Critiquing Tovia Singer’s ‘Confused Texts and Testimonies’

A friend, who having been a Christian, while still embracing YHVH and His Torah, has now rejected Yeshua as being the end-times Messiah. She finds the articles and presentations of the Jewish anti-Missionary Tovia Singer to be good arguments for her position.

I have listened to a quite a number of his arguments and discussed some of them a little in the past. I have found Tovia to be a very knowledgeable and powerful presenter.

Recently she recommended his talk: ‘Confused Texts and Testimonies’ (see http://www.simpletoremember.com/media/a/confused-part-1/).

Below is a short commentary on where I see Tovia going astray in this presentation, most commonly in his miss-characterisation of the New Testament (NT).

Tovia is in many ways addressing a ‘straw-man argument’. He tackles the false Hellenistic interpretation of the NT, rather than what I believe the NT actually says.

For example, take the very first verse he quotes (which being the first is perhaps most typical of his whole approach). He quotes Mark 16:16, after stating that the text argues that you must believe that ‘Jesus is the Messiah to be saved and that you are condemned if you don’t believe this’.

But the text doesn’t actually state this. This verse is part of a final entreaty by Yeshua to the disciples to proclaim the Gospel, (the good news of the Kingdom of God) to all, and call people to trust in this good news (and that if they don’t trust it, they will not enter the Kingdom).

For example the CJB has: “Then he said to them, “As you go throughout the world, proclaim the Good News to all creation.Whoever trusts and is immersed (baptised) will be saved; whoever does not trust will be condemned.” – Mark 16:15-16

This is a very significant distinction. Yeshua never argued that people need to believe in him, but that instead they believe in HaShem, repent and so enter the future age, the Kingdom of God or Olam Ha’Bah.

Similarly, the next verse he quotes is 2 Thess 1:8.  2 Thessalonians is one of 4 epistles of Rav Sha’ul (the Apostle Paul)  that many scholars believe is pseudepigraphical (not written by Sha’ul).

Regardless of whether it is a genuine epistle of Rav Sha’ul or not, what it actually states is that “those who don’t listen to the Good News of our Lord Yeshua …”, are not going to enter the Kingdom. This verse then, just as with Matt 16:16, is speaking about the ‘Good News’ or Gospel, that is, about the Olam Ha’Bah and not specifically about (believing in) Yeshua.

Yet Tovia argues that this verse is stating that those who don’t accept Jesus as their Lord and Saviour are damned. It simply doesn’t say this. Tovia’s argument is false and in fact I suspect perhaps even blatantly and blindly so. While there is much wisdom in what Tovia Singer shares,  I am not convinced from all the messages and articles of his that I have read that he has really tried to honestly and critically approach the actual text, rather than just addressing the false interpretations of the ‘text’ by Hellenistic Christianity.

Tovia next quotes John 15:6, which is part of the ‘fruit of the vine’ message. While this passage is closer in alignment and agreement to Tovia’s argument, the context though is that it is only addressing those who are Yeshua’s followers or disciples, so it still doesn’t fully fit Tovia’s argument.

Tovia argues that the Christian argument based on these verses is that ‘if you believe in Jesus you are saved and if you don’t you are going to hell’. The problem is that, while this does indeed represent the standard Christian message, it is NOT the message of these NT scriptures.

He then refers to John 14:6, where on face value he is correct in what he contends it states, except that again, Yeshua is speaking specifically to his disciples, not to all Israelites or to Gentiles. This is one passage though that I suspect has been corrupted in some way or to some degree. It seems to almost be a reference to ‘the Way’ so powerfully expressed through Psalm 119. Ps 119 speaks repeatedly of ‘the way, truth and the life’, which is through obedience to Torah (not to following or obeying a man, even the man, the Messiah).

John 14, and specifically 14:6 as we have it, seems almost in total contradiction to the rest of the words and deeds of Yeshua as declared in the Synoptic Gospels, where he nowhere puts the focus on himself, but only on YHVH and His Message of the Coming Age.

Tovia then uses as a (counter) example the contrast of the Nazi Eichmann versus all the innocent Jewish people he sent to the gas chamber. Apparently Eichmann ‘accepted Jesus’ 2 days before he was hanged, and according to the (Hellenistic) Christian take, is now ‘saved’ whereas all the Jews he murdered are (apparently) condemned to Hell.

I agree with Tovia that this stark contrast is indeed unacceptable in its message of injustice and inequality. I too would reject the message if this were the proper import and typical conclusion of the Gospel message.

Tovia asks a very good question: ‘Why does the Tanakh not state that when Mashiach (Messiah) comes you should accept him? Why does Judaism not argue this as well?’ 

Both Deuteronomy 13 and 18 state that we should indeed listen/heed the words of God’s prophets and especially THE prophet:

“I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their kinsmen. I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I order him. Whoever doesn’t listen to my words, which he will speak in my name, will have to account for himself to me.” – Deut 18:18-19

However, as Tovia proclaims, when the Mashiach (Messiah) comes, it will require no ‘faith’ or belief to know he is here and who he is, as the whole earth will know.

He refers to Jeremiah 31: “No longer will any of them teach his fellow community member or his brother, ‘Know Adonai’; for all will know me, from the least of them to the greatest; because I will forgive their wickednesses and remember their sins no more.” – Jer 31:33

But, to be more accurate, this passage, as part of a whole Messianic prophecy that starts with the final return of Israel to the Land of Israel (which I believe has already occurred or is occurring – see my ‘Return to Israel in Belief or Unbelief’ article), is part of an unfolding of this revelation and so it does not state that when the Messiah first comes he will immediately be recognized, only that with the full and climatic arrival of the Coming Age will all the earth acknowledge and know him and the Almighty who sent him.

Tovia refers to a number of Messianic Prophecies that are universal, and exclusive in scope, such as universal peace (Isaiah 2 & Isaiah 11); universal knowledge of YHVH (Jeremiah 31); the Resurrection of the dead (Dan 12:2, Is 26:19) and the Building of Final Temple (Ezek 36, 43:7, etc.).

Tovia makes the very valid point that these events, when they occur will be very unique and conclusive. When they occur, there will be no question. There will be no debate. The reality will be absolutely plain for all to see. Tovia goes on to state that: “Jesus did not fulfil even one of these prophecies”. This is correct. No-one has fulfilled even one of these conclusive end-times prophecies as this Great Day of the Resurrection of the dead and World Peace has not yet dawned. See my article ‘The Messiah from an Hebraic Perspective’ for some detail on this - http://goo.gl/LFeqTv

Most Christian scholars would most likely accept this critique, but argue that the answer is that Yeshua will do bring these prophecies to pass at his Second Coming.

How often though does the Tanakh describe a ‘Second Coming’ – Tovia argues that there are none. Yet, this is not what many other Jewish scholars argue. There is instead a common view that there needs to be two end-times Messiahs, a ‘son of Yosef’ and a ‘son of David’, one to fulfil the prophecies that speak of a Messiah acting with humility, meekness and the sword of speech, and another to bring the sword of Judgement, rule with an iron fist in a theocratic government and fulfil Messianic prophecies like Ps2 and Ps 110.

He also makes the point that the prophecies that he did fulfil (Tovia – ‘assuming he did’) were not exhaustive and exclusive, yet the ones to be fulfilled which are exhaustive and conclusive have not been fulfilled.

Tovia asks ‘is this just a co-incidence?’ I believe Tovia is really miss-classifying these prophecies, because the final acts of the Messianic Age, can only happen at the very end of the present age, which clearly has not yet arrived (for those into Preterism, please see my article ‘Preterism: Not Even On Judaism’s Radar‘ -  http://goo.gl/oT4N63.

Those prophecies that are fulfilled though do statistically add together though to give a reasonable claim based on the approach of the best fit for the evidence available at this time.

Next Tovia argues that Yeshua deliberately separated himself from his family – he gives two examples that he contends indicate this; the wedding in Cana and arrival of his family when he is preaching that is described in Matt 12.

To suggest that Yeshua’s reluctance to heed the request of his mother to perform some action to help with the lack of wine at the wedding (whether she envisaged a miraculous event or not, we do not know), indicates that he desired to separate himself from his family, seems to me a very large and fanciful stretch, that really does not fit the evidence.

The case in Matthew 12 where he appears to not be interested in the arrival of his family is also a real stretch and forcing the evidence. When told that his family had arrived, he used the occasion to teach the strong Torah-centric principle that all who do the will of the Father are really part of the family of God and hence the family of Yeshua, himself a strong advocate and representative of the Almighty.

We are also not told here what happened after he gave this teaching/comment, but the most likely and ‘normal’ event when not viewed through antagonistic eyes is that Yeshua did indeed invite his family in and make them very much welcome.

Tovia next argues that the Hellenistic Jew, Philo of Alexandria (approx. 25 BCE - 50 CE) doesn’t mention Yeshua and the sect of his followers.

I am not sure where Tovia is trying to go with this argument – perhaps he is trying to deny the very existence of Yeshua. If so I would refer you to my article ‘The Resurrection and Jewish Scepticism’ – see http://goo.gl/oT4N63

Regarding Philo, it appears he never travelled to Israel (though this is some evidence that he may have met the Apostle Peter in Rome). The sect of Judaism that believed Yeshua was the end-times Messiah though, was still entirely Jewish and Israel-based until after 45 CE. It was not until the Cornelius House event (circa 45 CE) and the activities of Rav Sha’ul (perhaps begun a little earlier than this but initially in Asia Minor and nowhere near Egypt, or Rome). Based on this timing and the rather limited expansion of this sect in the first 10-15 years, it is really not that surprising, nor improbable that Philo may not have heard of Yeshua.

Alternatively, as a Hellenistic Jew (who apparently didn’t even know Hebrew), it is also not improbable that if he did know of Yeshua, he did not have much desire to write about him. 

Tovia next goes on to discuss a couple of significant discrepancies in the NT’s re-telling of some of the most famous and significant events from the Tanakh. For example, he spends some time showing the errors made by NT translators in Acts 7, where they have the re-telling by the Stephen, (the first martyr from amongst Yeshua’s followers) of the Exodus events etc. where the number who ‘went down’ to Egypt was actually 70, but the standard NT version is 75.

While I agree with Tovia on these errors which show a number of problems in the serious redacting of the NT, as well as the LXX, they do not ultimately invalidate either the NT or the reality of Yeshua. They are however further good evidence for the central argument of my book ‘The New Testament: The Hebrew Behind the Greek’ – see http://goo.gl/W3oOQ5 .

The next topic Tovia Singer raises is the very important but seriously complex issue of the genealogy of Yeshua.

I will address this in a follow-up article (now completed - see below for link), where I will make extensive use of the brilliant research and scholarship of Uriel Ben Mordechai who has done what is quite possibly the most complete and comprehensive analysis of the genealogy of Yeshua that I have found, a one that introduces some startling conclusions, but that ultimately provides very convincing evidence that Yeshua was indeed qualified to be the eschatological Messiah.

Update: The Genealogy of Yeshua