) But the story still suggests that the new sect had proven very attractive to a great many in Israel.

Other evidence of the pervasiveness of the Nazarenes can be found in the stories remembered about the famous sages of the period. For example, Rabbi Eleazor ben Hyrcanus was once arrested by the Romans on suspicion that he was a Christian. In this famous story, he was ultimately released (Av. Zar. 16b, 17a; T. Hull. ii.24) But he recalls that "Once I was walking in the upper street of Sepphoris and I found a man of the disciples of Yeshu the Nazarene, named Jacob of Kfar Sechanja. "This Jacob and he conversed, and what some of what he said pleased R. Eleazor." (So, R. Eleazor concluded, it was for this that G-d had punished him by allowing him to be arrested by the Romans, because he had listened to the words of the heretic and not fled from him at once.)

Jacob of Kfar Sechanja turns up in another story in which Ben Dama, whose uncle was Rabbi Ishmael, was bitten by a serpent. "Then came Jacob the heretic of Kfar Sechanja to cure him (in the name of Yeshu); but R. Ishmael would not allow him." Ben Dama dies, and R. Ishmael says, "Happy are you, Ben Dama, for your body is pure and your soul has departed in purity" (Av. Zar. 27b; T. Hull ii.22,23; Shab. 14d Yerushalmi.) The story in Avodah Zarah 27b also states, "A man should have no dealings with the heretics, nor be cured by them, not even for an extra hour of life."

In Shabbat 14b, the grandson of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi gets something stuck in his throat. A man comes to him and whispers to him in the name of Yeshua, and he recovers. Rabbi Joshua asks the man what he said, and the man replies, "a certain word" (probably the name of Yeshua). R. Joshua then said to him, "It would have been better for him had he died."

In still another story, one Hanahjah, a nephew of Rabbi Joshua ben Hananjah, arrives in Kfar Nahum (Capernum) and a heretic "casts a spell" on him, so that, among other things, he breaks the Sabbath. On account of this, he is told by his uncle (R. Joshua ben Hananjah) that he can no longer stay in the Land of Israel and must move to Babylonia (that is, his reputation has been ruined because he had contact with the heretics).

These and many more such stories indicate the extent of the new sect of the Nazarenes throughout Eretz Israel, and the insistance of the rabbis that there should be no contact between the two groups.

QUESTION/COMMENT: Why do you say that the rabbis forced the separation between Orthodox Judaism and the Nazarenes?

RESPONSE: The extent (and what must have been the attractiveness) of the new Nazarene sect forced the rabbis to take extreme measures to prevent anyone from even hearing about it. (In other words, there seems to have been a fear even of debating it in the open, where its claims could have been asserted, and then refuted or not by the sages.) Instead, it was to be silenced as though it did not exist.

Tosefta Shabb. 13.5 says, "The margins and the books of the heretics (i.e., Nazarenes) they do not save (from fire), but these are burnt in their place, they and the Divine Names in them. Rabbi Jose the Galilean says, "On a weekday one cuts out the Divine Names and hides them, and burns the rest." Rabbi Tarphon said, "May I lose my sons! - if they come into my hand I would burn them and the Divine Names in them as well. If a pursuer were coming after me, I would enter a house of idolatry rather than into their houses. For the idolators to not acknowledge G-d, and speak falsely concerning Him; but these (heretics) do acknowledge Him and speak falsely concerning Him... R. Ishmael said, "Since, in order to make peace between a man and his wife, G-d says, "Let My Name which is written in holiness be blotted out in water" (compare Numbers 5:23), how much more should the books of the heretics, which put emnity and jealousy and cause strife between Israel and their Father who is in heaven, be blotted out, with their Divine Names, too." And concerning them, the scripture says, "Do I not hate them, O L-rd, which hate You, and I loathe them that rise up against You? I hate them with a perfect hatred, and they have become to me like enemies" (Ps. 139:21). And just as men do not save (these books) from burning, so they should not save them from falling, from water, or from anything which destroys them." (It is important to remember that the usual practice is to respectfully bury scrolls which contain the Divine Name so that this will not be defiled. Yet here, even though the Divine Name is written in these books, they are permitted to be burned or destroyed.)

Gittin 45b says, "...Learn from this, that one may read from a Sefer Torah which is found in the hands of an idolator. Should it, perhaps, be hidden (i.e., buried)? Rav Nachman said, 'We have recieved a tradition that a Book of the Law, if written by a heretic, is to be burnt; if written by an idolator, it is to be hidden (buried); if found in the hands of a heretic, it is to be hidden; if found in the hands of an idolator, some say it is to be hidden, some say it may be read...Thus, a Book of the Law written by a Nazarene is to be considered worse than a Book of the Law written by an idolator'."

Tosefta B. Mez 2:33 says, "Gentiles and those who keep and breed small cattle (i.e., goats) are neither helped out of (a pit) nor cast into one. The heretics and the apostates and betrayers are cast in and are not helped out."

Such rules, and many, many more, were meant to enforce the separation from the Nazarenes. Obviously the two groups must have been living in close contact, or such stringent requirements would not have been necessary. And it is noteworthy that even philosophical discussions or religious debates with the Nazarenes are apparently to be avoided (wheras, it is never noted that the Nazarenes fear to go among other Jews, or to have their own views tested; or that they are in fear that some of their own number may "turn away" and join the opposing sect, and that for this reason they must avoid all contact with them).

QUESTION/COMMENT: Did all the leaders feel this way about the separation?

RESPONSE: Curiously, both Talmuds record the reason for the destruction of the Temple as being' hatred without a cause' among the people. This phrase immediately calls to mind Psalm 35, especially verse 19: 'Let not those gloat over me who are my enemies without cause; let not those who hate me without reason maliciously wink the eye'; and Psalm 69, especially verse 4: 'Those who hate me without reason outnumber the hairs on my head; many are my enemies without cause, those who seek to destroy me.' It is more than probable that the writers of the Talmuds were familiar with scripture, and especially the Psalms, and that they therefore understood the allusion made to these Psalms. (Their earlier predecessors, Qumran writers, for instance, constantly quote the Psalms and other scriptures without even giving the source, merely assuming that the reader will catch the reference at once.) And both these Psalms--and particularly Psalm 69--were considered by the Nazarenes to be references to Yeshua.

In the Tosefta (end Menahot) this hatred is futher explained. There it is said that each man hated his fellow man; but that, in the end, when the Third Temple is rebuilt, 'There shall come a day that the watchmen on Mt. Ephraim will cry,'Arise ye, and let us go up to Zion to the L-rd our G-d'. (Jer. 31:6) The word for 'watchmen' here is 'notzrim', the same word used for 'Nazarenes'. Thus this may be an indication of who will be welcomed back to Zion. (To be sure, this had to be said by indirection; but the writers likely would have been aware of the double-meaning of this word.)

Thus, these may be indications that not all of the leaders were antagonistic to the Nazarenes, and that there is regret expressed that they were driven into separation.

QUESTION/COMMENT: Judaism has never believed in a messiah who would suffer!

RESPONSE: In the New Testament it is assumed that such a possibility was known to the people. Yeshua refers constantly to his coming crucifixion and death, which must occur, "in order that the scriptures be fulfilled". On the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:25-27), "He said to them, "How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken. Did not the messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?" And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the scriptures concerning himself. These, plus the many references to the messiah's death in the letters of Saul (Paul), the section in I Peter 2:22ff, which virtually recapitulates Isaiah 53 for the reader - all these would have made no sense if they were appealing to a strange doctrine which the hearers had never heard of before.

In the "Dialogue with Trypho", Justin (c. 150 C.E.) records his Jewish counterpart as saying:

"...But whether the messiah should be so shamefully crucified, this is what we doubt. Because whoever is crucified is said in the Law to be accursed, so that I am extremely incredulous on this point. It is very clear, indeed, that the scriptures declare that the messiah had to suffer; but we will have to learn if you can prove to us that it was by a form of suffering which was cursed in the Law."

After Justin's answer, Trypho then continues:

"...we know that he had to suffer and be led as a sheep. But prove for us whether or not he had to be crucified and to die so disgracefully and so dishonorably and by a death which is cursed in the Law. Because we cannot bring ourselves even to think such a thing" (Dialogue 90.1).

And Justin also has Trypho saying:

"...Granted, as you say, that it was foretold that the messiah would have to suffer, and that he is called a stone, and that after his first coming, in which it was foretold that he would suffer, he would come again in glory and be the final judge of all - an everlating king and priest. (But) now show us that this man (ie, Yeshua) is the one" (Dialogue 39.7).

It is impossible to know whether in these (and other) passages the words really represent Jewish thinking at the time of Justin, or if they are merely words put into Trypho's mouth and reflect Justin's own views. Elsewhere in the Dialogue Justin does in fact faithfully reproduce other Jewish objections to Yeshua, objections which can be recognized and still obtain today. Yet in these passages, if one listens to the modern critics, Justin must be manufacturing his opponent's arguments for him. Modern critics, who must rely on the record left by post-destruction (i.e., post 70 C.E.) Judaism, will assert that there was no such Jewish belief in a suffering messiah at this time. But the most can be said is that there is no such reference preserved within the Tanaatic literature (which was not put to paper until the fourth century - that is, not until after the triumph of Christianity over the Roman Empire). And that the Tanaatic literature, as has been shown, is not a reliable guide to the entire scope and diversity of Jewish beliefs before the Revolt.)

In other literature which is roughly contemporary (late first century), IV Maccabbees (6:27-29) contains the prayer of Eleazor: "...Be gracious to Your servant, being satisfied with our punishment in their behalf. Make my blood a sacrifice for their purification, and take my life as a substitute for theirs." Of course this may reflect nothing more than a patriotic impulse. (IV Maccabbees is largely in the style of a Greek oration in honor of heroes.) Yet it does demonstrate that the concept of dying as a substitute for someone else - or for the nation - existed in the thoughts of the culture, and in the examples of their heroes. IV Maccabbees (17:20-22) goes on to say, "...These, therefore, being sanctified for the sake of G-d, were honored not only in this way... (for) they have become, in effect, a substitute, dying for the sins of the nation, and through the blood of these godly men and their propitiatory death, divine Providence saved Israel..."

And in a fragment from Qumran (4Q541) there is the following:

"He will atone for all the children of his generation and he will be sent to all the children of his people. His word is like a word of heaven and his teaching is in agreement with the will of G-d...They will speak much against him, and they will invent many lies and untruths against him and say shameful things about him. Evil will overthrow his generation. . His situation will be one of lying and violence and the people will go astray in his days..."

There is no indication in this passage as to who is the one who will make the atonement, nor how this will be accomplished. The above may refer only to a priest who will make an offering in the Temple. On the other hand, it seems to speak of an extraordinary figure; and we know that later Judaism (in the medieval period) did expect that a suffering messiah (the 'Son of Joseph') would appear in an evil generation. Does this indicate that a similar belief was held in the period before the destruction fo the Second Temple? Or is this only a reference to the Essene's Teacher of Righteousness? We cannot be certain. But the possibility cannot be arbitrarily ruled out.

Yeshua's own suffering mirrored the suffering of Am Yisrael. It would not be fitting for a well-fed rich king to be set over a nation that went through the Exile and that would later go through the destruction of Jerusalem and the Shoah. Such a messiah just would not fit a nation of suffering. No, G-d sent a king who fitted Am Yisrael, a compassionate messiah who would suffer along with B'nei Yisrael. Like many of B'nei Yisrael, he would be killed by Gentiles, and suffer great pains for his obedience to G-d.