I had the privilege together with two Palestinian friends, of talking with a former captain of the Israeli military.
I jumped into the conversation while one of my acquaintances was already asking him whether he believes in the Messiah.
He answered that he finds it difficult to accept the Christian concept of the Messiah.
What part? my acquaintance asked.
The Trinity, he said.
So my acquaintance asked him what he thinks Messiah should look like.
First up, he must be a son of David, he said.
He also added that there's no mention of the Messiah in the Torah, only later in the Prophets; and said the detail - such as whether or not Messiah was to be divine - is unclear.
My acquaintance mentioned the verse in Genesis where Eve was told that her seed would crush the head of the serpent, and the serpent would bruise his heel - as an example of the Messiah being mentioned [early] in the Torah.
The Jewish former captain answered that he's familiar with the verse but the verse could be taken a number of ways.
On the Trinity, I mentioned the verse in the Psalms where David said:
"My lord said to my lord, Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool".
We argued that it indicates plurality within the Godhead.
But he again answered that it can be taken a number of ways - and added that we may never know which way is right.
My friend mentioned the likelihood that plurality was also intended in Genesis, where God said:
"Let us make man in our image..."
But the former Captain answered that while it might be able to be taken as plural, it needn't necessarily be, he felt.
Whether or not the Name Elohim has inherent grammatical plurality, was also discussed.
I knew we wouldn't have much time with him, so I asked him whether logic alone can tell us which way is right.
He said, Probably not.
So we mentioned experiences. But he said an experience could have another explanation; and in any case, a person can't impose his experience onto someone else.
No, you've got to have your own experience, I said. We agreed.
And then something was said about our heart and sincerity being what is important no matter which way we take the Scriptures. And he said he thinks that's what God accepts.
But my friend mentioned that God promises [in the Jews' own Scriptures] to grant better clarity than that:
"...and you shall seek me, and you shall find me when you seek for me with all your heart".
I said that in the Law, God instilled the principle that without trusting in shed blood, there can be no forgiveness of sins. Would God all of a sudden just end that principle, for 2000 years, without any explanation? Or did He first provide a sacrifice which summed it all up.
That's a very good point, he said.
He wasn't given much more time with us. So I quickly suggested a way whereby we might be able to know what is truth. He listened:
Love, I said - whichever ideology or philosophy is most effective at producing love in a person - that might be a good litmus test for truth.
He nodded, thoughtfully.
It was a robust but friendly conversation.
We parted thanking him, with love in our hearts.
"For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again" (II Cor.5:14,15).
Among Christians the world over, all down through history, in every nation, there are so many testimonies of changed lives who suddenly became inspired to love. To love God, and love not only their friends, but also their enemies - from the heart.
Love comes from God, and someone who loves knows God, because God is love.
All the Law and Prophets hang on the twin commandments to love God and your neighbour. So someone who loves, fulfils the intent of the Law and Prophets.
Therefore love can be a good litmus test of truth.
And I think Christianity's effectiveness at achieving that has been without parallel in any other religion or philosophy.
As for Messiah being the son of David. If someone in future claims to be Messiah, he won't be able to prove his descent from David in the same way someone could prove it up until the end of the second Temple period or soon afterwards when the genealogies were lost.
So the only way to be certain of Messiah's identity, with genealogical attestation as required in the Jewish Scriptures themselves, is if He came in the second Temple period while the genealogies still existed.
And it would also have to have been late in the second Temple period - because Daniel prophesied that Messiah would appear within 70 'sevens' (or 490 years) from the date when the building of that Temple would be decreed. That places us approximately in Jesus' generation, not in our future.
Also, for another reference to the Messiah in the Torah.
In Genesis Abraham was promised that in his seed - seed singular, not seed plural - all families of the earth would be blessed.
Someone in future can't claim to be the seed of Abraham as assuredly as someone could up until the end of the second Temple period, because of the loss of genealogies.
So in order to discern who is Messiah, we ought to be looking for someone who:
I think there's only one person of whom all that can ever possibly be said, along with other Messianic descriptions and requirements - and that's Jesus of Nazareth.
I jumped into the conversation while one of my acquaintances was already asking him whether he believes in the Messiah.
He answered that he finds it difficult to accept the Christian concept of the Messiah.
What part? my acquaintance asked.
The Trinity, he said.
So my acquaintance asked him what he thinks Messiah should look like.
First up, he must be a son of David, he said.
He also added that there's no mention of the Messiah in the Torah, only later in the Prophets; and said the detail - such as whether or not Messiah was to be divine - is unclear.
My acquaintance mentioned the verse in Genesis where Eve was told that her seed would crush the head of the serpent, and the serpent would bruise his heel - as an example of the Messiah being mentioned [early] in the Torah.
The Jewish former captain answered that he's familiar with the verse but the verse could be taken a number of ways.
On the Trinity, I mentioned the verse in the Psalms where David said:
"My lord said to my lord, Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool".
We argued that it indicates plurality within the Godhead.
But he again answered that it can be taken a number of ways - and added that we may never know which way is right.
My friend mentioned the likelihood that plurality was also intended in Genesis, where God said:
"Let us make man in our image..."
But the former Captain answered that while it might be able to be taken as plural, it needn't necessarily be, he felt.
Whether or not the Name Elohim has inherent grammatical plurality, was also discussed.
I knew we wouldn't have much time with him, so I asked him whether logic alone can tell us which way is right.
He said, Probably not.
So we mentioned experiences. But he said an experience could have another explanation; and in any case, a person can't impose his experience onto someone else.
No, you've got to have your own experience, I said. We agreed.
And then something was said about our heart and sincerity being what is important no matter which way we take the Scriptures. And he said he thinks that's what God accepts.
But my friend mentioned that God promises [in the Jews' own Scriptures] to grant better clarity than that:
"...and you shall seek me, and you shall find me when you seek for me with all your heart".
I said that in the Law, God instilled the principle that without trusting in shed blood, there can be no forgiveness of sins. Would God all of a sudden just end that principle, for 2000 years, without any explanation? Or did He first provide a sacrifice which summed it all up.
That's a very good point, he said.
He wasn't given much more time with us. So I quickly suggested a way whereby we might be able to know what is truth. He listened:
Love, I said - whichever ideology or philosophy is most effective at producing love in a person - that might be a good litmus test for truth.
He nodded, thoughtfully.
It was a robust but friendly conversation.
We parted thanking him, with love in our hearts.
"For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again" (II Cor.5:14,15).
ooo00O00ooo
Relevant thoughts:
Love
Love comes from God, and someone who loves knows God, because God is love.
All the Law and Prophets hang on the twin commandments to love God and your neighbour. So someone who loves, fulfils the intent of the Law and Prophets.
Therefore love can be a good litmus test of truth.
And I think Christianity's effectiveness at achieving that has been without parallel in any other religion or philosophy.
Son of David
As for Messiah being the son of David. If someone in future claims to be Messiah, he won't be able to prove his descent from David in the same way someone could prove it up until the end of the second Temple period or soon afterwards when the genealogies were lost.
So the only way to be certain of Messiah's identity, with genealogical attestation as required in the Jewish Scriptures themselves, is if He came in the second Temple period while the genealogies still existed.
And it would also have to have been late in the second Temple period - because Daniel prophesied that Messiah would appear within 70 'sevens' (or 490 years) from the date when the building of that Temple would be decreed. That places us approximately in Jesus' generation, not in our future.
Messiah in the Torah
Also, for another reference to the Messiah in the Torah.
In Genesis Abraham was promised that in his seed - seed singular, not seed plural - all families of the earth would be blessed.
Someone in future can't claim to be the seed of Abraham as assuredly as someone could up until the end of the second Temple period, because of the loss of genealogies.
So in order to discern who is Messiah, we ought to be looking for someone who:
- appeared late in the second Temple period
- was a genealogically attested son of David and of Abraham
- someone in whom all nations of the earth have subsequently experienced blessing, justification, salvation
I think there's only one person of whom all that can ever possibly be said, along with other Messianic descriptions and requirements - and that's Jesus of Nazareth.
No comments:
Post a Comment