Welcome to Nakdimon's Page

 

Tovia Singer Answers Questions

 

 Question #1: What happened that the Temple got sacked and hasn’t been rebuilt 2000 years later? (Bethlehem lecture 34:40)

 

Someone asks this question and sounds very eager to get answers. “Something happened…”, he said, “…and I need to know what it is”. When you listen to what rabbi Tovia Singer tells him you will notice that he never answers this question! He says a lot of words but says nothing to answer the man’s question, because he knows that it only works against rabbinic Judaism. Let’s examine what he says and if that is correct:

 

A: Rabbi Tovia Singer claims that Israel has returned and that it didn’t take Jesus to get there, to demonstrate that there is no need for Jesus. But it didn’t take rabbinic Judaism and Torah observance to get there either. It was because of secular Zionists that the state of Israel exists today. What does this then say about rabbinic Judaism if we use rabbi Singer’s line of reasoning?

 

B: Rabbi Singer subsequently asks the question what was so terribly wrong that we have been exiled for almost 2000 years? He then comes with an amazing statement. He actually says: “It’s so obvious: As soon as Jews start believing in Jesus, we’re exiled”. Isn’t this the entire world upside down? In his lecture on Sin and Atonement he actually said that Jews en masse rejected Yeshua! And that is fact! How can he now claim that the Jewish people have been exiled because they accepted Yeshua?

 

Israel’s spiritual state is always measured by the righteousness of the majority of the people. This means that only when the majority of the people deals corruptly and sins grievously against God, that Israel is exiled. So if the vast majority of the Jewish people, according to rabbinic Judaism, dealt correctly by rejecting Jesus, then what the rabbi claims here is inaccurate and totally the opposite of the truth. It’s just a lie when he claims that we got exiled “because we accepted Jesus”. Why does rabbi Tovia Singer make claims like these? Almost an act of desperation!

 

Rabbi Tovia Singer goes on to say that the question isn’t against Judaism, but against Christianity, claiming that it was foretold by the prophets that Israel was exiled. Truth is that the rabbi is referring to only one prophet, namely, the prophet Hoshea. Now, Hoshea was a contemporary of Yeshayahu [Isaiah] and lived before the first exile. And the people had no indication to think that Hoshea was referring to a second exile. The reasons for the first exile were, amongst others, mass idolatry, hatred amongst the Jewish people and persecution of the prophets God sent to His people. Exile was almost a logical result due to the behaviour of the Jewish people. Now this exile lasted 70 years. Those are a lot of days! For all the people knew, Hoshea was referring to that exile.

 

But still, if we take rabbi Singer’s word for it, just for the sake of argument, Israel is not just exiled for no reason. This would be totally contrary to the Covenant God made with His people. Israel is not just exiled because the prophet “foretold it”. Israel is only exiled because of grievous sins committed against God and breaking His Covenant. So something of great significance must have happened, something that was so terrible that was as bad, if not worse, than what happened with the first exile, that made this prophecy to become reality. What happened that caused the Jewish people to be scattered among the nations, banned from the Land of Israel, the Temple to be destroyed and not being rebuilt for almost 2000 years? What was it, rabbi Singer? He doesn’t answer that question at all, but instead comes up with some diversion tactic and criticizes Christianity. He almost blames Yeshua’s delayed return for the length of the exile. Quoting Mark 9:1

 

And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

 

Read on and see how these words are explained by the writers. We see the same account in Luke and in Matthew. Luke tells us in the very next verse that: Some eight days after these sayings, He took along Peter and John and James, and went up on the mountain to pray. (Luke 9:28) What sayings is Luke referring to? The very promise made in the preceding verse. All the Gospels have these accounts back to back explaining what this means. But let’s not wander off. As for the eminence of the return of Yeshua, revering to Revelations 22 (I come quickly). Who says he is talking in human terms? How about the promise of the quick to appear Yom haDin (Day of Judgement) made up to more than 700 years before the books of the New Testament. Many promises were made:

 

6 Howl ye; for the day of the LORD is at hand; as destruction from the Almighty shall it come. [Isaiah 13]

15 Alas for the day! for the day of the LORD is at hand, and as a destruction from the Almighty shall it come. [Joel 1]

15 For the day of the LORD is near upon all the nations; as thou hast done, it shall be done unto thee; thy dealing shall return upon thine own head. [Obadiah 1]

7 Hold thy peace at the presence of the Lord GOD; for the day of the LORD is at hand, for the LORD hath prepared a sacrifice, He hath consecrated His guests…14 The great day of the LORD is near, it is near and hasteth greatly, even the voice of the day of the LORD, wherein the mighty man crieth bitterly. [Zephaniah 1]

3 For the day is near, even the day of the LORD is near, a day of clouds, it shall be the time of the nations.[Ezekiel 3]

 

Why aren’t these prophecies called false prophecies and promises of an eminent Day of Judgement? So when, 2700 years ago, the Tenach said something is near and it hasn’t happened yet, then it’s not a problem, but if, 2000 years ago, the New Testament said that the Kingdom is near then it’s untrustworthy? Based on what logic?

 

And then rabbi Singer goes on to say a whole lot of nothing, things that have nothing at all to do with the question that was raised. If Christianity is the true religion then why has God only preserved rabbinic Jews? That’s is a similar question to “if rabbinic Judaism is the true religion then why wasn’t the modern state of Israel established due to rabbinic Judaism?” Why did God choose the secular Zionists to make sure that Jews have their own autonomy in the Eretz Yisrael and to bring back Jews (including rabbinic Jews!) to the promised land. It’s actually quite simple: God uses whom He wants to use, how He wants to use them.

 

      He used Messianic Jews to bring the news of the Messiah of Israel to the Gentiles so that His testimony would be preserved.

      He used Rabbinic Jews to preserve the testimony of His people.

      He used Secular Jews to bring His people back to the land he promised to Abraham Isaac and Jacob, fulfilling His vow.

 

For the references to atonement, see the section “Sin and atonement”.

 

Bottom line is that rabbi Tovia Singer doesn’t answer that question and that’s truly understandable, because it only works against what he wants his audience to believe. Instead of giving the man the answer he requested, he starts criticizing Messianic Jewish beliefs and attacking Sadducees. Very subtle.

 

 

 

Paul not a Pharisee? (13:40)

(Tovia Singer answers questions pt 1)

 

According to rabbi Singer Paul is not to be taken seriously when he says that he is a Pharisee, because he gives away his cards for two reasons; 1 he was involved in killing a Christian and 2 he worked for the Sadducees when he went after the Christians. To answer the first allegation we need only to point out that Paul was never involved with the killing of a Christian. It is said in the story of Stephen that the people that killed Stephen threw their coats at Paul’s feet and he agreed with what they did. Does this mean that he is “involved” in the killing of Christians? Also he went from house to house persecuting followers of Yeshua only to throw them in jail! But does that condone the charge of murder? Of course not. The second is also very easy. He didn’t “work for the Sadducees” when he went to Damascus. He went to the high priest and asked for written permission to go to synagogues outside the Land with the authority of the Temple to imprison the followers of the Messiah. What is so bad about that? Do you really think that Paul would be able to go to synagogues outside Israel in his own authority? Who was he? The only way he could do that was on the authority of the high priest since Jews all over the world recognized the authority of the high priest and the Temple. And if Paul wanted to “present himself as someone significant”, as far as politics went, the Sadducees had more power than the Pharisees. So if Paul really wanted to be someone of importance, he would have presented himself as a Sadducee. Which he couldn’t be anyway, since he was jailed by the Sadducees for his teachings, that were, obviously, not according to theirs. And the Pharisees stood up for him, because of his teaching, which was according to theirs. (See Acts 23:1-10) So why would Pharisees jump to the defence of a “friend of the Sadducees”? So Paul didn’t “give away his cards” and there is no doubt that Paul wasn’t a Sadducee, but a Pharisee, just as he said! But, of course, it is convenient for rabbi Singer to deny this.

 

 

 

Jeremiah 31:31 raped? (22:15)

 

Rabbi Tovia Singer then accuses the writer of Hebrews of changing the text in chapter 8:9 to do away with Israel, claiming that this is the agenda of the writer of Hebrews. Rabbi Singer says that the writer of Hebrews “had to literally rape” the text of Jeremiah 31:31 to get rid of Israel. What an accusation! A lot of untrue accusations too, if I may. First of all, the writer of Hebrews didn’t have to “get rid of Israel”, because he himself, as a Jew, was part of that very same Israel. Second, and I hate to remind you again, the writer didn’t change a thing in the text, since he was quoting from the Greek text of the LXX (Septuagint), which was the dominant Greek text in Jewish circles in that time. You simply don’t accuse someone of changing the text when he quotes from a translation, in this case, the dominant Jewish translation of the day. And third, look at the preceding verse that doesn’t make any sense if he wanted to “get rid of Israel”: “For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:”

Since the New Testament gets accused of changing texts to fit it’s agenda all the time, why didn’t the author of Hebrews come up with the idea of just chopping the verse in half and leaving out all the offending references? The authors could have easily done that, but he didn’t because there was no “offensive part”.

 

And of course I am aware of the stories that the LXX has been manipulated by the church. This is something rabbi Singer claims in a few lectures. But it would be hard to believe that the authors of the New Testament would have quoted from a LXX that didn’t say what they claimed it said. It doesn’t make sense to claim that the LXX says something that it doesn’t, especially when people could verify it. Most Jews spoke Greek so therefore it would be really silly to think that you would deceive those people you wanted to reach by manipulating a text they were familiar with. And the story that it was only the Torah that was translated by the 72 rabbis and not the Prophets and the Writings, so, therefore, only the translation of the Torah is to be considered valid. Again, we need to ask; why would people not only read from the Torah translation of the LXX in the synagogues, but also from the Prophets and Writings if those translations were considered inaccurate and misleading? Obviously people recognized the entire Tenach translation in those days as an accurate and authoritative Greek translation. This actually shows us the exact opposite of what the anti-missionaries claim.

 

 

Sins of the fathers… (29:15)

   

Then rabbi Singer goes on to Exodus 20 where verse 4 speaks of God visiting the iniquities of the fathers up to 3 and 4 generations of those that hate Him. Rabbi Singer uses this to prove that there is no such thing as vicarious atonement. Although I agree with the fact that this text doesn’t speak of vicarious atonement, I still wanted to address something that the rabbi said. He speaks of “three OR four generations of those that continue to sin” and continues his analysis based on this reading. Notice the rabbi emphasizes the words in bold? They are nowhere to be found in the text and since rabbi Singer argues about the smallest detail when it comes to Christian translations, allow me to return the favour. The text speaks of “al-sh’lishe’im w’al-ribe’im”, which means “third AND fourth”. Also the words “that continue to sin” are completely absent from the text. What we do see is the word “leson’ai” which means “to those that hate me”. So therefore, rabbi Singer’s whole analysis to disprove vicarious atonement is not only based on a wrong text but also on a wrong translation of the text, which makes this entire analysis completely baseless. What the text is simply saying is that God is slow in His anger and abundant in His mercy. (Hence the contrast “3 and 4 generations of haters” and “1000 generations of lovers”)

 

 

 

Luke written after the fact (58:40)

 

Then rabbi Singer has a ball with the prophecy in the New Testament that the Messiah made and was written by Luke. He first claims that Yeshua’s prophecy isn’t accurate, because he said that not one stone would be left on top of another, and points his audience to the fact that the Western Wall is still standing. But if we want to nitpick as far as the New Testament is concerned, then we can’t  be liberal when it comes to the Tenach, because that would be judging by double standards. If we want to press rabbi Singer’s point that the prophecy is incorrect because of the Western Wall still stands (although the Temple itself is completely gone to the point that you can’t see where it used to be, which happens to be the whole point of Yeshua’s prophecy in the first place) then how many false prophets do we have in the Tenach, if we are to examine every minor detail of a prophecy? Even God Himself can’t prophesise when we apply rabbi Singer’s criteria! So let’s get nitpicky: In 1 Kings 19 God tells Elijah that he [i.e. Elijah] will go to Aram to anoint Haza'el as king of Aram then to Yehu to anoint him as king of Israel and then anoint Elisha as a prophet in his stead. But Elijah first gets to Elisha (1 Kings 19), then is taken away (2 Kings 2) and Yehu is anointed by neither Elijah nor Elisha, but by another prophet (2 Kings 9). Yet the initial prophecy is that this would all be done by Elijah. We can go on and point out that Jeremiah is also a false prophet by the standards of rabbi Singer. Obviously this is all about understanding the prophetic language. But rabbi Singer wants to cherry-pick when it comes to the New Testament, but when it comes to the Tenach, he uses other standards. If you have to use one standard for one source to disprove it, yet go out of your way to use another standard for another source you try to endorse, what does that say about the strength of your argument?

 

 

Then he goes on to ridicule the New Testament that the accounts of the destruction of the Temple were written after the fact. Well, if we use that strict criterion as a measuring rod for the New Testament, then we can throw out a good portion of the Tenach as well. A lot in the Tenach is written after the fact. How, then, is it possible that rabbi Singer makes these claims of invalidity in regard to the New Testament, but on the same note he ignores these same invalidities in the Tenach? And if Luke was written after the fact and wanted Yeshua to look good then he wouldn’t have made the claim that Yeshua said that not one stone would be upon another. He would have written the prophecy and adjusted it to fit the destruction to the tiniest detail, so that at some point in time, someone called, let’s say, rabbi Tovia Singer, wouldn’t be able to make the claim that Yeshua is a false prophet because the Western Wall still stands! But I know for a fact that if, of all the stones, only two would be on each other and all the others would have been scattered, rabbi Singer would still make the ridiculous claim that the prophecy wasn’t fulfilled. Obviously the message was that the destruction of the Temple would be enormous, a horrendous event and a devastating experience for the Jewish people. As someone once said:

 

“It seems a little petty to admit that Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple in the lifetime of his hearers, and for the temple to be destroyed forty years later, and then to claim Jesus was a false prophet because a few stones remained on top of each other. I can imagine a Jewish survivor  standing amidst the rubble of the temple, having lost his whole family to the sword or the flame, witnessing one of the most horrific events that has ever happened to the Jewish people, and bellowing, “False prophet! Jesus was a false prophet! Part of one wall remains standing.” How petty is that? The point of the prophecy, not its technical accuracy to the letter, determines the validity of the prophet.”

 

And nothing more needs to be said.

 

Nakdimon

Email me!