The rabbis denounce the New Testament claiming that it
misconstrues the Old to support its own doctrines. In The Jew and the Christian Missionary: A Jewish Response to Missionary
Christianity, Gerald Sigal had written:
·
Misreading the essential meaning of the Torah,
Christian theology developed along lines that are at variance with the message
of Hebrew Scriptures. (Introduction, xv)
For instance, in the NT Jesus likens His own body to the
Jerusalem Temple, in effect, proclaiming that His body is the actual place to
meet God and find His mercy. In a revealing account, the Jewish leadership demanded
that Jesus justify His authority to drive out the money-changers and
animal-salesmen from the Temple:
·
Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and
in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six
years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” But he was
speaking about the temple of his body. (John 2:19-21; John 1:14)
Jesus equated His body with the Temple. He had been hinting
about this to a Samaritan woman who thought religion was just a matter of the
geographical place of worship, pointing out that the Jews worshipped in the
Jerusalem Temple and the Samaritans on Mount Gerizim. However, Jesus corrected
her:
·
“But the hour is coming, and is now here, when
the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father
is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him
must worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4:23-24)
According to Jesus, worship was, ultimately, not a matter of place but of truth. It is through belief in the truth that we meet God, not necessarily through a building.
The Book of Revelation
claims that the New Jerusalem would not contain a physical temple:
·
And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple
is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb. (Revelation 21:22; 13:6; 21:3)
Has the NT perverted the teachings of the Mosaic revelation?
Moses had been given the plan for the Tabernacle (the moveable Temple) while on
Mt. Sinai (Exodus 25:40; 27:8; Numbers 8:4; Acts 7:44). However, the NT interpreted
this plan as symbolic (a shadow) of a deeper reality:
·
They [the Temple and its services] serve a copy
and shadow of the heavenly things [of Christ]. For when Moses was about to
erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make everything
according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.” (Hebrews 8:5)
Did God simply have a preference for certain physical forms
and structures, or did He order these Temple forms, as such, because they also
symbolically conveyed heavenly truths? The NT writers understood that the
Temple and the prescribed forms of worship were symbolic of a deeper reality.
Interestingly, the OT also suggests
this. Even before there was a Tabernacle, God had been Israel’s refuge and
sanctuary:
·
Lord, you have been our dwelling place in all
generations. (Psalm 90:1; 71:3; Isaiah 57:15)
This suggests that the Temple was a shadow of a deeper
reality, which God wanted to convey symbolically. The NT claims that God Himself would be our sanctuary
(Temple). This is also true of the OT
revelation:
·
“Therefore say, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: Though
I removed them far off among the nations, and though I scattered them among the
countries, yet I have been a sanctuary [“mikdash”] to them for a while in the
countries where they have gone.’” (Ezekiel 11:16; Isaiah 8:13:14)
God would be a temple to Israel even in their exile. The
physical Temple was therefore unnecessary, suggesting that, instead, it represented a reality beyond itself.
Besides, God promised that He Himself would “build” the ultimate Temple in
conjunction with a new covenant:
·
“I will make a covenant of peace with them. It
shall be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will set them in their land
and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary [“mikdash”] in their midst
forevermore. My dwelling place [“mishkan”] shall be with them, and I will be
their God, and they shall be my people. Then the nations will know that I am
the LORD who sanctifies Israel, when my sanctuary [“mikdash”] is in their midst
forevermore.” (Ezekiel 37:26-28)
Would this be a physical sanctuary? The fact that God would make
an “everlasting covenant” with Israel suggests that the Mosaic Covenant was
only temporary. In fact, nowhere in the Scriptures is the Mosaic ever described
as everlasting.
Of what will “my sanctuary,” which God will create, consist?
First of all, it is not only associated with a new and eternal covenant, it is
also a Messianic covenant, the work of the mysterious BRANCH:
·
“And say to him, ‘Thus says the LORD of hosts,
“Behold, the man whose name is the Branch: for he shall branch out from his
place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD. It is he who shall build the
temple of the LORD and shall bear royal honor, and shall sit and rule on his
throne. And there shall be a priest on his throne, and the counsel of peace
shall be between them both.”’ (Zechariah 6:12-13)
It is noteworthy that the physical Temple had already been
rebuilt by the Israelite exiles returning from Babylon. Consequently, the Lord
must be referring to a different kind of Temple and, consequently, even a
different priesthood. This Priest, the Messianic BRANCH, also recognized by the
rabbis as the promised Davidic offspring, the Messiah who would create an
everlasting kingdom (Isaiah 9:6-7; Jeremiah 23:5-6), would also be a King
(Psalm 110). A single person fulfilling these two roles had been absolutely
forbidden under the Mosaic Covenant (Numbers 18:7). The fact that the Messiah
would fulfill both roles suggests a
change in the Covenant, the Temple, its rituals and even the end of animal
sacrifices:
·
“Before they call [for forgiveness as they
sacrifice an animal] I will answer; while they are yet speaking I will hear.
The wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the
ox, and dust shall be the serpent’s food. They shall not hurt or destroy in all
my holy mountain,” says the LORD. Thus says the LORD: “Heaven is my throne, and
the earth is my footstool; what is the house that you would build for me, and
what is the place of my rest? All these things my hand has made, and so all these
things came to be, declares the LORD. But this is the one to whom I will look:
he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at my word. He who
slaughters an ox is like one who kills a man; he who sacrifices a lamb, like
one who breaks a dog’s neck; he who presents a grain offering, like one who
offers pig’s blood; he who makes a memorial offering of frankincense, like one
who blesses an idol. These have chosen their own ways, and their soul delights
in their abominations.” (Isaiah 65:24 - 66:1-3)
Since there will be no more “destruction” in the Kingdom of
the Messiah, the death of animals could no longer be required. Instead, the
promised Messianic sacrifice will put an end to all sacrifices:
·
Surely he [the promised Messiah] has borne our
griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God,
and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for
our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with
his wounds we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have
turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of
us all. (Isaiah 53:4-6)
The Psalms also promise that one offering will put to end all
subsequent offerings and the Temple system, which required them:
·
Consequently, when Christ came into the world,
he said, “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you
prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no
pleasure. Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God, as it is
written of me in the scroll of the book.’” [Psalm 40; LXX] When he said above,
“You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and
burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law),
then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the
first [covenant] in order to establish the second. (Hebrews 10:5-10)
Evidently, the Temple animal sacrifices had been a shadow of
the coming reality – the offering of the Messiah Himself for the sins of the
world. How else can we explain the fact that God wasn’t truly pleased with the animal
sacrifices, although He had ordained and required them? They weren’t pleasing to
God because they were only symbols
along with the Temple. Besides, the Scriptures inform us that the offerings of Israel
were to be those of the mouth and the heart:
·
For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I
would give it; you will not be pleased with a burnt offering. The sacrifices of
God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not
despise. (Psalm 51:16-17; Hosea 6:6; 14:2; Malachi 1:10-11)
God also desires the figurative sacrifice of the entire person
(Romans 12:2):
·
“For on my holy mountain, the mountain height of
Israel, declares the Lord GOD, there all the house of Israel, all of them,
shall serve me in the land. There I will accept them, and there I will require
your contributions and the choicest of your gifts, with all your sacred
offerings. As a pleasing aroma I will
accept you, when I bring you out from the peoples and gather you out of the
countries where you have been scattered.” (Ezekiel 20:40-41; Isaiah 66:20-21)
The Temple and its prescribed worship were only meant to
apply until the Messiah (Hebrew 8:13):
·
“And when you have multiplied and been fruitful
in the land, in those days,” declares the LORD, “they shall no more say, ‘The
ark of the covenant of the LORD.’ It shall not come to mind or be remembered or
missed; it shall not be made again. At that time Jerusalem shall be called the
throne of the LORD, and all nations shall gather to it, to the presence of the
LORD in Jerusalem, and they shall no more stubbornly follow their own evil
heart. (Jeremiah 3:16-17)
The Ark, which carried the centerpiece of the Mosaic
Covenant, the Ten Commandments, would not be remembered or made again because
this Covenant would be superseded by the New:
·
“Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD,
when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of
Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I
took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that
they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. For this is the
covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares
the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts.
And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” (Jeremiah 31:31-33)
The New would replace the Old. How do the rabbis answer this
claim? They respond that the New is a mere remodeling of the Mosaic Covenant. Rabbi
Sigal had written:
·
By any objective reading of the text, one fails
to see any reference to a substitution of a new covenant which will supersede
the old. (70)
However, God explicitly declares that the New is “not like
the [Mosaic] covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took
them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.” Nevertheless, Sigal
claimed that:
·
…what Jeremiah meant by it was the renewing of
the old covenant, which will thereby regain its full original vigor. Jeremiah
is thus able to speak of a “new covenant,” and still remain a true prophet
among his people because there was absolutely no difference between the new and
old. (72-73)
“Absolutely no difference?” Not according to Jeremiah! Once
again, the rabbis have studiously side-stepped their promised Messiah (Isaiah
8:13-14; 28:16; Psalm 118:22).
In contrast, the NT follows in the path laid out by the OT
but with a lantern in hand to illuminate what had previously been obscured by
the shadows. We find that the NT fits the OT like a glove fits the hand,
demonstrating the internal consistency of the entire Bible, pointing to the
fact that the Bible expresses a single, albeit cryptic, revelation by a single
divine Author.
No comments:
Post a Comment