Dr. Brown Answers the Rabbis Part 3 (and an interview with David Brickner of Jews for Jesus)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

[Download MP3]
Dr. Brown answers objections raised by Rabbi Eli Cohen from Jews for Judaism today on the Line of Fire, and David Brickner joins Dr. Brown for an interview!  Don’t miss this special and enlightening day on the Line of Fire!

Hour 1:

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: I echo the words of Paul:  “I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation for everyone who believes, first to the Jew, and then to the gentile.”  The gospel remains the power of God for the salvation of Jewish people, and the priority to bring the gospel to the Jewish people remains just the same.

Hour 2:

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: The glorious, wonderful news:  the Messiah came when He had to come, and did what He had to do: die for our sins, rise from the dead, ascend into heaven, and become a light to the nations.  We have every assurance that He will return, and on that day, there will be great repentance in Israel as they welcome back their Messiah!

Essential Israel Resources!

Answering Jewish Objections To Jesus – Volume 1

Stand With Israel [MP3 CD]

Other Resources:

Previous LOF Shows:

Dr. Brown Answers the Rabbis (Part 1):  Dr. Brown answers challenges given him by traditional rabbis as to why Jesus is not the Jewish Messiah, focusing today on challenges from his friend, Rabbi Yisroel Blumenthal.

Dr. Brown Answers the Rabbis (Part 2): Dr. Brown responds to objections from Rabbi Michael Skobac  from Jews for Judaism.

Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus vol. 2 by Dr. Brown: Incisive and direct, this book provides an honest, fair, and thorough discussion of common objections on theological themes. Brown’s answers are thoroughly documented and foot noted.

_

Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus vol. 3 by Dr. Brown: This third installment of Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus looks specifically at questions raised about messianic prophecies in Isaiah, Daniel, Psalms, Haggai, and Zechariah.

Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus vol. 4 by Dr. Brown:  In this volume of the Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus series, Dr. Brown counters the arguments that the New Testament mistranslates, misuses, and misunderstands the Hebrew Scriptures, also addressing the objections that Jesus or Paul abolished the Law.

_

Who Is Jesus?  Dr. Brown/Blumhofe Debate [DVD]: If you could travel 2,000 years back in time and be an eyewitness to a debate between Paul the Apostle and the most outstanding Pharisee over the Messiahship of Jesus, it could not be more exciting than this debate.


44 Comments
  1. Good interaction on the show today, I really like Rabbi Elli, we chat from time to time on PalTalk.

    He really is a great guy. I do pray that he enjoys the fullness of God’s love! I do pray this for all people actually, Rabbi Eli is a very sincere man.

    May God bless you all and pour out His blessings upon you all.

    Eric (Emet Echad on PalTalk, if you see this Eli:))

  2. I have to thank Dr. Brown for his work and ministry. I was raised as a typical cultural Jew in NY (Hebrew school, Bar Mitzvah) with parents who were proud to be Jews but did not practice it in any depth. I came to Yeshua after listening to several skilled Christian teachers and apologists and the intellectually heavy theologians like Dr Brown and William Lane Craig. I became convinced, especially via Dr. Brown’s work that Yeshua was the Jewish Messiah and if I really believed this, then I had to honor his commands, one of which was the one to be baptized. I had to overcome my Jewish historical repugnance towards Christians (for good reason!)and Dr. Brown was key in this endeavor. It was an agonizing decision but the Truth was the Truth. Thanks again.

  3. Thanks Eric!
    I truly appreciate your blessings!
    I’m going to download the program and listen to it. You have my word that if Dr Brown makes a good case, I will come back here and admit that my arguments are flawed.
    BTW Eric, I have a good relationship with Dr Brown and he knows that I pray for him and his family regularly.
    Wishing everyone here a Good Shabbos!

  4. Eli, you will hear that I spoke of you in very positive terms, mentioning your prayers for me (as well as mine for you). May God’s truth and light triumph! Shabbat Shalom to you.

  5. Dr Brown, I promised to come back after listening. I haven’t managed to listen to the whole program (but I listened to first 40 minutes). Here are my thoughts.
    1. I made a very short video clip on Daniel 9. that doesn’t do full justice to the whole topic of Daniel 9.
    2. The argument was that from an objective read of Daniel 9, the understanding would be that these things will literally happen.
    3. Your understanding (which i was addressing in the video) is that this had to all happen before the 70 ce. I personally disagree with your understanding but I was arguing that IF i were to agree with your understanding of the time frame, the problem is that it was never literally fulfilled before 70 ce.
    4. My response to your radio show is one objection and one simple question.
    Objection: your explanation is a subjective interpretation of “finish transgression” “to put an end to sin” “to atone for wickedness” “to bring in everlasting righteousness” “to seal up vision and prophecy” “to anoint the Most Holy Place” you interpret it in light of what you already believe about Jesus. It’s not an objective literal understanding of it.
    The simple question is: does Daniel 9 say that the effects would only be realised in those who believe in the one that is cut off? That is what you are claiming, the things in verse 24 are fulfilled in the lives of those who believe in Jesus. The verse doesn’t differentiate between believers and non believers. Verse 24 just says that at the appointed time this will happen.
    Thank you for all your blessings! I truly appreciate it.
    Wishing you an awesome Shabbos.

  6. Why do Jewish missionary groups instruct Jews not to serve (worship) God the way God outlined to serve (worship) Him in the Torah?
    Suggesting Jews to serve (worship) God ‘another way’ (just like Satan showed Adam and Eve ‘another way’ by eating the unkosher fruit) sounds just like the false prophet or dreaming of dreams in Deut. 13.

    But Yeshua didn’t change the set times (Mo’edim) and the set laws (Mitzvot), but if he did, he would be a pseudo-Mashiaḥ. That also goes for all the apostles, especially when it comes to understanding Paul.
    Why? Because pseudo-Mashiḥim (like Mohammed) seek to change set times (Mo’edim) and set laws (Mitzvot), read Daniel 7:25. So ask yourself, does following this person make me no longer serve (worship) God by keeping his Mo’edim and his Mitzvot? Am I listening to someone who is has changed the Mo’edim and Mitzvot?

    There are two sides of history:
    Abel Cain
    Moses Korach
    Elijah Jezebel
    The Jerusalem Believers who kept the Torah and Pagan Roman Leaders who denied the Torah and killed those who kept it including the Jerusalem Believers, even after they claim they accepted Christ! How can you accept Christ and kill Christ’s followers in Jerusalem? Oh yeah, because they keep the Shabbat and you hate the Shabbat.

    Which side are you on? The sad truth is that most formers of Christianity today come from the Roman side and not the Jerusalem side. Protestantism is just reformed Catholicism and many in the Messianic movement still get their worldwide and theology from Rome, even if it’s reformed. But not many are willing to go back to the Jerusalem camp who were willing to die keeping the Shabbat!
    Will you serve (worship) God of Israel the way He set out in the Torah?
    Choose this day who you will serve. And you can’t serve God by doing what is right in your own eyes, but only by doing that which He lay out clearly in the Torah.

  7. Sigh, I’m getting over a cold and I made two typos. My apologies.
    worldwide=worldview and formers=followers

  8. Sprinkling clean water – Just a personal guess, but I BET (not that I’m a betting man, I’m not) that this ‘clean water’ is the water flowing out of Ezekiel’s temple, the super massive big temple that will be on mount Zion in the 1000 year Sabbath age of Mashiaḥ.

  9. Eli, yes, I know your clip was short — thankfully, short clips work well on radio! — but in fact, your argument was flawed, as I pointed out on the show.

    For the moment, please explain to me why the six things listed did not have to take place before the Second Temple was destroyed, according to the objective literal interpretation of the verses (and perhaps, while you’re at it, you might want to defend Rashi’s interpretation here?), and then explain to me who, other than God, can decide if atonement for sin was made?

    Thanks, as always, for the interaction.

  10. Rabbi Blumenthal, thanks for posting your response so quickly, on behalf of Rabbi Eli Cohen. Although I do not think your response is among your stronger pieces of work, I will try to take a few minutes to respond on the air next week. If I do so, I’ll certainly let you know.

  11. To the Rabbis,

    Why couldn’t the Jewish Cohen make their sin offerings in a Tent of Meeting like they had in the wilderness? I don’t know that they don’t have all of the drapery and utensils and such, but, if you did, why couldn’t you do that?

    Because the ark of the covenant was missing from the second temple, yet they still had the sacrifices.

    Just wondering why, as I understand the temple faithful already have many of the objects recovered to institute the ceremonies. And it seems the directions for the Tent of Meeting are very specific and could be recreated by following the written specifications.

  12. Dr Brown,
    Thanks for your response.
    To answer your questions I’d like to be clear.
    1. My video clip was a response to the missionary perspective. It was not meant as a comprehensive Jewish teaching on Daniel 9.
    2. If you’d like to read a comprehensive discussion on Daniel that would be a whole separate discussion. If I remember correctly Rabbi Blumenthal has written in one of his articles a possible reading of Daniel 9 which would understand that the 490 years were a time frame which at it’s conclusion would set into motion a process (i.e the roman exile) which was decreed in order to bring the final fulfilment of verse 24. (I would just add that the possibility of repentance before the conclusion of the 490 years could have avoided the destruction as was the case in the book of Jonah and the city of Ninveh)

    3.You question about “who, other than God, can decide if atonement for sin was made?” deals with one detail of the verse. Perhaps atonement WAS made (you and I can’t conclusively prove one way or the other) , but sin still abounds! and the effects of the atonement are in no way empirically verifiable.

    4. I would also like to point out that you failed to answer my basic response to your show consisting of one objection and one simple question.
    The objection was that your explanation of verse 24 was a subjective interpretation of “finish transgression” “to put an end to sin” “to atone for wickedness” “to bring in everlasting righteousness” “to seal up vision and prophecy” “to anoint the Most Holy Place” since you interpret it in light of what you already believe about Jesus. It’s not an objective (Sola Scripture) understanding of it. (Correct me if I’m wrong)
    The simple question was: does Daniel 9 say that the effects would ONLY be realised and felt in the lives of those who believe in the one that is cut off? The verse (from a straight reading) doesn’t differentiate between believers and non believers. Verse 24 just says that these things will happen.

    I hope you will manage to find some time to respond to objection and more importantly to the question.

    Thanks for the interaction and all the blessings. I prayed for you and your family again this Shabbos.

  13. Eli,

    Thanks for your interaction and prayers as well. I’ll reply to your points in order.

    1. I understand that your video clip was not meant as “a comprehensive Jewish teaching on Daniel 9.” I simply responded to your video clip.

    2. Yes, Rabbi Blumenthal has argued “that the 490 years were a time frame which at it’s conclusion would set into motion a process (i.e the roman exile) which was decreed in order to bring the final fulfilment of verse 24.” As you know, I have commended Rabbi Blumenthal for his stronger arguments; in this case, I must say that this argument was one of the weakest he has ever made, and there is not the slightest hint that this is what Daniel 9 says. I have already written the refutation to this in “Correcting Contra Brown,” but I don’t intend to publish that until the entire paper is completed for the sake of overall coherence.

    3. Regarding the one example I gave, you say, “Perhaps atonement WAS made (you and I can’t conclusively prove one way or the other) , but sin still abounds! and the effects of the atonement are in no way empirically verifiable.” Actually, I explain how each of the six goals in Dan 9:24 find their realization in the ministry and death and resurrection of Yeshua in vol. 3 of my series, but to respond briefly here, I am one of millions who has experienced the reality of the atonement that was made, transforming my life and bringing me forgiveness of sins and the removal of guilt. Also, as I explained on the air, the statement “finish transgression” can mean “bring it to full measure,” which our people did in handing over the Messiah to be killed. Again, for more details, see vol. 3.

    4. You wrote, “I would also like to point out that you failed to answer my basic response to your show consisting of one objection and one simple question. The objection was that your explanation of verse 24 was a subjective interpretation of “finish transgression” “to put an end to sin” “to atone for wickedness” “to bring in everlasting righteousness” “to seal up vision and prophecy” “to anoint the Most Holy Place” since you interpret it in light of what you already believe about Jesus. It’s not an objective (Sola Scripture) understanding of it. (Correct me if I’m wrong).”

    Yes, I believe you are clearly wrong here, since sola Scriptura requires me to read the verses in context and ask historical and grammatical questions. Since it is clear that everything written had to take place before the Second Temple was destroyed (again, I see no viable way around this fact), I must ask: What is the best possible explanation to this? How can I best interpret these verses as actually coming to pass? The answer is simple: The Messiah came and accomplished this through his atoning death! There is no better explanation that has been offered.

    You also wrote, “The simple question was: does Daniel 9 say that the effects would ONLY be realised and felt in the lives of those who believe in the one that is cut off? The verse (from a straight reading) doesn’t differentiate between believers and non believers. Verse 24 just says that these things will happen.”

    Correct. These things did happen, just as it is written that they would, but the only ones who realize they have happened are the ones who believe. The text doesn’t say either way who would or would not know, simply that they would take place and that an anointed one (mashiach) would be cut off.

    Please check all the major traditional Jewish commentaries to this passage, and find a better explanation than what I have presented. An objective reading would indicate that such does not exist. In fact, this was one of the key texts (coupled with Rashi’s weak interpretation) that led to young Rachmiel Frydland, a frum Jew fleeing from the Holocaust, to come to faith in Yeshua.

  14. Eric,
    I want to encourage you. I truly see the Lord’s hands upon you and I pray you will keep strong because the Lord is watching over you and He cares. The Lord is going to use you in such a BIG WAY. Hold onto that and rejoice. 🙂

  15. Rabbi Cohen,
    There certainly is Scriptural precedence for Dr. Michael Brown’s position…

    2Ki 7:16 Then the people went out and plundered the camp of the Syrians. So a seah of fine flour was sold for a shekel, and two seahs of barley for a shekel, according to the word of the LORD.
    2Ki 7:17 Now the king had appointed the captain on whose hand he leaned to have charge of the gate. And the people trampled him in the gate, so that he died, as the man of God had said when the king came down to him.
    2Ki 7:18 For when the man of God had said to the king, “Two seahs of barley shall be sold for a shekel, and a seah of fine flour for a shekel, about this time tomorrow in the gate of Samaria,”
    2Ki 7:19 the captain had answered the man of God, “If the LORD himself should make windows in heaven, could such a thing be?” And he had said, “You shall see it with your own eyes, but you shall not eat of it.”
    2Ki 7:20 And so it happened to him, for the people trampled him in the gate and he died.

    Thank you

  16. Dr Brown,
    I’ll try to respond to each point.
    1. OK.
    2 & 3. Rabbi Blumenthal’s interpretation is in no way imposing on to the text any more than your interpretation.

    4.If I remember correctly you mentioned to be that you believed that we were at a stage of “almost-but-not-yet” meaning that sin was not conquered and neither was Satan.
    cannot be proven or disproved. I have no reason to accept that statement over any other religious claim by another religion.
    It’s always puzzled me why Christians claim that Daniel 9 is so powerful yet Matthew, Mark, luke & John failed to quote in their narrative of the crucifixion and Paul never mentions it either. It’s a rather glaring omission wouldn’t you say?
    Oh and BTW Rachmiel Frydland says that he dropped out of Yeshiva at a VERY young age and converted by the age of 17. I’m very impressed. BTW you should find out a bit about Chelm where Rachmiel claims to have leaned in Yeshiva http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_humour#Chelm 🙂

  17. I’m reposting 4.
    4.If I remember correctly you mentioned to be that you believed that we were at a stage of “almost-but-not-yet” meaning that sin was not conquered and neither was Satan.
    Your claim that atonement has been made cannot be proven or disproved. I have no reason to accept that statement over any other religious claim by another religion.
    It’s always puzzled me why Christians claim that Daniel 9 is so powerful yet Matthew, Mark, luke & John failed to quote in their narrative of the crucifixion and Paul never mentions it either. It’s a rather glaring omission wouldn’t you say?
    Oh and BTW Rachmiel Frydland says that he dropped out of Yeshiva at a VERY young age and converted by the age of 17. I’m very impressed. BTW you should find out a bit about Chelm where Rachmiel claims to have leaned in Yeshiva http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_humour#Chelm

  18. Eli,

    Responding to your points:

    2/3) Please demonstrate the validity of Rabbi Blumenthal’s interpretation from the plain meaning of the text. It simply is not there.

    4) I spoke of “already but not-yet,” meaning, that God’s kingdom has broken into this world and the down payment has been made, but the benefits have not been fully realized yet. This speaks perfectly of where we are today re: Dan 9:24-27.

    As for your claim that Dan 9 is not quoted in the NT, of course it is, and in a very significant way, where Yeshua himself draws our attention to Daniel’s abomination of desolation (in Matt 24 and parallels) — right from this very passage!

    As for Rachmiel Frydland, I didn’t know him personally, but I had some scholarly friends who learned Talmud with him and he was quite fluent in Shas and rabbinic writings, and to my knowledge, when he was doing his graduate studies, no one ever questioned his knowledge of these sources. I guess there’s something to girsa d’yaqunta!

  19. It seems to me that Daniel 9:24 speaks of the everlasting gospel of Christ, referring to it as
    “everlasting righteousness”.

    Jesus certainly brought to us the good news concerning himself, preaching the kingdom of heaven, something he was, and still is, “all about”.

    It also seems to me that the wickedness of men was fully manifest (Daniel 9:24) when they crucified the Lord.

    I find something interesting in Daniel 9:24 when I read it from the 1599 Geneva and compare it with something Job had said in Job 14.

    Here it is:

    Job 14:17
    Mine iniquity is sealed up, as in a bag,…

    (It seems here that none of his sins are open to him to see and it also seems that none of them were going unpunished)

    Daniel 9:24
    …and to seal up the sins,…

    Did they really know what they were doing when they nailed Jesus to the tree? Later on, after he had died, they beat their chests as if to say, “Oh wretched man that I am!”

    I think they abhored themselves. (see Job 42:6, Luke 18:13, 23:48)

  20. Dr. Brown
    With all due respect – Matthew 24 speaks of the destruction of the Temple with an abomination being set up in its place (clearly demonstrating that Jesus’ never “prophecied” about the destruction – he was merely quoting Daniel) – Eli’s point was that the passage in Daniel is not quoted by the NT authors as a Messianic prophecy in direct relation to the advent of Jesus

  21. And wasn’t it that the bag of iniquity of the whole world was dumped on Jesus at the cross?
    (Luke 23:41-44)

    Idolatry of any kind can be an abomination that is the cause of desolation. (Psalm 115:1-8) It can even be religious idolatry. Anyone can be guilty of it. It could happen to anybody. When people are in it they don’t know what they do.

    I suppose that’s what desolation is about. They are alone and without light, without the blessing of God, without his manifestions of the Spirit, without his love, the fruit of his Spirit… without God.

  22. Rabbi Blumenthal, the fact that Jesus pointed all readers to this passage is more than sufficient proof to me that it was considered important. He clearly ties it in to the destruction of the Temple, thus we see the terminus ad quem (end point) of the prophecy, pointing once more to the arguments I have raised about its fulfillment.

    Moreover, would you be inclined to change your viewpoint on the prophecy if other NT authors cited it as well? Obviously not, so even your argument is moot.

  23. Is this not considered a Messianic prophesy?

    Isa 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon [fn] his shoulder, and his name shall be called [fn] Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

    Isa 9:7 Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.

    How is this understood in Judaism? Anyone.

  24. Dr. Brown
    We happen to agree that the destruction is the end point of the prophecy – and we happen to agree that this is an important prophecy about the destruction of the second temple. The fact that Jesus quotes it in this context has no bearing on our argument because Jesus is not quoting it in a way that would disagree with my interpretation – in other words – he does not quote it as a messianic prophecy.
    Now according to your own standard (that you set for the virgin birth prophecy) – a prophecy that is mentioned only once in the NT cannot be too significant or foundational – you cannot attach too much significance to this prophecy from Daniel – since it is not even mentioned once as a messianic prophecy

  25. Rabbi Blumenthal,

    With regard to the virgin birth prophecy, I simply reject the counter-missionary claim that is “the central” prophecy quoted in the NT. It is certainly important, because of the larger issues involved, but hardly central.

    With regard to Matt 24:15 quoting Dan 9, Yeshua’s exhortation (“let the reader understand”) is unique in the NT, and even though the context is the destruction of the Temple, the reference is to this very passage. The significance of this should not be overlooked.

    With regard to your interpretation of the prophecy in Dan 9, again, with all respect, I found it to be one of the most implausible arguments you raised in all of “Contra Brown,” and thus hardly see how Yeshua’s words can be brought into any kind of harmony with your view.

    As for the NT writers not citing these verses elsewhere as a Messianic prophecy, it is very possible that the verses played a backdrop in the concept of “the time has come” (see, e.g., Mark 1:15), and, not surprisingly, some of the early “Church Fathers” make reference to the passage, recognizing its significance.

    Finally, there is nothing within the NT telling me that there are not many Messianic prophecies to be found in the Tanakh that are not cited or alluded to in the NT, so even if your point were true — which I do not believe is the case — it would prove nothing in terms of the importance of the passage.

  26. Dr. Brown
    What I have gathered from various works is that the comment “let the reader understand” relates to the idol the Romasn set up in the Temple area – which at the time that the NT was spreading – it was not politically correct to call “an abomination”
    I stand corrected – I was quoting from memory – and I didn’t remember precisely which word you used to desribe the virgin birth prophecy (I had assumed it was: not “significant” – but I now realize it was: not “central”) What exactly do you mean by this nuanced difference between not central on the one hand and not significant on the other?
    As for your not understanding how my interpretation fits with Yeshua’s words – Simple – I see in this passage a prediction for the destruction of the Temple – that is the only point that Yeshua is making in reference to this passage.
    As for the early Church fathers – many – such as Eusubius did not see the cutting off of the anointed one as a reference to Jesus – the modern Christian interpretation could not have been too pervasive – for contrast – did any Church father ever cast doubt that Isaiah 7:14 is not referring to the virgin birth?

  27. Rabbi Blumenthal, because of the importance of the virgin birth, to point to a prophesied supernatural birth of a king in the line of David would be significant, but since Isa 7:14 is only quoted once in the NT — as opposed to Ps 110, the most quoted Messianic prophecy in the NT — it can not be called “central” and certainly not “the central” Messianic prophecy.

    I recognize that you claim that Daniel was speaking of the destruction of the Second Temple, something to which Yeshua also referred, but again, I find your proposed interpretation so outlandish that I see no support for it in Yeshua’s words.

    You are correct that, since the NT quotes Isa 7:14 with reference to Yeshua’s birth, Church Fathers would not question its relevance, whereas there was some debate about the meaning of Dan 9 among them, but there is no hint that they said, “Dan 9 cannot refer to Jesus, since the NT doesn’t quote it.” The fact that you and other counter-missionaries keep raising this point does not make it valid in the least.

  28. Dr. Brown
    I never claimed that Yehsua “supported” my interpretation – all I said was that his usage of the verse is in an area that we both agree on
    – neither did I say that the the fact that the NT does not quote something – that it disqualifies as a support for your arguments. What Rabbi Eli was pointing out is that the weight that you give to this particular proof does not seem to have been shared by the writers of the NT – this does not “prove” anything – but it does raise some valid questions – why the difference?

  29. Rabbi Blumenthal,

    All clear on your clarifications.

    First, I was responding to Rabbi Eli’s video clip, and my response was clear in itself.

    Second, Yeshua confirms that Daniel was speaking of the destruction of the Temple, thus the events prophesied needed to take place before that time. (Again, this is the straightforward and unambiguous reading of the text; in fact, it is one of the clearest points of an otherwise difficult text.)

    Third, Yeshua’s reference to the prophecy is enough for me to recognize its importance (otherwise, why even mention it?), and we do know that early on, “Church” interpreters recognized its importance, most likely because they were disciples of the apostles (and their successors).

  30. It may also be relevant to consider the questions Yeshua’s disciples had put to him, which he was addressing in the context you both have raised, i.e. the Temple’s destruction, and what that would mean to the actual restoration of all things spoken of in the Prophets, in terms of the Davidic Promise, which his hearers on the Mt. of Olives of the passage were aware of and were considering. The destruction was a marked point along the way to the Messianic King coming to Jerusalem, and restoring what was Promised to David, and Moshe, and about which Daniel was well informed in his own mentioned sequence, which
    you both have quoted here. There is then the larger context of Messianic expectation, among his resident Jewish disciples of the Land of the Book’s prophecies, which Yeshua was indeed addressing. To then claim no relevance of Yeshua’s remarks is to bury one’s head in the proverbial sand of time and not come up for air after the People of the Land of the Book have now been regathered a second time after dispersion into the Gentile Nations.

  31. In fact it is amazing, what Yeshua goes on to say about his Messiahship and promise to the People of the Land of the Book, as well as his immediate and long term disciples in the Mt. passage discourse. Readiness for the sudden coming of He Himself to complete the Daniel sequences not yet completed on Daniel’s timeline are covered in his response. That Yeshua brought up answers to
    his first century C.E. Jewish disciples questions were totally centered on the Messianic intention only He Himself could authoritatively comment on. It is the panorama moment all Jews and Gentile believers alike remain expectant of. Even Peter, giving his speech to the chosen
    Nation (for the coming government of Messiah with Us), in Acts 2 and 3, addresses the realities of the extension of the Daniel timeline into our present day. Peter lectured his people on the realities involved in missing the time of His first visitation, and how that would stretch redemptive intention into what is proving to be our day.

  32. The challenge to all of us, on both sides of the crucifixtion atonement action, is to comprehend and apprehend the Jewish anointed King, sent first to the Land of the People of the Book, and then, by the Ruach Ha Kodesh into the nations. The times in which we now live on earth remain part of the proof of the passage cited, and the passages of all our lives into enternity, in time. All that Yeshua did, said, and fulfilled were of relevance not only to Daniel, but all the Hebrew Prophets of Old, and so Peter lectured the Jewish people on the reality of the Nation’s choice at that juncture in time (Acts 3:21). As for me and my household, we bend our knees, yielding the swaying of our backs in Tefillin to Yeshua who has come, and will return to the Land in defense of His family of origin in time (Zech 12-14).

  33. As I was reading Isaiah 9:7 from post #30, I took notice of the word “henceforth”. It was as if I hadn’t noticied it before.

    If it means what it appears to mean about Christ, the Word of God, the king of the kingdom of God unto us, it appears to me that this is another indication of the activity of the Lord Jesus at the time of Isaiah’s writing.

    Judgment and justice reigns in heaven under the dominion of Jesus, whose government is in the increase.

  34. Dr Brown,
    Thanks for taking the time to interact over here. I think that on Daniel 9 we’ll have to agree to disagree. There’s too much to discuss for comments back and forth.
    I think if I were to summarise it would be as follows.
    You see Daniel 9 as a positive prophetic vision regarding things that will happen before 70 CE i.e. the arrival of the Messiah and him being cut off for the sins of those who believe in him.
    I view Daniel 9 as a prophetic vision with the Angel Gabriel answering Daniel’s prayer and request to know when the Jews in exile will be able to return, restore and rebuild Jerusalem. The Angel tells him when they will go back, but he also forewarns him about it’s ultimate destruction. However, it could have been prevented if the Jewish Nation would have changed their ways and the fulfilment of the specifics of verse 24 could have been realised in an empirical way back them just like the other empirical Messianic promises would have been fulfilled. Since the repentance required never took place on a national level, the disasters spoken of in verse 26 & 27 were realised and the fulfilment of the specifics in verse 24 were pushed off until Deut 30:2-5 is fulfilled.
    IMHO an anointed one being cut off at the time of the destruction of the Temple is NOT a positive thing.
    I’ll let you respond, but I don’t think either of us is going to move from our respective understanding of the passage.
    I DO appreciate your time though 🙂
    Many blessings to you.

  35. As your dialogue extends its stimulus to other hearts and minds of other observances here, I cannot help but notice Daniel’s timeline having more to go after one being “cut off”, and the angel messenger, Gabriel, coming to a simple hearted Alma, Miriam, with a related message, prior.

    For Jews and Christians the God of Israel is viewed as overseer of what is possible, what is planned, and what can be. The hope is that the
    nations will yet come to Jerusalem, when what the Hebrew Prophets promise for the healing of the world brings these conditions to pass.

    The immediate challenge, and stage for conflict, is, however, couched in the plans of those opposing the oversight of He who holds the cup of trembling, Jerusalem, and His testing by coming world events (Pslm 83).

  36. Eli,

    Thanks also for your interaction. And the best refutation of your position is exactly what you wrote in your post. In fact, had I ever made such a claim in interpreting Messianic prophecy in the Tanakh, you would have rightly laughed it to scorn.

    I mean no insult here, and I do hope you too can recognize how convoluted your interpretation is and how utterly foreign to the text itself. (I’m speaking of your comments here: “I view Daniel 9 as a prophetic vision with the Angel Gabriel answering Daniel’s prayer and request to know when the Jews in exile will be able to return, restore and rebuild Jerusalem. The Angel tells him when they will go back, but he also forewarns him about it’s ultimate destruction. However, it could have been prevented if the Jewish Nation would have changed their ways and the fulfilment of the specifics of verse 24 could have been realised in an empirical way back them just like the other empirical Messianic promises would have been fulfilled. Since the repentance required never took place on a national level, the disasters spoken of in verse 26 & 27 were realised and the fulfilment of the specifics in verse 24 were pushed off until Deut 30:2-5 is fulfilled.”)

    In fact, Gabriel told Daniel what would happen, not might happen, and there was no hint that only the bad stuff would happen if they didn’t repent. To the contrary, this is a sovereign description of what God would accomplish and what people would do during this time frame, ending with the destruction of the Temple, and thank God, it happened just as God said it would. I need raise no arguments beyond that.

    Also, I noted that neither you nor Rabbi Blumenthal interacted with the other audio clips that I played from you later in the show. Of course, you are quite welcome to do that.

    I wish you God’s grace and Messiah’s goodness!

  37. Thirteen is the numerical value of echad, a word that is the keystone of the Jewish faith. Every morning and evening of his life, the Jew recites the verse Shema Yisrael, Ado-nai Elo-hei-nu, Ado-nai echad — “Hear O Israel, the L-rd is our G-d, the L-rd is echad.” The Jewish people are called “an echad nation on earth” because they reveal the echad of G-d in the world. And the era of Moshiach is described as “the day that G-d will be echad, and His name echad.”

    Echad means “one.” The Shema proclaims the oneness and unity of G-d, which the people of Israel are charged to reveal in the world, and which will be fully manifest in the era of Moshiach. But is echad the ideal word to express the divine unity? Like its English equivalent, the word does not preclude the existence of other objects (as in the sequence “one, two, three…”), nor does it preclude its object being composed of parts (we speak of “one nation,” “one forest,” “one person” and “one tree,” despite the fact that each of these consists of many units or components). It would seem that the term yachid, which means “singular” and “only one,” more clearly expresses the “perfect simplicity” of G-d (which Maimonides atates to be the most fundamental principle of the Jewish faith) and the axiom that “there is none else beside Him” (Deuteronomy 4:35).

    Chassidic teaching explains that, on the contrary, echad represents a deeper unity than yachid. Yachid is a oneness that cannot tolerate plurality — if another being or element is introduced into the equation, the yachid is no longer yachid. Echad, on the other hand, represents the fusion of diverse elements into an harmonious whole. The oneness of echad is not undermined by plurality; indeed, it employs plurality as the ingredients of unity.

    Based on the teachings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe.

    Source:
    http://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/2741/jewish/The-Numerology-of-Redemption.htm

Leave Your Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*