Jewish FAQ

Jewish Q&A

Q1: Concerning the lack of portrayal of God as Triune in the Tanakh.

A1: Genesis 18 explicitly depicts YHWH as Triune, as Abraham refers to the three visitors by that name. Furthermore, the Messiah's name is YHWH in Jeremiah 23:6. Israel itself, in feminine, is foretold to be identified with the same title in Jeremiah 33:!6, which is consistent with the Christian understanding of the Church as the Body of Christ, but not consistent with the Jewish idea of the male personification of the people of Israel being distinct from the Messiah (as in the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah).

Q1a: Concerning the Three Men not being God.

A1a: That would be extremely incongruent with the style of parataxis which practically defines Biblical prose. There is also the Angel of the Lord, which Christians take to be the Logos, hence God himself (Judges 13:18, Exodus 23:21, Exodus 3:2-4, Genesis 48:15-16--note in this last verse, "angel" and "God" are not separated by "and", indicating they are the same, since Biblical Hebrew certainly stresses the use of "and" where applicable).

Q2: Concerning the use of the term עלמה in Isaiah 7:14, as opposed to בְּתוּלָה.

A2: παρθένος doesn’t definitively mean “virgin” anymore than Hebrew term, like the Hebrew it can just mean a post-puberty unwed (she in fact was technically unwed when she became with child, even though she was betrothed) girl. Christian exegesis takes it to mean virgin in this context, because the Virgin Mary was indeed a virgin. The big difference between Jewish and Orthodox Christian exegesis, is that the latter doesn’t see most prophecies as clearly understood until after they happened (which is why Revelations is not supposed to be interpreted), or are made comprehensible by someone God is trying to glorify. But back to our word: if it were standing alone, “maid” might be a truer translation of  παρθένου into English, as it incorporates the word’s broadness, but since its meaning is unequivocally “virgin” in the relevant contexts (from the viewpoint of a Christian exegesis), it is so translated. If you care to consult the Richard Lattimore's completely secular translation of the New Testament, he opts for the word "maiden".

Q3: Concerning the depiction of Pharisaic objection to healing on Shabbat, historically a Sadducee position.

A3: Although Christ was most likely an Essene, he was a very orthodox one, and subscribed to the Pharisaic, not the Sadducean, position (Matthew 23:2); so he himself subscribed to the Oral Torah, he just didn’t like the Pharisees because he thought they were hypocrites (Matthew 23:3). He was also functionally  a rabbi, and a very astute one, even though he wasn’t brought up into it, and he gets into debates with other rabbis about the Oral Torah. Keep in mind you had to memorize the whole Oral Torah from someone telling it to you, you couldn’t just keep check the writings at will to refresh your memory on this or that clause; if you forgot something (which some evidently sometimes did, see Luke 14:3-4), you either had to be silent or guess. You could also just get genuinely confused, or even lie. Finally, remember that the Mishnah wasn’t composed until nearly 200 years after Christ’s time, so there might have been particular deviations in perspectives, false teachings, and other variations in the Law from place to place. Except for one synagogue leader (who is BTFO by Christ--what’s worth noting is that he isn’t referred to as a Pharisee, meaning he could very well be a Sadducee; the context of that scene then changes to Christ defending the Oral Torah against a Sadducee with the support of the synagogue, which would make sense, since the Pharisees had wide popular support, whereas the Sadducees were made up of the ruling elites whose sola scriptura exegesis was often onerous for the common people), none of the Pharisees overtly object to Christ healing on Shabbat, they test him on it though (as he tests them, to which they don’t answer “no” clearly, as the synagogue leader, but rather appear to be unsure, or at least do not want to give any validity to Christ), but they’re not going to outright lie when Christ is an expert on the Oral Torah. As for the Pharisees in John 9:16, this Jewish source lambasts Christ for breaking Shabbat, and cites the Pharisees as in the right: http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/jewsandjesus/#2 The reason given is that he made a paste on Shabbat, rather than the healing per se.

Q4: Concerning many prophecies about Israel being wrongfully interpreted to be about the Messiah.

A4: Christianity sees the Church both as the Christ’s Body and Israel, so the distinction you’re making wouldn’t apply.

Q5: Concerning Christ's failure to fulfill many prophecies.

A5: Many of the prophecies you see as unfulfilled were actually fulfilled from a Christian perspective, such as the rebuilding of the Temple (which is the Church). As for the ones which weren’t, from a Christian perspective, a lot of the prophecies of the first coming are what you mentioned in Q3, and most of the others are considered to be about the Second Coming.

Q6: Concerning Deuteronomy 13:1-3.

A6: Christ said to follow the Lord, he didn't preach Zeus or Baal.