Serious inconsistencies found between the Tanakh and the NT and a challenge to the divinity of Jesus.
Christian theologians consider Jesus to be the "son" of God. Using the idea of the trinity, that means Jesus IS God. God is sinless and perfect so therefore Christian theologians and missionaries must portray Jesus as such. However, this claim can be undermined by statements in the Gospels and Jesus' words.
Example 1: Matthew 23:35 [Jesus says as indicated in the beginning of the chapter] And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
However, there is a problem.
2 Chronicles 24:20-21 Then the Spirit of God came on Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest; and he stood above the people and said to them, "Thus God has said, 'Why do you transgress the commandments of the LORD and do not prosper? Because you have forsaken the LORD, He has also forsaken you.'" So they conspired against him and at the command of the king they stoned him to death in the court of the house of the LORD
The Zechariah who was murdered in the Temple was the son of Jehoiada, not Berekiah.
Example 2: Mark 2:25-26 And He said to them, "Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and his companions became hungry; how he entered the house of God in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the consecrated bread.... 1 Samuel 21:2 David said to Ahimelech the priest, "The king has commissioned me with a matter..... Ahimelech was high priest at that time, not Abiathar.
I know someone made a thread on it recently, but just to restate for sake of this thread, John 7:37-38 has Jesus quoting a line of scripture except such a line does not exist in anywhere in the Tanakh/Old Testament which begs the question, why is Jesus claiming to quote scripture and getting it wrong?
Jesus misidentified the Jewish biblical figures Jehoiada and Ahimelech and also misattributes a verse to the Jewish bible. This demonstrates the lack of his "perfection."
Christians, why did Jesus get this wrong? Additionally, do you see this as a challenge to the claims of perfection about him?
Note: all verses are NIV.
Board index ‹ Jesus
2 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Re: Challenging the divinity of Jesus
by jimwalton » Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:57 pm
> Matt 23.35; 2 Chr. 24.20-21
I don't understand where the problem is. Jesus was most likely referring to Zechariah the son of Jehoiada. As a Jew, you most likely know that the Tanakh begins with Genesis (with its first martyr, Abel, Gn. 4.8) and ends with 2 Chronicles (with its last martyr, Zechariah the son of Jehoiada, 2 Chr. 24.22). Jesus seems to be referring to the entire sweep of biblical history, encapsulating every innocent martyr from the beginning to the end of the Tanakh. You probably also know that Jewish tradition expanded the accounts of both martyrdoms, saying that after Zechariah's death a fountain of blood appeared in the temple that not even the slaughter of thousands of priests could appease (compare with Gn. 4.10 for the outcry of Abel's blood).
But even if you want to argue that this is speaking of Zechariah, the son of Berekiah, there are two rabbinic traditions (Targum Lam. 2.20c and late manuscripts of Liv. Prophet. 15, 23) suggesting that he was murdered between the temple and the altar.
Even so, Matthew is probably using a common Jewish interpretive technique of combining key words to coalesce two Zechariahs, referring to one and alluding to the other, as he did with Amon/Amos and Asa/Asaph in his genealogy in chapter 1. In other words, there is no inconsistency here that challenges the divinity of Jesus.
> Mark 2.25-26; 1 Sam. 21.2
There are several choices here, with the wrong conclusion being that we can obviously challenge Jesus's divinity.
Again, as a Jew you probably realize that there is confusion in the Masoretic text (AD 900-1000) and the LXX (approx. 250 BC) about the difference between Ahimelech (Abimelech) and Abiathar, Ahimlech's son and successor. Apparently, Ahimelech, not Abiathar, was high priest at this time, but it is possible that both father and son bore both names (1 Sam. 22.20; 2 Sam. 8.17; 1 Chr. 18.16). Abiathar is mentioned though both may be involved. The Greek *epi* (ἐπὶ) might also mean "in the passage *about* Abiathar.
It's also possible that Abiathar could be Ab(ba)iathar, or "the father of Abiathar," referring to Ahimelech.
What may be most important is that Jesus's argument is not that he has found an obscure guy in the Tanakh who once ate bread on a Saturday. His point is that David, Israel's true king-in-waiting, and his consecrated friends were allowed to eat to holy bread that day. Jesus is interpreting his own actions through the story of David. He is saying, "I am David. These men are my men, so they can eat what they want." Jesus is the David that David never was, but they aren't the only characters in the story. Herod is Saul, the current king who has drifted from God and now wants to kill the alleged pretender to the throne. John the Baptist is Samuel, the prophet who prepares the way for the new king and confronts the old one (Saul/Herod). Judas is Doeg the Edomite, the betrayer. And Abiathar is Eli's great-great-grandson, the last surviving member of the old priestly line, whose eventual removal from the priesthood would prove God's word through the prophet, Samuel (1 Ki. 2.27).
All of this means that Jesus mentions Abiathar rather than Ahimelech for good reason. He is saying, "I am the David that David never was, these are my disciples, and the current priests (the Jewish religious leaders who opposed Jesus) are Abiathar. They are in power now, but in just a few years their priesthood will end, just as Abiathar's did. And my kingdom will be established, just as David's was.
> John 7.37-38
Jesus isn't "quoting Scripture and getting it wrong." The event takes place on the 8th day of the Feast of Tabernacles, when water was being poured out in both prophetic and messianic expectation, looking toward the outpouring of God's Spirit not only on Israel but also the believers of all the nations under the reign of the Messiah King. Isaiah 12.3 was being chanted during the 7 days of ritual. The public reading of Scripture at the feast included Zechariah 14 and Ezekiel 47; on the last day there were readings from Psalm 118—all messianic. The texts taught that rivers of living water would flow from the Temple (which, in Jewish teaching, at the very center of the earth, from the foundation stone of the temple), bringing life to all the earth. Jesus is making a reference to all the Scriptures read at the feast. He was declaring that he was the answer to their messianic prayers, the foundation stone of a new temple, and the source of the water of life.
In conclusion, Jesus has not misidentified Jehoiada or Ahimelech, nor has he quoted a non-existent Scripture. There is no "lack of perfection," he didn't get anything wrong, and these verses are no challenge to his divinity. On the contrary, his references speak boldly to his messianic claims and his fulfillment of the Tanakh.
I don't understand where the problem is. Jesus was most likely referring to Zechariah the son of Jehoiada. As a Jew, you most likely know that the Tanakh begins with Genesis (with its first martyr, Abel, Gn. 4.8) and ends with 2 Chronicles (with its last martyr, Zechariah the son of Jehoiada, 2 Chr. 24.22). Jesus seems to be referring to the entire sweep of biblical history, encapsulating every innocent martyr from the beginning to the end of the Tanakh. You probably also know that Jewish tradition expanded the accounts of both martyrdoms, saying that after Zechariah's death a fountain of blood appeared in the temple that not even the slaughter of thousands of priests could appease (compare with Gn. 4.10 for the outcry of Abel's blood).
But even if you want to argue that this is speaking of Zechariah, the son of Berekiah, there are two rabbinic traditions (Targum Lam. 2.20c and late manuscripts of Liv. Prophet. 15, 23) suggesting that he was murdered between the temple and the altar.
Even so, Matthew is probably using a common Jewish interpretive technique of combining key words to coalesce two Zechariahs, referring to one and alluding to the other, as he did with Amon/Amos and Asa/Asaph in his genealogy in chapter 1. In other words, there is no inconsistency here that challenges the divinity of Jesus.
> Mark 2.25-26; 1 Sam. 21.2
There are several choices here, with the wrong conclusion being that we can obviously challenge Jesus's divinity.
Again, as a Jew you probably realize that there is confusion in the Masoretic text (AD 900-1000) and the LXX (approx. 250 BC) about the difference between Ahimelech (Abimelech) and Abiathar, Ahimlech's son and successor. Apparently, Ahimelech, not Abiathar, was high priest at this time, but it is possible that both father and son bore both names (1 Sam. 22.20; 2 Sam. 8.17; 1 Chr. 18.16). Abiathar is mentioned though both may be involved. The Greek *epi* (ἐπὶ) might also mean "in the passage *about* Abiathar.
It's also possible that Abiathar could be Ab(ba)iathar, or "the father of Abiathar," referring to Ahimelech.
What may be most important is that Jesus's argument is not that he has found an obscure guy in the Tanakh who once ate bread on a Saturday. His point is that David, Israel's true king-in-waiting, and his consecrated friends were allowed to eat to holy bread that day. Jesus is interpreting his own actions through the story of David. He is saying, "I am David. These men are my men, so they can eat what they want." Jesus is the David that David never was, but they aren't the only characters in the story. Herod is Saul, the current king who has drifted from God and now wants to kill the alleged pretender to the throne. John the Baptist is Samuel, the prophet who prepares the way for the new king and confronts the old one (Saul/Herod). Judas is Doeg the Edomite, the betrayer. And Abiathar is Eli's great-great-grandson, the last surviving member of the old priestly line, whose eventual removal from the priesthood would prove God's word through the prophet, Samuel (1 Ki. 2.27).
All of this means that Jesus mentions Abiathar rather than Ahimelech for good reason. He is saying, "I am the David that David never was, these are my disciples, and the current priests (the Jewish religious leaders who opposed Jesus) are Abiathar. They are in power now, but in just a few years their priesthood will end, just as Abiathar's did. And my kingdom will be established, just as David's was.
> John 7.37-38
Jesus isn't "quoting Scripture and getting it wrong." The event takes place on the 8th day of the Feast of Tabernacles, when water was being poured out in both prophetic and messianic expectation, looking toward the outpouring of God's Spirit not only on Israel but also the believers of all the nations under the reign of the Messiah King. Isaiah 12.3 was being chanted during the 7 days of ritual. The public reading of Scripture at the feast included Zechariah 14 and Ezekiel 47; on the last day there were readings from Psalm 118—all messianic. The texts taught that rivers of living water would flow from the Temple (which, in Jewish teaching, at the very center of the earth, from the foundation stone of the temple), bringing life to all the earth. Jesus is making a reference to all the Scriptures read at the feast. He was declaring that he was the answer to their messianic prayers, the foundation stone of a new temple, and the source of the water of life.
In conclusion, Jesus has not misidentified Jehoiada or Ahimelech, nor has he quoted a non-existent Scripture. There is no "lack of perfection," he didn't get anything wrong, and these verses are no challenge to his divinity. On the contrary, his references speak boldly to his messianic claims and his fulfillment of the Tanakh.
Last bumped by Anonymous on Thu Dec 14, 2017 1:57 pm.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9108
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
2 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests