Sukkos

Sukkos, the Feast of Tabernacles

The Date of the “Nativity”


On the night following Yom haKippurim it is customary to begin preparations for the next holy day which falls on the 15th night of Tishrei. Hag HaSuccoth, the Feast of Tabernacles, is an annual commemoration of the Exodus from Egypt. During this Festival, which is observed for seven days in Biblical law and, by authoritative Jewish custom, for eight days outside Israel, we are commanded to leave our homes and dwell in temporary structures (Succos/Succot) which represent of the temporary dwelling which protected us in the wilderness for forty years. On the eighth day is another related but independent holy day known as Shemini Atzereth, outside of Israel an extra day is also observed making a total of nine days (the final day is known as Simchath Torah).

Though there is no direct indication of such in the Christian Bible, many Messianics see Succos as being a very significant time in the life of the Nazarene. In their mind it represents, and possibly was, the date of his birth,¹ which would make his bris milah fall out on Shemini Atzereth. While there seems to be no traditional association between the Nazarene's birth and Succos by Christian there is a similar association made in a fairly early work known as the "Legend of Simon Peter" referenced by Alfred Edersheim. In Appendix 18 of his famous work "The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah" he summarizes this account of the apostolic period of the Church from a "Jewish" perspective. While I don't know that this work would carry much weight in Jewish tradition it is interesting to note that according to this legend Peter admonishes his followers to exchange the observance of Passover and Shavuos fifty days later with the anniversary of the Nazarene's death and his ascension forty days later. We then read "And instead of the Feast of Tabernacles observe the day of his birth, and on the eighth day after his birth observe that on which he was circumcised" (ibid page 1058). Considering the popularity of Edersheim among Messianics it is plausible that the current interest in linking Succos and the birth of the Nazarene originated here.

Of course once the link has been made there are those who find evidence in the Christian Bible for such a "Messianic" significance to Succos. When the Beis HaMikdash (Temple) stood there where 24 priestly families (see 1 Chronicles 24:7-18) that served for a week at a time each twice a year. Luke 1:5 informs us that John the Baptist's father Zechariah was in the division of Abijah. It was while serving for this division that Zechariah saw an Angel who told him that John the Baptist would be born. Using this information as a guide it is estimated that Zechariah was serving in the Beis HaMikdash approximately mid-Sivan since Abijah was the 8th division and all divisions could serve during the weeks of Passover and Shavuos making it the 10th week. Luke 1:26 then tells us that Zechariah's wife Elizabeth was six months pregnant when an angel appeared to Mary to inform her that she was going to have the Nazarene. This would bring us to mid Kislev, which would be a week or so before Chanukah. Assuming Mary conceived at that time we could then count forward nine and a half months which would bring us to a birth in Tishre, the month of Sukkos.

There are numerous problems with this but I think the most important is assuming any specific significance to the fact that someone may be born on Sukkos. The Torah gives us no indication of Sukkos being linked with the birth of Moshiach or anyone else. Furthermore at best we have presented in this theory a ball park estimate of when he was born, nothing so clear as to establish a perfect alignment. In fact my calculations of the above evidence would put the birth in early Tishrei closer to Rosh Hashanah or Yom Kippur. As I figure, roughly one in twelve people are born in Tishrei! In my own household three of us, including myself, where born in the month of Tishrei. Without any clear indication from the Torah, or even the Christian Bible, it seems like quite a stretch to spiritually link Sukkos with the birth of the Nazarene simply because the latter may have occurred in the same month.

Furthermore the entire calculation above is a bit arbitrary. Remember each priestly family served twice annually. This calculation picks the week which the division of Abijah served from the first half of the year with no justification other than doing so causes the Nazarene's birthday to fall out "correctly". One novel approach to justify this course is through using the death of Herod as evidence. The Nazarene was very publicly presented at the Beis HaMikdosh in Jerusalem on the fortieth day after birth yet when the Magi visit Herod in search of the new born king Herod is unaware of him. It is suggested therefore that the Magi had visited him before or around the time the Nazarene was born and he must have died shortly thereafter before the Nazarene was presented in the Beis HaMikdosh. Since Josephus recorded that Herod died in September, around the time of Sukkos. As such working backward it would seem that Zechariah must have been serving in the earlier week rather than the one in the latter half of the year. Nevertheless the difficulty of this view should be apparent to any Sunday School student. Matthew clearly records that the Nazarene's family fled to Egypt to escape Herod and remained there until his death after which they moved to Nazareth (Matthew 3:13-23).

The starting point is also uncertain. Zechariah was serving as a priest when he received the visit from the angel, not from when John the Baptist was conceived. The laws of ritual purity would have prevented John from being conceived during the week his father served in the Beis HaMikdosh. Additionally when the angel visited Mary he told here that she would conceive, implying that she had yet to do so (Luke 1:31). And though the "sixth month" in Luke 1:26 seems to refer to the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy with John the Baptist it is not certain that it does not mean the sixth month of the year. If so since Tishrei is the seventh month, then the Nazarene's birth would be nowhere in the vicinity. And note that it says "in" the sixth month, not six months later. The numbers are fuzzy enough to give quite a bit of flexibility.

On that note it is interesting to read the 7th Appendix in Edersheim's "The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah". In it, it is noted that according to Josephus and the Talmud that when the Beis HaMikdash was destroyed that the priestly family of Jehoiarib was serving. Working backwards he estimates that Zechariah was serving in early October, which would make December 25th a plausible date for the birth of the Nazarene. The very same approach used by Messianics is utilized by others to promote Christmas as being a reasonable day to celebrate the Nativity!

Looking on the positive side I believe this attempt at correlating Sukkos with the Nazarene's birth represents an attempt at carefully observing the details of the text that I think is frankly is often lacking. Nevertheless, as we see all too often, the details are arranged to fit the pre-conceived picture. A picture which is without basis in the Torah's original command. The fact that each piece of evidence contains uncertainty, some a great deal, is ignored. Furthermore this is not only presented as a possibility which a believer might accept on faith since it fits their worldview. It is presented as an apologetic tool to persuade the non believer that the Nazarene is prefigured in the Yomim Tovim, despite the shortcomings in the evidence.

Symbolism of the Sukkah

Succos takes its name from the fact that during this festival we build a temporary shelter, called a Sukkah, to dwell in. The Torah tells us (Vayikra 23:43) that these succos represent the succos that the B'nei Yisrael lived in while they traveled through the desert after the Exodus. There are two general approaches to understanding what "succos" the Torah meant. One approach is that it refers to the physical makeshift homes they made for themselves. The second is that they where the Aneinei HaKavod, the Clouds of Glory, which the Torah tells us was the true protection God provided Yisrael (Israel) from their wilderness environment. Nevertheless Messianics see in the Sukkah Christological symbolism, so that while their may be no solid evidence to date the Nazarene's birth at Sukkos they believe there is nevertheless a prophetic message contained in the Sukkah to point to the Nazarene's birth.

The first, and more basic, supposed parallel is the Nazarene's birth in a manger. It is a well known story of Joseph and Mary traveling to Bethlehem but unable to find a place to lodge. Ultimately they are forced to stay in a stable where Mary ends up giving birth. Just as we dwell in temporary shelters on Sukkos, the Nazarene was born in a temporary shelter (actually it appears from Luke 2:7 that he wasn't actually born IN the manger, just placed their after birth). And it has also been suggested that Joseph and Mary where not just going to Bethlehem for the census but for the Succos pilgrimage to Yerushalayim, Bethlehem being a very short distance away. The inn was full because of the unusual number of guests due to the pilgrimage. This is difficult to assume however since Luke says that they stayed in the manger because of the inn being full. If it was Sukkos they would have dwelt in such a temporary structure because of the commandment to do so. And with the inn being full of guests would such a readably available Sukkah have remained unclaimed? Furthermore in contrast to a Sukkah, a manger is not a temporary shelter, it is a permanent shelter for animals. Luke's account of this story does not make any connection with Sukkos nor otherwise indicate the Nazarene was born/placed in a "temporary" shelter. Rather than relate the events to Succos, Luke seems to be contrasting the Nazarene's greatness with his humble origin. The only similarity between a Sukkah and the manger is a vague mental image of visual similarities that might have been between the two.


On a "deeper" level the Sukkah is seen as a symbol of the very incarnation of the Nazarene. “Yet, did you notice the metaphor John employs to describe this incarnation of the Messiah? The Word “dwelt” among his people [John 1:14]. The Greek word skene is a rich word derived from “tabernacle.” In other words, as John sought to describe the Messiah’s first coming to his people, the most obvious picture was the holy day of Sukkot…” (Kasdan, page 95). Just as we leave our homes for a temporary dwelling during Sukkos, the Nazarene supposedly left heaven to take on physical body. This parallel is also a stretch since it doesn't fit with Christian theology. In Christianity the incarnation represents the second person of the Trinity taking on an additional human nature. But this is not a temporary occurrence but a permanent one. As Ron Rhodes writes "It is significant that the verb lives ("in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form [Col. 2:9] is a present-tense verb, indicating continuing, durative action. The thought is that in Christ the fullness of deity permanently resides...Even today, Jesus in his glorified human body is the fullness of deity in bodily form." (page 50-51). This point might be illustrated by the story of the post resurrection appearance of the Nazarene to Thomas. Thomas had scoffed at the idea of the resurrection and noted he would only believe it when he saw the Nazarene with his wound marks. When the Nazarene appeared to him, we are told, the Nazarene showed him those very wounds. The incarnation does not represent a "temporary dwelling" of the Nazarene in flesh, but his moving into a new and eternal home of flesh and blood.

So while Christians may see a number of apparent parallels between Sukkos and the birth of the Nazarene they contain more hope than substance. The concept of dwelling for a week in a temporary shelter does not have any true connection to the event of the Nazarene's birth, neither the physical surroundings nor metaphysical event which supposedly took place. And these supposed parallels are certainly not strong enough to compel us to accept them or to make it appear more likely that the doctrines of Christianity are hinted at in our Torah.

1 “The Scriptures seem to indicate to us that Yeshua was born during the festival season of Sukkot (Tabernacles). In fact, I believe that [he] was born on the Feast of Sukkot” The Seven Festivals of the Messiah Edward Chumney, page 178. “Would such an important event as the birth of the messiah go unheralded by one of these biblical feasts? Of all of the feasts of the Lord, Sukkot best illustrates the fact that…through the presence of the Messiah.” God's Appointed Times, Barney Kasdan, page 96. Lockyer, in All the Messianic Prophecies of the Bible does not notice such an allusion in his presentation of the Feast of Tabernacles

Kapores (Yom HaKippurim)

Kapores

The custom of Kapores is an ancient one in which a chicken is revolved around one’s head while reciting several verses from the T’nakh and the chicken is slaughtered. Christian apologists will suggest that this demonstrates that Judaism understands that blood sacrifice is a precondition for salvation, and therefore illustrates the need for the Nazarene’s “atoning” death, “This concept [the necessity of blood] was so ingrained in the Jewish psyche that to this day many Orthodox Jews around the world still offer a blood sacrifice on the eave of Yom Kippur (or in some circles, the eve of Rosh Hashanah)” ¹

This citation and many others tend to identify this ritual as a “sacrifice”. ² Indeed, the symbolism of this ritual is borrowed from one of the lessons derived from sacrifices, that a person should reflect on the fact that through sin he himself as become worthy of punishment and even death. Nevertheless the word sacrifice does not appear in the phrase and is not used in reference to this ritual. In fact the entire reason why a chicken is the preferred animal for the ceremony is precisely because a chicken is not a suitable offering to be brought as a sacrifice. And as a whole Christians look very unfavorably upon the practice, even while citing it as supporting evidence for their belief. The truth is that while I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that there are, as of writing this piece I have never heard of a Messianic Christian performing the Kapores ritual unlike many other Jewish/ “Rabbinic” customs which they have adopted.

The ritualization of animal slaughter is going to evoke comparison with sacrifice. Indeed the practice made many great halachic authorities uncomfortable, notably Rabbi Yosef Karo ztz”l (the author of the Shulchan Aruch) ruled that the practice should be stopped (ibid Orach Chaim 605:1). Ritualization of animal slaughter outside of the Temple Service raised concerns of non-Jewish practices (Darchei Emori). Nevertheless many rabbinic authorities have supported the practice and guidelines given to distinguish it from sacrifice have been set in place.

A large part of the problem, at least in contemporary times, is that many people have very little concept of sacrifices beyond the notion of a ritualized slaughter of an animal (often related to atonement of sin). Of course the primary symbolism of sacrifice, if it’s correct to call it symbolism, is still seen in its synonym “offering”. A sacrifice is a gift to one’s deity, whether it is the Lord of the Hebrews or (חו"ש) pagan deities. Indeed while Orthodox Jews look forward to the re-institution of the Temple service and its sacrifices and Christians typically see them as having been superseded this has led to a bit of a paradox. The notion of sacrifice in its primary sense, to offer a gift of to God, plays a larger active role in Christianity today than in Judaism. The act of collecting “offerings” in Church is heavily tied to the notion of sacrifice in its primary sense, giving as it where to God. Conversely since Orthodox Judaism restricts sacrifices (strictly speaking) to the Temple service in accordance with Torah law, (in my experience at least) it is less common to hear appeals for charity or maintaining communal institutions be made in terms of “giving to God” (although either community does make use of the term tithe beyond its strict usage in the sacrificial ritual of the Torah). At any rate, in neither instance does the believer act because they believe God actually “needs” their assistance, whether it is an animal or monetary, but because it is good for us to serve Him. Whether it is an appropriate custom or not the ritual of Kaporos is simply not an offering to God, thus not a sacrifice.

While there are general restrictions which cover sacrifices nowhere in the entire Bible do we find a general command to bring a blood sacrifice to atone for one’s sin or any indication that such an offering would be efficacious. If blood is a requisite for atonement it is because the Torah has commanded specific sacrifices where the blood is offered. If there is a way to achieve atonement without having brought the sacrifices prescribed by the Torah, all of which are prescribed for particular situations, there is no reason to suggest that blood is required or effective. Furthermore, one who brings a sacrifice which is not in conformity with the Torah’s commandments regarding sacrifice, whether they are offering a chicken or a human sacrifice, are not only failing to meet the requirements of the Torah they are transgressing the command of the Torah. While the Kaporos is not a sacrifice to God and an animal invalidated for sacrificial purposes is used to emphasize that, the Nazarene’s death is alleged to be a sacrifice despite the fact that there is no command in the law of Moses which it fulfills and several which it runs afoul of.

So while it is asserted that the ritual of kaporos is an indication that blood sacrifice is necessary,³ the blood of the “kaporos” isn’t really part of the ritual. In sacrificial offerings the blood was used in various rituals such as sprinkling it upon the altar. The only ritual associated with the blood of the Kaporos is when a chicken is used the blood must be covered with earth as is commanded in Vayikra (Leviticus) 17:13 with regard to all non-sacrificial blood. Furthermore an early version of this ritual recorded by Rashi (Shabbos 81b) does not use animals at all and contemporary alternative versions of this ritual use money. Accordingly the ritual highlights that neither the Torah nor Jewish thought see blood sacrifice as prerequisite for “salvation” from sin. It is one thing to disagree with Jews about the meaning of the Jewish Scriptures, but it is a little misguided to tell us what our intent really is when performing traditional customs.

The Temple service on Yom haKippurim (Vayikra/Leviticus 16) is the highlight of the service in the Beis HaMikdash (Temple), but it was revealed in response to an immense tragedy (Vayikra/Leviticus 16:1). Two priests, Nadav and Avihu, the sons of Aaron the High Priest took it upon themselves to enter the Holy of Holies and offer sacrifices of their own which God had not commanded. For this they died by a fire from Heaven. The Kaporos ritual can be an appropriate tool to remind us of certain lessons which we also see in the sacrificial service, such as our own liability to punishment for our sins, but it is extremely important to be clear that it is not a sacrifice. The Torah gives us very specific guidelines on how, when, and where to offer sacrifices and while Torah says that those sacrifices can be efficacious for bringing atonement it makes no such general claim regarding sacrifices. Indeed other sacrifices just bring more guilt.

1 Michael L. Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Vo. 2, page 109.

2 Likewise Rich Robinson states, “The Yiddish phrase shlogn kapores translates roughly as, "swinging the atoning sacrifice’” (http://jewsforjesus.org/blog/20090826) although the world sacrifice never appears in the Yiddish.

3 “Those who observed it in the past and those who observe it today do so because of a recognition that blood is necessary for true atonement to occur.” (http://mysterysolvedwithmessiahjesus.wordpress.com/2009/10/02/reflections-on-the-kaparot-prayersacrifice/ )

Yom Teruah is "Rosh HaShannah"

It is well known, of course, that the Chumash identifies the month of Nissan (during which we were redeemed from Egypt) as the beginning of the Jewish year. What I haven't seen as clearly recognized is that the month of Tishrei is not only identified as a "new year" by our Sages but is based in the T'nakh:

Three pilgrimage festivals shall you celebrate for Me during the year. You shall observe the Festival of Matzos; seven days shall you eat matzos, as I have commanded you, at the appointed time of the month of springtime, for in it you left Egypt; you shall not be seen before Me empty-handed. And the Festival of the Harvest [Shavuos] of the first fruits of your labor that you sow in the field; and the Festival of Ingathering [Succos] at the close of the year when you gather in your work from the field. (Ex. 20:14-16, Artscroll)

And emphasizing that the close of one year is the beginning of another:

You shall count for yourself seven cycles of sabbatical years, seven years seven times; the years of the seven cycles of sabbatical years shall be for you forty-nine years.You shall sound a broken blast on the shofar, in the seventh month, on the tenth of the month; on the Day of Atonement you shall sound the shofar throughout your land. You shall sanctify the fiftieth year and proclaim freedom throughout the land for all of its inhabitants (Leviticus 25:8-10)

We see clearly that the Sabbatical and Jubilee years begin in Tishrei. The Navi Yechezkel goes on to call "the tenth day of the month" which is most appropriately identified as Yom Kippur (The Day of Atonement, the only holiday which falls on the 10th of the month and which marks the liberation at the start of the Jubilee year as we just saw) "b'Rosh Hashannah", at the beginning of the year (Ezekiel 40:1).

It is incontestable that Tishrei marks the transition from one year to the other. It is also incontestable that while the Exodus took place in the middle of Nissan, the begging of Nissan is regarded as the "New Year". It is therefore clear that while the month of Tishrei has the character of the start of the year, it is implicit that the specific day to associate as being the "New Year" would be the first day of the month...Yom HaTeruah, which is not given explicit significance in Chumash.

Unity of God

While there are several significant theological disagreements between Christianity and Judaism, one difference stands head and shoulders above the rest in significance. This disagreement is whether or the Mashiach is God "incarnate." Prior to analyzing the correctness of this doctrine we must try to gain some understanding of what is meant.

I will, for the most part, be dealing with a traditionally orthodox Christian view of the Trinity. While it is correct to say, "the word Trinity is not found anywhere in the New Testament, and it may confuse the issue for you",¹ I believe the doctrine of the Trinity found in the traditional creeds represents the best attempt at reconciling the various relavent passages in the Christian Bible. Furthermore I’m inclined to believe that the orthodox Chrsitan Trinity is probably the least theologically problematic approach to the belief that the Nazarene is divine, short of those who reject this belief altogether (and a number of those still tend to show a level of devotion to the Nazarene that is inappropriate for a mere human.) As such while I may touch on [contextually] heterodox notions of the Trinity, they will not be my main focus. Similarly while we well attempt to deal with other aspects of the doctrine of the Trinity which are troublesome, our main concern is with the claim that the Nazarene is divine, the "second person" of the Trinity.

Even if we were to concede that the Trinity does constitute monotheism, it consistently undermines the monotheistic theology of the T’nakh. Even if the T’nakh’s conclusions about monotheism were consistent with the Trinity, the doctrine of the Trinity unravels its threads and assaults the premises upon which those conclusion are drawn.

The Severity of the Issue

The "Incarnation"

The "Kenosis"

Elijah's Taunt

E-lohim

Iconography

¹Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus vol. 2, page 3. While the "may confuse the issue for you" in this context refers to non-Chrisitan Jews, in our context the use of the term "Trinity" may also put off readers who hold modified forms of the belief, while rejecting the term.

Isaiah 42:1-4

Who Heals Sick Followers?

Matthew 12:18-21

Behold My servant whom I shall uphold; My chosen one, whom My soul desired; I have placed My spirit upon him so he can bring forth justice to the nations. He will not shout nor raise his voice, nor make his voice heard in the street. He will not break [even] a bruised reed nor extinguish even flickering flax; but he will administer justice in truth. He will not slacken nor tire until he sets justice in the land and islands will long for his teachings. (Isaiah 42:1-4)

In the book of Matthew (12:15-21) we are told that the Nazarene healed many people and instructed them not to tell anyone, in supposed fulfillment of this passage which is cited in full. In so far as this passage has no direct connection with healing the sick its use seems quite random. Nevertheless let us ignore the tenuous link between it and the event it supposedly for-told and examine it more generically.

I believe that the simple meaning of the passage refers to (the righteous of) Israel, just as we see the term servant applied in Isaiah 44:1, and the passage continues (switching from speaking about the servant to speaking to the servant) and declares, "I will set you for a covenant to the people, for a light unto the nations" (vs.6). This latter phrase, "a light unto the nations", is famous to both Jews and Christians as articulating Israel’s role as a priestly nation. The full fulfillment will come in the Messianic era.

And while Rashi and the commentators cited by Ibn Ezra identify the servant of our passage with Israel, Radak and the Targum¹ identify the servant as the Mashiach. Accepting this interpretation for our discussion will help highlight the inadequacy of applying it to the Nazarene. The servant’s essential task is to establish justice. Two millennium after the New Testament informs us of the Nazarene’s birth, we still do not see the righteousness spoken of by the prophet, despite the fact that the servant "will not slacken nor tire until he sets justice in the land."

Nor does the description, "He will not shout nor raise his voice, nor make his voice heard in the street" seem particularly suitable for the Nazarene. In fact the Nazarene is often presented as preaching "in the streets". And while the typical image of the Nazarene does bring up images of a soft spoken individual, the picture presented when the Nazarene enters the Temple and turns over the money changers table, or his denunciation of the Pharisees in Mathew 23 doesn’t square well with this verse. Moreover the Radak, who applies this passage to the Mashiach, explains that the Mashiach will not have to raise his voice to influence people to accept his judgment since his authority will be universally accepted…certainly not the case with the Nazarene.

Ultimately we are left with no reason to see the Nazarene as fulfilling this passage and several reasons why applying it to him is not a good explanation. Even accepting the passage as referring to the Mashiach (rather than Israel in the Messianic era) we could only stretch it to apply to the Nazarene by claiming that he will, but has yet to, fulfill it. And of all passages this is the least likely to lend itself to such a claim because "he will not slacken nor tire until he sets justice in the land."

Whose Voice calls out in the Wilderness?

Isaiah 40:3

Matthew 3:3, Mark 1:3, Luke 3:4-6, John 1:23

"A voice calls out in the wilderness, ‘Clear the way of Hashem; make a straight path in the desert, a road for our God.’"

One of the few passages which all four Gospel cite focusing on a common application is Isaiah 40:3 which each of the Gospel writers understood as forecasting the coming of John the Baptist. Of particular interest is how this is presented in the Gospel of John:

Finally they said, "Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, ‘I am the voice of one calling in the desert, ‘Make straight the way for the Lord.’"¹

It must be realized that, at least according to the Gospel of John, John the Baptist envisioned himself as fulfilling this prophecy. While this doesn’t invalidate him from fulfilling it per se, it must be recognized that it was within his ability to actively control the events which are being presented as "fulfilled prophecies", namely preaching in the desert. By extension, given the relationship between the two it is not inconceivable that the Nazarene could have influenced John’s "fulfillment" in order that he would have the "anticipated" forerunner.²

This verse comes at the beginning of a passage known by its twice repeated opening word, "Nachamu", meaning "Console." This passage is the haftarah (Scripture reading from the prophets to supplement the weekly Torah portion) read on the first Shabbath following Tisha b’Av, the annual anniversary of the destruction of the Holy Beith HaMikdash (Jerusalem Temple). Following the three weeks in which we reflect over our loss we turn to this and other passages which offer hope for the future.

While some traditional Jewish commentators understand the prophecy as referring to the return of the exiles from Babylon³ others view it as Messianic⁴ and it’s traditional place among the haftaroth expresses our hopeful anticipation of a future application.

John the Baptist, however, did not raise his voice in consolation. He raised his voice in chastisement. John the Baptist did not present God as a redeemer, a shepherd who gathers His flock into His arms, but as one who comes to punish the strays. He said, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance." (Matthew 3:7, Luke 3:7).

This is not the message of parshath Nachamu. There are plenty of instances where Isaiah and the other prophets rebuked Israel, but that is not the message here. Here the message is consolation, "her iniquity has been forgiven; for she has received double for all her sins" (40:2). This was not the message of John the Baptist.

Despite most aspects of this "prophecy" being within his personal ability to fulfill, and an apparent intent to do so, John the Baptists only "fulfilled" the verse if it is superficial characterized as giving sermons in the wilderness (and insofar as he regularly attracted crowds, I’m not so sure how much we can even call his location "wilderness"). The message this passage said would be delivered was a very different one than that of John the Baptist. Meanwhile we still await for the days when Hashem will gather together His dispersed flock, not merely to their physical homeland, but to the "bosom" of His active providence.

Who did Rachel Weep for?

Jeremiah 31:14(15) 

Matthew 2:18

"Thus said Hashem: ‘A voice is heard on high, wailing, bitter weeping, Rachel weeps for her children; she refuses to be consoled for her children for they are gone.’"

The Gospel of Matthew (2:16-18) tells us that after the Magi (popularly referred to as Wise Men) failed to return to inform Herod of the location of the infant Nazarene, Herod ordered the execution of all baby boys under the age of two in order to annihilate him. Matthew found a prophecy of this in the verse quoted above, Jeremiah 31:14(15).

The verse refers to Rachel, one of the four matriarchs of Israel. The children she weeps for are those who had been sent into exile, "they are gone." This can be clearly seen by reading the next two verses, "Thus said Hashem: Restrain your voice from weeping and your eyes from tears; for there is reward for your accomplishment the word of Hashem--and they will return from the enemies land. There is hope for your future the word of Hashem and your children will return to their borders." Vs. 15,16 (16,17).

By reading the entire passage in context the meaning is clear. Rather than referring to a gloomy massacre in the future this prophecy is one of hope and comfort. Rather that "dying" in exile the prophet promises they will be "resurrected" by being brought back to their homeland.

Of course, Matthew’s account of Herod killing the young children in an attempt to assassinate his infant rival is not document despite a whole laundry list of historically recorded atrocities by Herod. While this is not definitive proof that it did not happen we have plenty of reason to be skeptical of Matthew’s claim. In particular it shows the frequently circular nature of Christian claims of fulfilled prophecy, our only record of it being fulfilled is a single passage in Matthew claiming it to be fulfilled despite having good reason to expect it to be otherwise documented.

Nor does this passage easily lend itself to a typological interpretation. While it is often suggested that as a member of, and indeed the king of, Israel, the events of Israel’s history can serve as an analogy typologically to the life of the Nazarene. Here, however, the Nazarene escaped the event the analogy was predicated upon, while it was the children of Bethlehem and its environs which suffered. Furthermore, while the Jeremiah passage speaks of Exile, and subsequent return, Matthew speaks of death. The analogy between the two is superficial.

Who is the "Holy Spirit" Pourt Out On?

Joel 3:1-4 (2:28-32)

Who is the "Holy Spirit" Poured Out On?

Acts 2:17-21

"And it will happen after this that I will pour out My spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and daughters will prophesy; your elders dream [prophetic] dreams, and your young men will see visions. Even also upon the slaves and upon the maidservants in those days I will pour out My spirit. I will set wonders in the heavens and on earth: blood and fire and pillars of smoke; the sun will turn to darkness and the moon to blood [red]."

As we have discussed, the intent of this section has been to analyze the various verses from the Hebrew Bible (T'nakh) which have been cited by the Christian Bible to demonstrate that the Nazarene is the Messiah. There is, however, a degree of subjectivity on what to include. It is not uncommon for verses to be alluded to without being directly cited. Similarly, it can be questionable whether to include a citation under the category of supporting the claim that the Nazarene was the Messiah. One verse which made the cut when I made my original listing a very long time ago was Joel 2:28. Peter cites this verse in a speech reported in Acts 2, but rather than a direct application to the Nazarene Peter applied it to the events of the day he spoke, what came to be known as Pentecost (after the Greek term for the holiday of Shavuot when it occurred). Peter argues that rather than being intoxicated so early in the morning, the "unusual" behavior of the believers speaking in "tongues" was "spoken by the prophet Joel" (Acts 2:16) citing our verse.

The events of the day of "Pentecost" were clearly not an actual fulfillment of Joel's prophecy. Even where we to concede that the one hundred and some odd believers in the Nazarene were filled with God's spirit, this would hardly constitute "all flesh". Nothing unusual was reported about the sun or the moon. Joel's passage is speaking of an event to take place at the end of times, and whether Peter himself in the end times, time has shown that not to be the case.

Frequently expositors and commentators have used such expressions as "initial fulfillment,"partial fulfillment,"near fulfillment," or something comparable to speak of Peter's use of Joel 2:28-32 in his Acts 2 sermon. That language gives the wrong impression because the Old Testament passage did not predict what happened on the Day of Pentecost. What happened on that day was an ISPA of Joel 2, whose authority was the Acts passage, not the Joel passage. The phenomena on the Day of Pentecost were in no sense a fulfillment of Joel's prophecy, a prophecy that pertained to the people of Israel, not the church. The relevance of the happenings on that day were an ISPA of the Joel passage to an entirely different situation by Peter and Luke who recorded his words. It is misleading to call them in any sense a fulfillment of Joel.(Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Versus the Old, page 263)

For Thomas the meaning of this verse given by Peter in Act is on the sole authority of Peter. Although not everyone is as ready deny the predictive power of T'nakh passages which are cited by the Christian Bible beyond their contextual meaning, no one else presents clear and consistent hermeneutical techniques to illustrate how a reader of those verses could have anticipated that they carried an additional prophetic meaning.

Nor is it particularly easy to designate this as a "typological fulfillment" because on the one hand it has not yet occurred, while typology generally makes analogies to historical events:"When the fulfillment passages are typological the New Testament writers present the typology...as a contermporary event analogous to God's past action."(Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation, page 51). Perhaps being predicted by a true prophet makes it as good as done, but it still remains a little backwards to suggest a typological fulfillment of an event yet future. Additionally "biblical typology, as evidenced in the writings of the New Testament, always involves a heightening of the type in the antitype." (Hank Hanagraaff, The Complete Bible Answer Book, page 531). While one could argue that this is a counter example to that assertion, there is a certain reasonableness to the expectation that a typological significance would be of more importance that the antitype (at least if we are to ascribe any predictive/anticipatory aspect to the antitype). In our example however, the events described (prophetically) by Joel represent a much more widespread outpouring of God's spirit than the one described/asserted by the book of Acts.

In Joel the spirit of God is poured out upon all flesh, not only one hundred and twenty believers in the Nazarene. The only witness we have to its alleged "fulfillment" is the Christian Bible, to argue in support of Christian belief based on "facts" known only to the Christian Bible is circular. Furthermore, according to the events recorded in Acts even those present were not aware of the true nature of the events. Belief in "Pentecost" is a consequence of belief in the Christian Bible, not support for it. Accordingly Joel's verses cannot serve as evidence to support the claim that the Nazarene is Messiah, even indirectly.

Who is the "Great Light" of the Galilee?

Isaiah 8:23, 9:1 (9:1, 2)

Matthew 4:15-16

"For he was not wearied the first time [the land] was distressed, when [Assyria] exiled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but the last time [Assyria] will be severe, by the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, the region (g’lil) of the nations."(8:23)

"The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: those who dwelled in the land of the shadow of death, light has shown upon them." (9:1)

The Gospel of Matthew states that:

When Jesus heard that John had been put in prison, he returned to Galilee. Leaving Nazareth, he went and lived in Capernaum, which was by the lake in the area of Zebulun and Naphtali—to fulfill what was said through the prophet Isaiah: "Land of Zebulun and land of Naphtali, the way to the sea, along the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles—the people living in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death a light has dawned." (Matthew 4:12-16)

Why are the people Isaiah speaks of rejoicing? What is the great light which they have seen? From Matthew we would be led to believe that the rejoicing is due to the Nazarene’s ministry, but we will see from the passage itself a very different story.

As always it is necessary to understand the passage surrounding a verse to understand its true meaning. It is therefore impossible to discuss Isaiah 9:1 without examining Isaiah 9:5 as well. While it is one of the most popular missionary proof-texts, it is necessary to point out that the Christian Bible never indicates that Isaiah 9:5 is Messianic, so there is no theological reason that it must be understood as Messianic even for a Bible-believing Christian if the context implies otherwise (i.e. Isaiah 9:5 need not be any more Messianic because 9:1 is cited than Hosea 11:2 is Messianic because Hosea 11:1 is cited). Although the opening verse of this passage is cited by Matthew we have seen that Matthew’s interpretations are not restricted by context and one certainly cannot infer he held otherwise connected verses to be likewise Messianic. As such there is not basis to argue that "‘scripture’ interprets scripture" (see Protestant Biblical Interpretation pages 55,58, 104) because there is no such application in the New Testament.

The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelled in the land of the shadow of death, light has shone upon them. You exalted the nation, You increased its joy. They rejoiced before You like the joy of harvest time as they would exult when they divide spoils. For the yoke of its burden and the staff on its shoulder; the rod that oppressed them, You smashed like the day of Midian." (vs. 1-3).

They are rejoicing because they are no longer oppressed. To identify who the people are, and what the nature of the "great light" is, it will be useful to understand the nature of their oppression and what is meant by the phrase "the day of Midian." In the next chapter Isaiah proceeds to explain the nature of the "yoke" and the "rod",

I [God] will deal with the fruits of the Assyrian king's conceit, and with the glory of his arrogant eyes. For he said , 'With the strength of my hand have I accomplished --- It is as if a rod could shake those who lift it; as if a stick could lift one who is not wood! (Isaiah 10:12,14)

The King of Assyria is compared to a "rod", he was the tool with which Hashem used to discipline His people, but the king was conceited and thought it was do to his own greatness.

Therefore, thus said My Lord Hashem/Eloqim, Master of Legions: Do not be afraid of Assyria, O My people who dwell in Zion, though he will strike you with a staff and raise his rod over you in the manner of Egypt. For in a very short while, My fury and My anger will destroy them for their sacrilege. Hashem, Master of Legions, will arouse a rod upon him like the defeat of Midian at the rock of Oreb and His staff as at the Sea of Reeds, and carry him away in the manner of Egypt. It will be on that day that He will lift [Assyria's] affliction from your shoulders, and his yoke from upon you neck, and the yoke will be broken because of the oil. (Isaiah 10:24-27)

This passage uses the image of the "yoke" and "rod", reflecting those found in Isaiah 9 and here see clearly that it refers to Assyria and the people oppressed are "My people who dwell in Zion". Furthermore we see yet another reference to Midian. This allusion is to the battle led by Gideon found in Judges 7 and 8. Again, in Isaiah 9:3 we read, "For the yoke of its burden and the staff on its shoulder; the rod that oppressed them. You smashed like the day of Midian" and here we see the defeat of Assyria likened to, like the defeat of Midian at the rock of Oreb.

So now we know why the people are rejoicing, because Assyria was defeated and no longer oppressed them, the light they saw was that of freedom. But this victory will be unusual, "For every victor shout sounds with clamor, and garments wallow in blood, but this shall be burnt, consumed by fire." (vs. 4) Although there is typically much chaos during a battle, this one is described as "consumed by fire". It is therefore little surprise that latter Isaiah describes the downfall of the king of Assyria using similar imagery in Isaiah 10:16-18.

"For a child has been born to us" (vs. 5). These unusual events are because, i.e. "for" a child has been born. Who was this child that his birth led to the downfall of Assyria? Although it is common for Christian apologist to interpret Isaiah 9:5 as predicting the Nazarene, Assyria fell many years before the Nazarene was born. However if we read latter on in Isaiah we see that King Hezekiah prays,

Hear all the words of Sennacherib that he has sent to insult the living God! Indeed Hashem, the kings of Assyria have destroyed all the countries and their land. So now Hashem, our God save us from his hand, then all the kingdoms of the world shall know that You alone are Hashem. (Isaiah 37:18-20)

Hashem then responds that He will protect the city. Hashem destroys the Assyrian army with an angel and Sennacherib king of Assyria was killed by his sons while worshiping his idol (see Isaiah 37:33-38). Assyria was defeated in answer to the prayer of Hezekiah, "For a child has been born to us." It was Hezekiah who bore authority, and the responsibility of leadership, on his shoulders and through successfully recognizing the true source of protection Israel achieved respite from Assyria during Hezekiah’s reign.

As this verse continues we find the thrust of the Christian understanding is found in the passage, "Vayikra shmo Pele Yoatz E--l Gibor Avi-ad Sar-Shalom." (vs. 5) There is a couple ways this can be understood, and opinions differ amongst traditional Jewish commentators. 1) He (Hashem) called his (Hezekiah) name, "Pele Yoatz E-l Gibor Avi-ad Sar-Shalom." 2) He (Hezekiah) called His (Hashem) name, etc." 3) Pele Yoatz E-l Gibor Avi-ad (Hashem) called his (Hezekiah) name, "Sar-shalom". We will focus on the first approach since it best parallels the implication Christians see in it.

Hebrew names often are a way of telling the praise of God, therefore the name could apply to Hezekiah and still refer to Hashem completely. It is therefore unnecessary to say, as many Christians do, that since the name mentions God, it is calling Hezekiah God, because many if not most Hebrew names make similar mention of God.

Second if you say that the name is given to Hezekiah because of his own attributes then you could translate the name, "A wondrous adviser is the mighty God, everlasting father, prince of peace." (the verb "to be" i.e. "is" is often implied in Hebrew, left unsaid.) or "Wondrous adviser of the mighty God, everlasting Father, prince of peace." or "the Mighty God's wondrous adviser, eternal father, prince of peace." Likewise E--l Gibor can be translated as "mighty, strong", although E-l typically refers to God it is a root that means "strong" and is applied to many things including mountains.

So we have several possibilities: 1. The name could apply to Hashem 2. The name could apply to Hezekiah but speak of Hashem 3. It could describe Hezekiah. 4. Some sages, who were perfectly familiar with Hebrew, clearly saw no implication of deity to the name since they attributed it to Hezekiah when they could follow the opinion of those who attributed it to Hashem.

"To him who increases the authority and for peace without end, on David's throne and on his kingdom to establish it and support it with justice and with righteousness; from now and to "eternity", the zeal of the Lord of Hosts shall accomplish this." (vs. 6)

"Peace without end" and "Eternity" does sound Messianic, and indeed this passage is given a secondary midrashic interpretation in Jewish tradition (though the peace we associate with the Messianic era has yet to be achieved). Before exploring any secondary application we must understand these terms according to their primary, contextual meaning. "Peace without end" (אַן־קֵץ) means "without limit". Hezekiah's reign had unlimited peace to the point that when Assyria went to attack him an angel of God defeated the army before they battled (Isaiah 37:36). The word for eternity, עוֹלם, can mean "for life," such as the use in 1 Samuel 1:22 where Hannah explains that once weaned her son Samuel will settle at the Tabernacle "forever" in accordance with her promise. Unlike the Nazarene who claimed his kingdom was not of this world, Hezekiah in actuality "established" the throne of David for his entire life.

"To him who increases the authority and limitless peace on David's throne and on his kingdom to establish it and support it with justice and with righteousness; from now until his life, the zeal of the Lord of Hosts shall accomplish this." (vs. 6, emphasis mine) A careful reader may have noticed that this phrase was used in the passage I quoted from earlier. Hashem told Hezekiah that he would protect them from Assyria and then destroyed them with an angel, this was described as the, "zeal of the Lord of Hosts shall accomplish this" (Isaiah 37:32).

Through and through we see that this is a reference to the salvation of Israel from Assyria under the reign of King Hezekiah. The great light seen by those who walked in darkness was the salvation from Assyria under King Hezekiah. Hezekiah is the child Isaiah foretold in this passage and it is through his leadership that Judah did not surrender to Sennacherib and it was in answer to his prayer that the Assyrian army was consumed like fire by the zeal of Hashem. His reign was one filled with peace. Even when he erred by showing the messengers of Babylonia his wealth, God deferred the punishment until after his death and Hezekiah was able to console himself that "there shall be peace and truth in my own days." (Isaiah 39:8).

You may have noticed that at this point any discussion of Isaiah 8:23 has been conspicuously absent. This is, in part, because Matthew’s quotation of this verse leaves half of its text conspicuously absent (leaving only the place names). To illustrate, "For he was not wearied the first time [the land] was distressed, when [Assyria] exiled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but the last time [Assyria] will be severe, by the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, the region (g’lil) of the nations."(8:23). Of course translations of this verse are divergent. While the KJV is in accord with the Jewish translations (such as the one I have used) the NIV and others have a very different reading. We find in McGee:

The translation of this verse is not established. Actually, contrary meanings are suggested. this poses no problem to the reverent mind but reveals a divine purpose in permitting both to be possible. 'And afterward did more grievously afflict her by way of the sea, beyond Jordan in Galilee of the nations.' Others have translated it: 'But in the latter time hath he made it glorious, by the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations.' It is difficult to see how both translations, 'more grievously afflict' and 'made it glorious,' can be sustained, but I believe it is enigmatic for a reason. The first translation would refer to the near fulfillment when God did afflict the northeastern portion of the land comparatively lightly in the invasion of the Syrians an later brought heavier sufferings upon them in carrying away the people into captivity by the Assyrians (see 2 Kings 15:29). But the other translation, 'hath he made it glorious,' refers to the far fulfillment in the first coming of Christ. (Thru the Bible with J. Vernon McGee,Vol. 3, page 219)

Either version makes a comparison between an early event, and a later event.

Even beyond the fact that the Massoretic text places this verse at the end of the previous chapter, the full texts makes it clear that the locations mentioned have a significance other than to identify the places "those who saw a great light" where located. Zebulun and Naphtali where part of the Northern Kingdom, which was destroyed by Assyria, while Isaiah 9 discuss’ the southern Kingdom being saved from Assyria. Quite opposite of Isaiah 9, Isaiah 8:23 recalls how initially (ka'eith harishon הָרִשׁוֹן כָּעֵת) Assyria defeated "all of the land of Naphtali and he exiled them to Assyria." (2 Kings 15:29), but warns the final wave would be more severe. It has no connection to the Messianic era and certainly was not discussing the region the Messiah was to teach.

Who will the Nations Seek?

Isaiah 11:10

Romans 15:12

"It shall be on that day that the descendant of Jesse who stands as a banner for the peoples, nations will seek him, and his resting place will be glorious."

We have been examining each verse of T’nakh cited by the Christian Bible as Messianic. We have followed them in the order in which they appear in the T’nakh and only now have we ran across one that actually refers to the Mashiach in it's primary meaning. So the question now is does this passage in anyway point to the Nazarene being that Mashiach?

In the book of Romans Paul writes, "For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God’s truth, to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs so that the Gentiles may glorify God for his mercy...And again, Isaiah says, 'The Root of Jesse will spring up, once who will arise to rule over the Nations, the Gentiles will hope in him.'" The first thing one might notice when comparing Paul’s quote to the actual text he refers to is that he begins midway through the first sentence. You will see that Paul omitted the phrase, "It shall be on that day".

But what day does Yeshayahu HaNavi (the Prophet Isaiah) speak of? Isaiah begins chapter 11 speaking of the coming of Mashiach. He elaborates about them in verse 6-9:

The wolf will live with the sheep and the leopard will lie down with the kid; and a calf, ca lion whelp and a fatling [will walk] together, and a young child will lead them. A cow and a bear will graze and their young will lie down together; and a lion, like cattle, will eat hay. A suckling will play by a viper's hole; and a newly weaned child will stretch his hand toward an adder’s lair. They will neither injure not destroy in all of My sacred mountain; for the earth will be as filled with knowledge of Hashem as water covering the sea bed.

Then we have our verse, "And it shall be on that day..."

Now some understand the above passage literally, that is, these animals shall live peacefully with man and each other. Others understand it symbolically, that humanity will live at peace with each other. Either way, has this level of peace ever been known on earth? Was it known at the time of the Nazarene? This type of peace is unknown in human history and since our verse takes place "on that day" it means that it has yet to occur. It has not yet been fulfilled by anyone.

Likewise we see that on that day the world is filled with knowledge of God. But throughout the history of the world their have been many false religions that have obscured the knowledge of Hashem. Then subsequent to our passage Isaiah again says, "It shall be on that day..." and describes the complete re-gathering of the exiles, another event which has yet to occur.

One also may have noticed that although Isaiah says, "nations (Goyim can imply nations or gentiles) shall seek him" while Paul quotes it as, "Gentiles will hope in him." So while Paul’s misrendering seems to suggest the Christian belief that people are saved through belief, or hope, in the Messiah, no such concept is suggested by the original. What is suggested is that the world will consult the Mashiach on how to properly serve God, as Isaiah said earlier, "He will teach us of His ways and we will walk in His paths". (2:3).

So, while this time the Christian Bible cites a legitimate prophecy of Mashiach, we see it in no way refers to the Nazarene. Suspiciously, the part of the verse that says it will occur at the time of the fulfillment of several other prophecies of Mashiach which the Nazarene did not fulfill is left out, and we are told explicitly that the seeking of the nations will occur "on that day." If the other prophecies have not been fulfilled then the "seeking" being described has yet to occur either. While often the discrepancy between what is claimed to be fulfilled and what hasn’t been fulfilled yet in the verses is explained by analogy with a mountain tops where it seems that the peaks are joined together but they are actually separated by a great valley. Here however, a "valley" of time is insufficient to explain the discrepancy because the supposedly fulfilled prophecy is to be preceded by events which have yet to take place.