Who is the Messiah?

Taken from Nakdimon’s page. Nakdimon, who is a Dutch Messianic Jew is the original author of this article.

Here is the actual link:

http://www.geocities.com/nakdimonspage/whoisthemessiahrts.html

Who is the Messiah?

Jews of the Devil? (11:30)

This lecture actually
should have been called “slandering of Messianic Jews” or something like
that, because that’s exactly what rabbi Tovia Singer is doing for the vast
majority of this lecture. I am not even going to address the points about
the slander of rabbi Singer against Messianic Jews. I do want to address the
claim of rabbi Singer that “only Satan can” reject the truth when
knowing the truth. (We actually don’t believe that Jews “know”
that Yeshua is the Messiah, but we say that because they don’t believe he
is the Messiah they want to get rid of all possible allusions to him, be it
by removing Isaiah 53 from the haphtarah [which I’m not sure of] or making
another interpretation than the Messianic interpretation prominent. As I
have shown before, the rabbi keeps essential information from his audience
time and time again and only tells the part that support his claims) What’s
funny is that this is what has been the testimony of the Tenach about Israel,
yet rabbi Singer points his audience to the New Testament to make it seem
that the New Testament says that Jews reject the truth when it’s right
there in front of them. Notice that the New Testament is written by Jews,
but still is called anti-Semitic by the anti-missionaries. Well, then if you
speak bad about Yeshua then, as a Jew, you can still be called anti-Semitic
as well. This, then, also goes for the Tenach. So let’s look at some
amazing “anti-Semitic” statements of the prophets in the Tenach that
show us Jews rejecting the truth. And I say Jews instead of Israel because
that’s the terminology that rabbi Singer uses himself. Remember, we are
only being consistent and want to avoid the use of double standards. We will
see that even when knowing that God has just acted or a true prophet spoke,
they rejecting him anyway. I will replace the word “Israel” with “the
Jews” for shock-value, to increase the “anti-Semitic” tone of the
prophet and see what happens if rabbi Singer holds the Tenach to the same
standards as he does with the New Testament:

Ezekiel 3:4-7:

This is what the
prophet says that God told him about the Jews: 4 And He said unto me: ‘Son of man, go, get
thee unto the Jews, and
speak with My words unto them. 5 For thou art not sent to a people of an
unintelligible speech and of a slow tongue, but to the
Jews; 6 not to many peoples of an
unintelligible speech and of a slow tongue, whose words thou canst not
understand. Surely, if I sent thee to them, they would hearken unto thee.
7 But the Jews will not
consent to hearken unto thee; for they consent not to hearken unto Me; for all the
Jews are of a hard forehead and of a stiff
heart.

Excuse me? This known
prophet Ezekiel is sent to the Jews and God says that they will reject his
words nonetheless. Even when they know he is Gods true prophet! But God
doesn’t stop there, He even goes beyond that. He says that had He sent
Ezekiel to the Gentiles, they would have listened to him and received the
words of God, even though they didn’t speak the language. But the Jews?
Now way! Talking about anti-Semitic statements! Knowing that Ezekiel is a
true prophet and understanding every word he says, God says that they will
reject whatever he says anyway. Can you imagine what the anti-missionaries
would have said if this testimony would have been found in the New
Testament?

Now the next
anti-Semitic statement; 1Kings 18-19.

Eliyahu (Elijah) on
Mount Carmel with everyone present taking on the prophets of Baäl and
defeating them hands down, showing without any doubt that he is the true
prophet of the one true God. Yet in spite of that incredibly miraculous
event that took place and people witnessing the glory of the God of Israel,
they still went with Baäl and rejected God and His prophet! Now the New
Testament is often criticized for being anti-Semitic because of it’s
testimony that although the people saw all the miraculous deeds of Yeshua,
they still rejected him? Herewith implying that they didn’t take place,
because had they taken place as the New Testament witnesses, they wouldn’t
have rejected him as they did. But what are we then to make of this account
in 1 Kings 18-19? By anti-missionary standards it couldn’t have occurred.

Well, how about the
testimony of the Torah about the Exodus? The testimony of Israel, after
seeing the miraculous works God did through Moshe (Moses) and the glorious
victory over Egypt, which they saw with their own eyes, an entire dynasty
wiped away without one man lifting up a sword, totally demolishing that
country and still the people spoke about going back to Egypt to live there
as slaves because they thought they would be better off, continuously
mumbling against God and Moses to the point that they even wanted to stone
Aharon and Moshe (read Numbers 14), constantly rebelling after almost
constantly being witnesses of God’s miracles. Building the golden calf,
where “all the people” brought their gold to make the statue. (even
though anti-missionaries will claim that only 3000 people participated in
this event, but the reality is that the entire nation participated and only
3000 failed to repent and didn’t choose for God and were therefore slain)
“Only the Devil can do that”? No, that’s not what the Tenach tells us!
The Tenach, not Christians, tells us that the Jews are capable of knowing
and still rejecting. So where is rabbi Singer’s outrage now?

Have you noticed, by
the way, how highly rabbi Singer speaks about the prophets in his lectures?
This is all after the fact. In the time of the prophets they weren’t
esteemed so highly by the religious leaders of our people as they are now.
It all started in Egypt, Moses came to the people and they rebelled against
him in the wilderness, in the time of the prophets some were ignored, some
were rejected, some were persecuted, some were killed. Then the people went
into exile and they eventually came back to the land, where they, completely
in harmony with the behaviour of the previous generations, rejected and
killed the Messiah. Of course, we are all to blame for him being slain
because we have all sinned, Jew and Gentile alike. So this is no lashing out
to the beloved Jewish people. But notice the pattern all the way back to
Moses: when prophets didn’t live up to their expectations and asked too
much from them (i.e. let go of their wicked ways and start to obey their
words) they rebelled and rejected the message of the prophets. When the
Messiah came and did exactly the same, not living up to their expectations
and obey his words, they rebelled again and rejected him altogether as well.
So what I am trying to say is that it shouldn’t come as a surprise that
the Messiah wasn’t recognised by his people when he came to them.

“You don’t understand!…” 16:00

Then rabbi Singer says
that we can’t tell Jews what their books say. According to the rabbi this
would be like the Chinese telling an American that he doesn’t know his own
constitution. But this is comparing sticks to stones, because for starters,
the gentiles didn’t come to the Jews by themselves to tell them that they
have figured it all out. They learned it from the Messiah Himself and His
followers, who were all Jews. This would be similar to Chinese people who
got their information from the likes of Abraham Lincoln and the founding
fathers and then came to the American and tell him what certain
constitutional laws really meant to say.
They don’t need to know how to read the language, since they got
their information in Chinese and still got the right interpretation from the
founding fathers. As shown before Ezekiel 3:4-7 bears witness to this fact.
So Gentile don’t make their case based on their own knowledge, but based
on what Messiah has said.

Difference between Messianic Judaism and Pentecostals Evangelicals 29:30

Rabbi Tovia Singer
claims that the only difference between Messianic Judaism and Pentecostals
Evangelicals is rabbinic Jewish customs. This is partially true. Although
there are religious expressions that are in conformity with rabbinic Judaism,
because it has a lot of beauty in it, this is not the only thing that
separates us from Gentile Pentecostals congregations. That the rabbi comes
to this conclusion maybe because the traditions are all outward expressions
of the faith. But these traditions are in no way binding! So the expression
may be in agreement with traditional Jewish way, but the experience
is anything but conform traditional Judaism. If you go into a Messianic
Congregation that observes Torah you immediately notice the difference
between that and a traditional Jewish meeting. As rabbi Singer correctly
points out in his lecture on “Sin and atonement” at 01:06:20-01:08:55.
The main thing we and Gentile congregations disagree on is the centrality of
the Torah, which, according to mainstream Pentecostals, was abolished by
Yeshua. However, there are more and more Gentiles that see the importance of
the Torah and observance of the Shabbat and feasts and kosher laws (i.e.
biblical kosher, NOT halachic kosher!), (and in some cases) teachings of
cleanliness due to the message Messianic Jews are spreading. Other than that,
there are hardly differences. That we make kiddush and wear kippah does not
“define” our Judaism! Also, we use the Hebrew names, not necessarily for
Jewish people, but to remind the gentile believers that Yeshua and his
disciples were all Jews, which is something the gentile believers tend to
forget and instead see them first and foremost as Christians. The Messiah is
part of Israel and the faith of the gentile believers is the inheritance of
Israel, which they share in. Not as the heirs, but as co-heirs to the
promise God made to Abraham, that through him, all the nations would be
blessed. So it’s not a ploy “to lure Jews into Christianity”, but
rather to set the record straight with our gentile brothers in Lord Yeshua.
Furthermore, I want to use the analogy rabbi Singer uses in another setting:
If you would step into a time machine and go back to those days, I would bet
that if you would ask someone where Jesus, the son of Joseph was, people
would ask you what you were talking about. They didn’t know any Jesus, or
Mary, or James, or John, or Matthew, or Peter. But if you would ask for
Yeshua ben Yosef, people would know whom you were asking about. People were
familiar with the names Yeshua, Miryam, Ya’aqov, Yochanan, Mattityahu,
Kefa. So it has nothing to do with “trying to sound Jewish” because IT
WAS JEWISH!

As for all the other
slander of Messianic Judaism, I urge you to go and see for yourself and meet Messianic Jews to see that
if rabbi Tovia Singer’s allegations are correct or not. By now you should
know better than just to take rabbi Singer at his word. But rabbinic
tradition is hardly considered “keeping the commandments”. Furthermore,
we have nothing against rabbinic tradition. On the contrary: we find a lot
of wisdom and beauty in the traditions. What we do reject is the teaching
that these traditions are Torah, given from God. That is simply untrue. Even
the New Testament makes the distinction between the Torah and the
“tradition of the Elders”. So either it’s from God and it’s not
tradition or either it’s tradition and it is not from God. Therefore, we
see the beauty of the traditions and apply these traditions and don’t see
them as a bad thing, we absolutely do NOT see them as Torah
and therefore, religiously binding, since that claim can’t be
substantiated from the Tenach. God is not interested in the Jewish ness of a
religion but in the truthfulness of people to his word. So if I must set
aside my Jewish pride to gain what I know to be true, the resurrected
Messiah, then I will follow the example of the apostle Sha’ul in
Philippians 3:7-8 and do just that.

Yet more lies! Why? (40:10)

Then rabbi Tovia Singer
expands on Gen. 49:10 and tells his audience about a Christian that
interpreted it in a certain way. But then rabbi Tovia Singer goes on to do
something remarkable. He presents that interpretation as “the” Christian
position. If this is “the” Christian position, then I wonder why this is
the first time I have ever heard of it. This interpretation is one I have
never heard of! So instead of this being “the” Christian interpretation,
this is just one individual that understood the text as such.

Check your theology! (41:33)

Then rabbi Tovia Singer
points us to Hoshea 3 to show that Jews aren’t supposed to have a king.
But, again, as I pointed out in the “Rabbi Singer Answers Questions”
section, these things don’t just happen “because the prophet says so”.
There had to be something that caused this. And because Israel, as a
majority, rejected Yeshua’s sacrifice for their sins, his role as mediator
and High Priest, his role as their king, they don’t have these things. It
is only when they accept him in the latter days, these things will be
restored. When they “turn to Yahweh, their God, and David, their
king” in the latter days. By the way, also notice that the text
also speaks about Israel not having idols. So what does that tell us? How
many secular Jews are into idolatry, séances and all that stuff? I thought
that “Jews are not gonna have it”.

He then goes on to say
that according to Christianity it all comes down to the sacrifice on Calvary
and that it teaches that you can be a lousy person, but if you believe in
Yeshua, you’re saved. Where does the New Testament teach this? I dare
rabbi Singer to come up with the quote where the New Testament says that any
lousy person is saved by just “believing”. What the New Testament DOES
teach is that belief with repentance is
essential for salvation and that without repentance that changes the
lifestyle into God-fearing obedience, your belief is worthless. Yet another
misrepresentation of Messianic Jewish faith.

Ecclesiastes (49:50)

Rabbi Tovia Singer
tries to demonstrate that sacrifices have no meaning to king Solomon. The
only problem is that he is using the wrong text to demonstrate this. What is
Ecclesiastes all about? It’s about things in life, how people live their
lives in vain. What does it say about atonement? NOTHING in any way, shape
or form! So why use something that has nothing to do with atonement to prove
that it doesn’t say anything about Messiah’s atonement? What king
Solomon says, and who could disagree with him on that, is that as far as the
way of life is concerned, keeping Gods commandments is the best thing man
can do, because all the rest has no profit whatsoever. We can again, put the
shoe on the other foot and say that king Solomon says nothing about prayer,
repentance and charity as well. What does that tell us about these three
important aspects of life? Nothing, because we understand that he isn’t
making a case about atonement, he is trying to explain that the best man can
do in life is not to pursue the things of his own heart, but to keep God’s
commandments. That’s the conclusion of a man that had it all, but saw no
profit in them. One should ask, why rabbi Singer feels compelled to make
these baseless allegations time and time again?

No accounts of blood sacrifices in the Tenach (52:30)

Rabbi Tovia Singer then
gives his audience something to think about. He asks his audience that if
sacrifices were so important, then why isn’t there one case of someone
bringing sacrifices for sins in the entire Tenach? This should make you
wonder, right? Here is the answer: because the Tenach emphasizes Gods mercy
rather than the way to get atonement. The Torah has already laid out the
atonement system. Think about it: the Tenach deals with just a few cases
where people sinned. In those instances, when people are forgiven the
authors show God’s love for His people Israel and His compassion for them.
Does this mean that no one ever brought sacrifices for their sins? If the
Bible kept count of every single sin in Temple times and every single goat
or lamb that was offered, the authors would still be writing to this day,
trying to keep track of sin sacrifices. However, the point the authors
wanted to make is to show the grace of God towards His people. But to say
that no one ever brought sacrifices when they sinned is to say that every
one disregarded the Torah that explicitly commands sacrifices to atone for
sins. And if we are to believe the anti-missionaries (rabbi Singer in
particular), the Torah was too caught up with blood and the prophets, seeing
this, repudiated Torah-sacrifices, therewith rectifying the error that was
made in the Torah. Sure!

The New Testament teaches reliance on man (1:01:30)

Again, I would advise
you to read the New Testament and talk to Christians and see if they “look
horizontally” and not “up” instead of taking rabbi Singer at his word.
Look at some of the following references in the New Testament itself:

Let your light so shine
before men, that they may see your good works, and
glorify your Father which is in heaven…But I say unto you,
Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you,
and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may
be the children of your
Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on
the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust…
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your
Father which is in heaven is perfect. (Mat 5:16,44-45,48)

Take heed that ye do
not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of
your Father which is in heaven…After this manner therefore
pray ye: Our
Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. (Mat 6:1,
9)

Insomuch that the
multitude wondered, when they saw the dumb to speak, the maimed to be whole,
the lame to walk, and the blind to see: and they
glorified the God of Israel. (Mat 15:31)

And immediately he rose
up before them, and took up that whereon he lay, and departed to his own
house, glorifying God. (Luke 5:25)

So
when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding nothing how
they might punish them, because of the people: for
all [men] glorified God for that which was done… And when
they heard that, they
lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord,
thou [art] God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that
in them is: (Acts 4:21, 24)

Virtually all epistles
in the New Testament start with words like: “I thank my
God always on your behalf, for the grace
of God which is given you by Jesus [the Messiah].”

So
take my advice and look for yourself. Only then you will know if there is
any truth to rabbi Singer’s allegations.

Celibacy (1:06:57)

Rabbi Singer then gives
his audience the impression that the New Testament teaches that celibacy is
the way to go and that being married is something one should only consider
when one “burns”. He does so to demonstrate that “the biggest knackers”
of the New Testament were all bachelors in contrast to prophets in the
Tenach. He then lists prophets who were married with children, to prove how
the teachings of the New Testament is anti-Tenach. But, as is the custom of
this rabbi, what he does again is not telling his audience the whole story
and conveniently leaves some of “the biggest knackers” in the Tenach out
of his line-up. Why? Because they don’t support the story he wants his
audience to hear. What about Jeremiah? What about Elijah? What about Elisha?
It’s obvious why he doesn’t mention them! So what does Paul mean? He is
saying that all people, who give themselves to God in ministry, would do
good to stay single for the purpose of being able to completely give
themselves to God without having to consider (read: compromise), for example,
how to feed their family, etc. What is so wrong about that?

Then the rabbi acts as
if Messianic Judaism has anything against physical pleasure. This is
absolutely erroneous. What Messianic Judaism DOES teach, is that the lure of
having too much physical pleasure is always there and can overtake a person.
And one should be careful not to get too carried away in the process. And
what is wrong about being worried about having sex and afterwards going to a
religious meeting? Notice that the question from “dear Abby” is not just
about having sex. It’s about having sex “on Sunday morning” (i.e.
before the meeting) and then going to the meeting right after. Doesn’t
Torah teach us that after having sex, we are physically unclean and remain
unclean until the evening? Then why is this being ridiculed by the rabbi?
First we are ridiculed for NOT keeping the Torah and now we are ridiculed
for asking questions that are derived from the Torah. Rabbi Singer’s
entire analysis is totally irrelevant.

Again you need to ask
yourself the important question: Why does rabbi Singer use these arguments
and does he make claims that are just untrue and why does he have to be
inconsistent in his approach in order to make his story stick? I’ll let
you decide for yourself.

In closing I would like
to point you to an interesting lecture of a Jewish man called Mariano
Grinbank, who gives an interesting insight about the messianic teachings
according to traditional Jewish sources. You can find his lecture called
“rabbinic Judaism” here: http://calvarysantafe.org/player.php?ServiceID=90

See how
you will find the traits of the Messiah in those sources. Rabbi Singer can say
all he wants about the Christian Messiah being foreign to Judaism, but his
sources say otherwise.

Nakdimon

Email me!

Back to the main page