Download Handout

Counter-Missionary Education
Genealogical Scams and Flimflams
Segment 2
A Counter-Missionary Education Lesson
by
Uri Yosef, Ph.D., Director of Education
Virtual Yeshiva of the Messiah Truth Project, Inc.
[The full article on this topic is located here - http://thejewishhome.org/counter/Isa53JP.pdf]
Copyright © Uri Yosef 2015 for the Messiah Truth Project, Inc.
All rights reserved
May 27, 2015
Genealogical Scams & Flimflams - Segment 2
Page 1 of 9
Introduction
In Segment 1 we compared the two genealogies from the New Testament
against the genealogy from 1 Chronicles 3 in the Hebrew Bible. This analysis
and several “technical” details led to the conclusion that the genealogies in the
New Testament are seriously flawed and cannot be used to validate the claim
by Christians that Jesus is a legitimate heir to the throne of King David.
In Segment 2 we shall consider a number of claims by Christian missionaries
by which they attempts to justify the genealogies in the New Testament and,
thereby, validate the status of Jesus as a legitimate heir to the throne and that
he is the Messiah. Judaism’s responses, based on the Hebrew Bible and on
recorded history, will invalidate those claims.
May 27, 2015
Genealogical Scams & Flimflams - Segment 2
Page 2 of 9
Claim: Jewish genealogical records were destroyed in 70 CE
() Missionary Claim – Part 1
(Y) Judaism’s Response
The Jewish genealogical records were kept in
the Temple in Jerusalem and were destroyed
in 70 CE when the Temple was destroyed by
the Romans
First of all, no genealogical records were
stored in the Temple.
Secondly, a majority of the Jewish people did
not live in the Land of Israel during the 1st
century CE – if records existed, they would
not have been kept in the Temple
() Missionary Claim – Part 2
(Y) Judaism’s Response
Christians have a true genealogical link
between Jesus and David, whereas the Jews
will have no way to prove the tribal lineage of
whoever they will eventually decide to
recognize as the Messiah
The “litmus test” for identifying the real
Messiah will be neither a certified
genealogical record that leads to King David
nor a blood test to determine whether he is
from the Tribe of Judah.
The real Messiah will be identified as the one
whose actions brought about the conditions
described in the messianic agenda of the
Hebrew Bible.
Conclusion: This claim is bogus. Aside of the fact that the two genealogies in the New
Testament.
May 27, 2015
Genealogical Scams & Flimflams - Segment 2
Page 3 of 9
Claim: Promises to David's successors were conditional
() Missionary Claim
God’s promise to David was eternal and
unconditional –
Psalms 132:11 - The Lord has sworn in truth to David, from which
He will not turn back, "Of the fruit of your body I shall seat upon
your throne."
However, the promise to David’s successor was
conditional and depended on stipulations and
contingencies that had to be met –
Psalms 132:12 - "IF your sons will keep My covenant, and this,
My testimony, that I shall teach them, THEN also their sons will
forever sit upon your throne."
Since Solomon and many of the other kings of
Judah, "did that which was evil before the Lord“,
they were ineligible progenitors of the “sinless”
Messiah of Christianity, alleged to be “the Son of
David”. Thus, the Messiah of Christianity cannot
have an earthly father out of this "tainted" lineage,
a lineage that had to be cut-off or terminated. This
problem was solved through the miracle of a "Virgin
Birth".
(Y) Judaism’s Response
The primary flaw in this claim is that the
consequences for violating the stipulations in
Psalms 132:12 are missing.
As we saw in Segment 1, the prophetic passage in
2 Samuel 7:12-16 includes the promise and the
consequences of disobedience. Other passages
in the Hebrew Bible do the same. For example,
concerning the promise to David –
Psalms 89:29-30 – (29) "I will forever keep My kindness to him
[David], and My covenant will remain true to him. (30) And I
shall make his seed endure forever, and his throne like the
days of heaven."
The consequences of disobedience follow
immediately –
Psalms 89:31-33 – (31) "IF his sons will forsake My Torah, and will not walk in
My judgments, (32) IF they profane My statutes, and do not keep My
commandments, (33) THEN I shall punish their transgression with the rod,
and their iniquity with plagues."
Conclusion: Those Kings of Judah who transgressed God's Law were punished. God promised that the
Davidic dynasty, from which the Messiah will emerge, and throne will endure forever. God doesn’t lie.
May 27, 2015
Genealogical Scams & Flimflams - Segment 2
Page 4 of 9
Claim: Solomon has been disqualified as the progenitor of the Messiah
() Missionary Claim
Because he was expected to obey God's Law and
failed to do so, Solomon was disqualified from
being the forefather of the Messiah.
(Y) Judaism’s Response
It is true that Solomon sinned, and the Hebrew
Bible tells of his failures (1 Kings 11:1-10) –
• He acquired many horses – a violation of the
prohibition placed on kings (Deuteronomy 17:16)
• He married many women – a violation of the
prohibition placed on kings (Deuteronomy 17:17)
• Many, if not most, of the women were foreign
women, yet another violation of a prohibition in the
Torah (Deuteronomy 7:3)
An account of God's anger with Solomon and the
consequences follows (1 Kings 11:11-13). His
kingdom will be split, but only after his death, for
David’s sake. Rehoboam, Solomon’s son, will get
the Tribe of Judah (and Levi), and the rest will go to
Solomon’s servant, Jeroboam. This is a severe
punishment, indeed, but the Hebrew Bible never
speaks of forfeiting the right to David’s throne or
disqualification from being the progenitor of the
Messiah. Recall that even David sinned, yet he
was promised to be the ancestor of the Messiah.
Conclusion: This claim is a bogus issue. According to the Hebrew Bible, the iniquity of Solomon and
some of his legitimate successors did not disqualify any of them from being the progenitor of the Messiah.
May 27, 2015
Genealogical Scams & Flimflams - Segment 2
Page 5 of 9
Claim: Rehoboam was a Jew via his father, not via his mother
() Missionary Claim – Part 1
(Y) Judaism’s Response – Part 1
Let us see what the Hebrew Bible teaches about which
parent determines the religious identity of the children.
Christian missionaries claim that, if a person's mother
has to be a Jewess to make that person a Jew, then
Rehoboam was not a Jew, since his mother, Na'amah
the Ammonitess, was not a Jewess. To support this
claim, they refer to the following verse regarding who
was Rehoboam’s natural mother –
1Kings 14:21 - And Rehoboam the son of Solomon reigned in
Judah; forty-one years old was Rehoboam when he became king,
and seventeen years he reigned in Jerusalem, the city that the
Lord has chosen to place His Name there out of all the tribes of
Israel; and his mother’s name was Na'amah the Ammonitess.
They correctly note that the Torah requires a king of
Israel to be a Jew –
Deuteronomy 17:15 - You shall surely set over yourself a king
whom the Lord, your God, shall choose; from among your brethren
shall you set a king over yourself; you may not place over yourself
a foreign man, one who is not your brother.
Therefore, they argue, since God would not violate His
own rule, the requirement that it is the mother who
determines the religious identity of her children is a
later addition to Jewish Law by the Rabbis.
May 27, 2015
Exodus 21:4 - If his [the Israelite servant's] master has given
him a wife, and she has born him sons or daughters; the wife
and her children shall be her master’s, and he [the Israelite
servant] shall go out by himself.
An Israelite master may give an Israelite bondmaid as
a wife only to his son, or take her as a wife for himself
(Exodus 21:8-9). Thus, Exodus 21:4 refers to a Gentile
bondmaid given to a Hebrew slave as a wife. Since the
children remain slaves when their father is freed, it
shows that they retain their Gentile mother’s status.
Deuteronomy 7:3-4 – (3) And you shall not intermarry with them;
your daughter you shall not give to his son, and his daughter you
shall not take for your son. (4) For he will cause your son to turn
away from following Me, and they will serve other gods; then the
wrath of the Lord will be kindled against you, and He will soon
destroy you.
If “he” in v. 4 is a Gentile father-in-law, then “your son”
is a son of an Israelite father, a Jew who marries a
Gentile woman, and he and the children will “serve
other gods”, then the children retain their mother’s
Gentile status. Alternatively, if “he” in v. 4 is a Gentile
whom a daughter (a Jewess) of an Israelite father (a
Jew) marries, then “son” actually means “grandson”
of an Israelite grandfather. So the child has the
mother’s religious identity as a Jew. (See Haggai 1:1 &
Ezra 5:1 as examples where “son” means “grandson”.)
Genealogical Scams & Flimflams - Segment 2
Page 6 of 9
Claim: Rehoboam was a Jew via his father, not via his mother (continued)
() Missionary Claim – Part 1 (cont’d)
(Y) Judaism’s Response – Part 1 (cont’d)
The following account indicates that interreligious marriages took place during the 70year Babylonian exile –
Since God will not violate his own rule, it is the
father, not the mother, who determines the
religious identity of his children. The Rabbis
later replaced this rule with the rule that the
mother is the one who determines the religious
identity of her children.
Ezra 10:2-3 – (2) And Shechaniah the son of Jehiel, one
of the sons of Elam, answered and said to Ezra, "We
have trespassed against our God, and have taken
foreign wives from the peoples of the land; yet now
there is hope in Israel concerning this matter. (3) And
now, let us make a covenant with our God to cast out all
such women, and those born of them, according to the
counsel of the Lord, and of those who hasten [to
perform] the commandment of our God; and let it be
done according to the Torah.
Here the Jewish men who married Gentile
women and had children with them agree to
cast out their Gentile wives along with the
children. This was to “be done according to
the Torah”.
It can’t get any clearer than this example
illustrates.
Conclusion: The Hebrew Bible proves that the Christian missionary allegation about Jewish Law
having been changed by the Rabbis [from the father determining one's identity as a Jew to the
mother determining one's identity as a Jew] is bogus!
May 27, 2015
Genealogical Scams & Flimflams - Segment 2
Page 7 of 9
Claim: Rehoboam was a Jew via his father, not via his mother (continued)
() Missionary Claim – Part 2
(Y) Judaism’s Response – Part 2
OK, then, let’s say that you defeated our argument that
Rehoboam was a Jew according to his father. Then it
follows that he also wasn’t a Jew according to his
mother, since the rule in the Torah is that an Ammonite
and a Moabite can never convert to Judaism
(Deuteronomy 23:4). Therefore, since his mother was
not allowed to convert to Judaism, Rehoboam was not
a Jew. Consequently, he is disqualified from having the
Messiah come from his lineage.
Yet, Rehoboam is the only son of Solomon who is
named and listed in the Bible, it means that Judaism
has a serious problem regarding the origin of its
Messiah. So, in His everlasting love and mercy, God
fixed this problem through the miracle of the “Virgin
Birth” – the divine solution to bring forth the Messiah.
First, aside of the fact that the Torah requires a king of
Israel to be a Jew (Deuteronomy 17:15), God
approved Rehoboam to be the king (1 Kings 11:13).
Since God would not break His own rules, it is safe to
conclude that Rehoboam was a Jew, and exactly how
he acquired his identity as a Jew is not detailed in the
Hebrew Bible and is, therefore, not an important detail.
Second, let’s take a closer look at Deuteronomy 23:4 –
Conclusion: The Christian missionary claim
that the prohibition in Deuteronomy 23:4
prevented Na'amah the Ammonitess,
Rehoboam’s mother, from converting to
Judaism is bogus! Na'amah qualified to
convert to Judaism just as Ruth the Moabitess,
King David's great-grandmother, was able to
do it several generations earlier.
May 27, 2015
Deuteronomy 23:4 - An Ammonite [‫( ַּמֹונִי‬amoNI)] and a Moabite
[‫( מֹו בִי‬mo'aVI)] shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord;
even their tenth generation shall not enter into the congregation
of the Lord forever.
The Hebrew terms ‫ עַּמֹונִ י‬and ‫ מֹואָ בִ י‬translate as an
Ammonite male and a Moabite male, respectively
(the corresponding Hebrew terms for a female are
different). The reason for this prohibition is stated
immediately following the prohibition itself –
Deuteronomy 23:5 – Because they did not greet you with bread
and water on the way, when you left Egypt, and because he
[Balak, the King of Moab] hired Balaam the son of Beor from
Pethor in Aram Naharaim against you, to curse you.
The same reason is repeated in Nehemiah 13:1-2.
Since Ruth was a Moabitess, she could not have
converted to Judaism according to the Christian claim.
Yet, Ruth became the ancestor of King David, the one
from whose lineage will rise the Jewish Messiah.
Genealogical Scams & Flimflams - Segment 2
Page 8 of 9
To be continued in Segment 3
with several claims regarding
The Curse on Jeconiah
May 27, 2015
Genealogical Scams & Flimflams - Segment 2
Page 9 of 9