Encounter (Point/Counterpoint, Vol. 1, No. 3, 1995)

The web journal of Godsearch, Inc. (journal formerly entitled Point/Counterpoint).

The skeptic and seeker's guide for investigating religions and world-views through debate, interview, analysis, and discussion.

 

Call us: 303-363-REASON (303-363-7327)

(6-8 pm, weekdays, MST)

 

Godsearch call-in phone line. Call in response to anything we have said on this web page or call to share your point of view. Call with your thoughts, arguments, questions, reflection, concerns, and intellectual contributions. (Note: if the lines get too busy and you just want to vent, you will have to call us back or we may be able to call you back.) You can even call if you just want to hear what we have to say. We think biblical Christianity is true and we'll tell you why.

Or email us at enc11@earthlink.net

 

What is Encounter? (Home)

The Holocaust

Could God have allowed this?

 

Jesus' Resurrection and Daniel's Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks

The Time of Messiah

 

Who is the Jewish Messiah?

Debate and Critique

 

Also in this Issue:

Rescuers in the holocaust: did religious belief make a difference? (to end of article.)

 

Why have some professed Christians done such great evils and (in issue 7) does this count as evidence against Christianity?

 

Why are we here and why does it matter?

 

The strongest historical evidence for Christianity:The resurrection evidence and Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks (to end of article).

 

 

Recommended reading: They Thought for Themselves: Daring to Confront the Forbidden by Sid Roth. The lives of ten Jewish people; a holocaust survivor, a millionaire, an atheist, an Orthodox Jew, a New Age guru, a Hebrew scholar, and others.

 

Could God have allowed this?

There's a story told of a missionary who cast a demon out of a Chinese peasant. With a voice which most people would, indeed, take to be that of a demon, the beleaguered man cried out that the missionary would not be able to make him leave if his helpers were still with him. "They've all been sent away," the voice said, "to fight in The Great War." Though it certainly wasn't an uncommon term for the First or Second World War, it is interesting that one whom most common people would believe to be a devil should speak of the second as "The Great War."

One aspect of The Great War, the holocaust, has been documented for us in such monumental works as Claude Lanzmann's film Shoah, Elie Wiesel's book Night, and more popularly, Steven Spielberg's film Shindler's List. Such works have shown us, some of us as never before, the unspeakable horror of evil. When we see a film like Shoah, we may begin to understand, but we cannot expect words to do justice to the experience. This is truly the unspeakable. All talk of evil being unreal, an illusion we will someday see through, appears facile and foolish. One feels stunned. One feels overwhelmed as if by an immense darkness.

Why did it happen? The question becomes particularly pointed if there is a God who could have prevented it. It's interesting that when Lanzmann asks this question of a group of Polish townspeople, the reply he receives is that it's because the Jews crucified Jesus. One has to wonder whether Lanzmann is guilty of prejudiced editing since only this anti-Semitic explanation of the holocaust is even mentioned. (Lanzmann has been accused by other reviewers of biased editing for his selection of materials.) Or could it be that this is the only explanation most of the common people have ever heard? In defense of Lanzmann we need to remember that his method of editing the over 350 hours of film footage involved simply omitting any portion which didn't bring him to tears. And it is certainly understandable how such a scene could bring one to tears. These are the same words that have been used to justify pogroms and Inquisitions for centuries.

Putting this issue in proper perspective, Weapons of the Spirit producer Pierre Sauvage has pointed out that it has been the more fundamentalist Christians among the peasant populations who have been most uncompromising in protecting and defending the persecuted Jewish people. Their scripture is too clear, not only that we are obligated to protect and defend any persecuted people, but also that as the Jewish people are specially loved of God, so we are to love them. At any rate, that a holocaust would occur because "the Jews crucified Jesus" is certainly not a viewpoint the New Testament writers would have accepted.1

Is it conceivable that there could actually be a God who could have reason for allowing the holocaust? What reason could Christians or Jews offer?

The Great War, The Great Test

The New Testament talks more about what we have earlier called "The Great War." The book of Revelation records a vision of a woman who gives birth to a child. A dragon pursues and seeks to destroy the child but fails. We are told that the child is Yeshua (Jesus) and the dragon is the devil, the woman thus being Israel. Enraged, the dragon seeks to destroy the woman and her other children, whom we are told are the followers of Yeshua (Revelation 12).

Satan, the first and most powerful of God's creation to fall into sin, seeks to destroy the Jewish and Gentile followers of Yeshua as well as all of the Jewish people. From these passages it appears that Satan hates Israel because of God's special love for her, because he hopes to thwart God's plan for the world which so much involves the Jewish nation, and because of the spiritual ties between Yeshua and the rest of Israel.

Yeshua and the Hebrew scripture offer more insight into this idea of spiritual warfare. Yeshua taught that the Kingdom of God advances when good is done: when the sick are healed, the oppressed comforted, the demonized delivered, the hungry fed, etc. (Luke 4:21, 40-43). We begin to form the image of God taking over territory from the enemy's kingdom through warfare. God allows there to stand a real enemy who will conquer and destroy if he is not conquered. We are given an extremely great responsibility.

From the Torah we begin to see why God considers this warfare necessary and why some undeserved evils are allowed. We see that there is a universal obligation to protect and aid the hurt, the oppressed, the needy. Here God tells the chosen people that in the promised land there will always be poor and needy ones among them (Deuteronomy 15:11). But why would God allow this in a land promised the blessing of prosperity and plenty? It was allowed in order to test the people to see whether they would give freely and openly to those in need (Deuteronomy 15:7, 8).2

God requires that we show by our actions whether we will really love our neighbor as God commands. We are to become like God, to have God's heart and compassion for all people. This is God's desire for us.

Followers of Yeshua and other followers of the Hebrew scripture would not claim this to be the primary reason God allowed the holocaust, but it was one important factor and it's one that must not be neglected. Furthermore, it's a reason that would apply to almost any other evil we might consider.

Testing Yeshua's Followers

Following this idea is the notion that a special responsibility revolves about the welfare of the Jewish people. To see this we first need some background information.

From the earliest chapters of the Torah, we see again and again that God's protection and blessing follow those who do good and seek God (e.g., Genesis 5:22-27; 6:8-9) and that punishment befalls those who do evil (e.g., Genesis 3:16-19; 6:5-7). God placed a hedge of protection about Job, for instance, until there occurred a special reason for its removal (Job 1:9-11). Likewise the children of Israel were promised God's protection and prosperity so long as they would adhere to God's covenant and keep God's laws.

But the Jewish people were not particularly evil at the time of the holocaust. Many of them devoutly kept the law and worshipped God. Why should the hedge of protection promised in the covenant be removed from them? Why should the serpent be allowed opportunity to destroy Israel, the Woman?

Some Jewish and Gentile followers of Yeshua believe that the answer lies in the means by which the covenant is now carried out. Protection, they say, is no longer automatic upon keeping the law. Israel was told she would be under a curse and dispersed among the nations if she would break her covenant with God (Deuteronomy 28:58, 63b-64). Her repentance will cause God to regather her (30:1-5), but so long as she is not completely regathered to the land of Israel, the curse is in effect and the covenant promises of protection will not be in effect. A hedge of protection remains in place now only as the followers of Yeshua intercede for and give protection to the Jewish people, this view would say.

But why would God have allowed such a change to involve the followers of Yeshua in this way? Some say that it's because official Judaism would not honestly open itself to God to consider whether Yeshua was the anticipated Messiah. Yet Jesus claimed that anyone who would choose to do God's will would know whether what he says is true or not (John 7:17). However God wishes to do it, he said, God will show you. Indeed, the Torah claims that God spoke through Moses commanding the people to evaluate any such claimed prophet and that one will face God's judgment for failing to do so. And this means more than merely hearing the arguments of the opponents of the claimed prophet or Messiah; it means hearing the prophet's claims and the arguments of his/her proponents. How many traditional Jewish leaders either now or historically will or have suggested that their people carry out such an investigation of Jesus' claims?

Certainly many did seek to submit to God's will and determine honestly before God whether this man was the Messiah. Indeed, many came to believe that Jesus was the Messiah; there were even signs that all of first century Judaism was on the verge of doing so, there were so many of these Jewish followers of Yeshua. Certainly many of the Jewish leaders who rejected him expressed this fear.3

As a result of rejection and persecution by Gentiles on the one hand and by official Judaism on the other only 140 thousand distinctly Jewish followers of Yeshua remained by the third century.4 From this some have estimated that as many as a million were present in the first century. Very likely official Judaism ultimately rejected him only because of the power wielded by some Jewish leaders and because of certain other contingencies of the military history of the time.5 If a large enough and powerful enough number (powerful enough to determine the direction official Judaism would take) did fail to seek the truth from God and submit to God's will and leading in this matter, we can understand why the power to provide protection for Judaism has been placed into other hands.

At first sight the idea of such a dependence upon the followers of Yeshua will not appear very appealing to official Judaism. But before we too quickly dismiss it we should note that this view says at least two very unusual things.

It says first that there is a deep, perhaps even unique, spiritual bonding between Christianity and Judaism. Followers of Yeshua, whether Jews or Gentiles, are grafted into the covenant of Israel; not as partakers of the blessings necessarily, but as a necessary means by which protection and blessing comes to Israel. In this view God is looking upon those Jews and Gentiles who claim to be followers of Yeshua to see if they will love Israel, if they will cry out to God for her, if they will keep the hedge of protection about the Jewish people. Their master had taught them even to be willing to give up their lives for those they are to love. God is looking to see how much they will follow their master's teachings. A spiritual bonding between Christianity and Judaism, whether the followers of Jesus exemplify it or not at any particular time, consists in their responsibility to love and protect the Jewish people.

The second thing this viewpoint says is that responsibility for the holocaust falls very largely upon those who call themselves followers of Yeshua. They are not guilty in the sense of actively participating in the persecutions, for their scripture is very clear that one cannot be a follower of Jesus who would do such a thing (1 John 3:15, Romans 1:29-32). But many are guilty of failing to defend and intercede for the Jewish people. Many did intervene and pray for and protect them, many even gave their lives. But they were far too few compared to all of those who professed to follow Yeshua. Now this fact is no evidence against Christianity. The truth or falsity of a belief does not depend on how many people accept it, or how many claim to accept it but do not follow its teachings.

The view that the followers of Yeshua have a special power to provide covenant protection about Israel is not as certain biblically as some other views we will be looking at. What is certain from their scripture is that the followers of Yeshua have a responsibility to intercede for and defend Israel as well as any other oppressed people and that to the degree they fail to intercede, they fail their Lord's command and allow harm to come to the oppressed. God allows this testing to see if Yeshua's followers will care for what God cares for. We have also seen that their scripture teaches that Satan seeks to destroy Israel and the followers of Yeshua, that God's kingdom advances when good is done, and that all people have a responsibility to aid the oppressed.

Failure to Return to Israel

There is another very interesting reason accepted particularly by many traditional Jews as to why God allowed the holocaust. Hebrew prophets foretold that the Jewish people would someday return to their homeland in Israel after being dispersed throughout the entire world (Deuteronomy 30:3-6, Isaiah 11:11-12). Early in this century Zionist prophets began proclaiming to the Diaspora that now was the appointed time. But the people were too rooted in the new lands which they had come to call home. They had forgotten that Moses had warned them that they would never have peace for long anywhere but in the promised land of Israel (Deuteronomy 28:65-67).

So the Zionist prophets began to repeat the words of Moses and to give warning of the consequences of failing to leave. In 1932 Zeb Jobtinski cried out to the people, "Do everything to get out of Europe because the ground is burning under your feet." Early in 1939 he said, "I sometimes fear that we've passed the eleventh hour. The clock may have already struck twelve." Later that same year he said,

Zero hour is approaching, the hour of great destruction. For three years I have implored you, appealing to you, warning unceasingly, that the catastrophe is nigh. My hair has turned white and I have grown old these years, for my heart is bleeding that you do not see the volcano which will soon begin to spew it fires of destruction. I see a horrible vision. Time is growing short for you to be sparred.6

Still the people would not listen and at last the unspeakable did occur. In the aftermath the remnant knew that they must return to Israel. No longer could they live under the hand of strangers. At least many of the remnant understood this. Many have yet to comprehend that they will have no peace except in Israel. As Hertzel said, "We Jews have not yet suffered enough to make us believe that our only escape is to go back to Israel."

But was it really necessary that this much suffering occur? It's difficult to believe that even if some persecution was necessary, that the degree and quantity of suffering could not have been far less. Perhaps, as we've suggested earlier, it would have been much different had far more followers of Yeshua fulfilled their responsibility. (Obviously it would have been much different had more non-Christian Gentiles fulfilled their responsibility as well in aiding the oppressed.)

We cry out that it must never happen again. But are we so certain that it will not? Many thought that it could never happen in the kind of "civilized" and advanced society Germany exemplified. With the right people in the right places of power it can very easily happen again. Whether it begins with active persecution from the top or as ignored injustices at lower political levels, the outcome is the same.

A lieutenant in one of the Nazi prisons in occupied Holland developed a secret friendship with a prisoner he had interrogated. He confided to this elderly lady, "It is possible that I appear to you a powerful person. I wear a uniform. I have a certain authority over those under me. But I am in prison, dear lady, . . . a prison stronger than this one."7

Many well meaning people in this country who would not consider discriminating against another person may find themselves, like this lieutenant, trapped in this prison of evil. Most people are not willing to pay the price of resistance necessary to stop the persecutions once they begin. These are the people who will unwittingly make up the machinery of organized persecution. We must not delude ourselves into thinking it cannot happen again. It can happen far too easily.

Several social and psychological experiments in this country bear out the conclusion that we are, indeed, ripe for it. In one experiment a high school teacher began a mass movement, based on nothing more than group identification by eye color, and watched it grow to militant proportions. Simulated prison experiments have demonstrated how oppression can develop even when those playing the guards knew that their behavior was being observed and admitted that "it's just a game." The famous Milgram experiments at Yale have shown that American students will even take another person's life (while listening to the screaming) as long as an authority figure orders it. (They would hear the screaming in the next room intensify as they turned up what they were told was a voltage gauge pumping current into the victim--until there was silence.)

Several years ago a purported (and fairly well attested) Christian prophet foretold of a coming American president who would be controlled by the same spirits which "advised" Hitler and a time of persecution for Jews and Christians. He said he saw the president's face, as if on a television screen, gradually change to Hitler's.8 One is tempted to think of the "intrepid" one Hitler spoke of who would come after him and whom, he said, the people were to follow.

Beyond the United States the situation seems to be even worse. Just to wear a Star of David will solicit assault in some eastern European areas. A member of one anti-Semitic organization in Russia, Pamyat, said each member is required to murder a Jew. Accounts like this could go on and on.9

Job's Test

We have yet to consider one final explanation offered as to why God allowed the holocaust. Of all of the major explanations we have considered, only this one is absolutely certain in Hebrew and Christian scripture. If all others are found wanting in this regard, this one cannot be. And if any of the others remain, this one too must remain. Though it also applies to deserved pain, this is the basic explanation of undeserved pain.

This view would claim that God's reason for allowing the holocaust is stated in the first chapters of the book of Job. God tested Job to see if he would stay true to God even when his hedge of protection was removed. A God who deserves our commitment--and that is the only kind of God we're concerned about--could not be accused of evil for allowing such pain. (It could only be otherwise if God would not at some time compensate for any undeserved pain and if God does not have good reason for allowing this evil.) Will we give God our commitment when we are drawn emotionally to reject God? It is this question God asks. It is this that God must discover. This is God's reason for allowing undeserved pain. As God has good reason for allowing pain, so we have no rational justification to turn against God.

Followers of Yeshua believe that he gave up his life and endured immense suffering because this was the only way the ancient types (symbols) and prophecies could be fulfilled and humanity could be brought back to relationship with God. But their scripture also states that he was able to endure because of the glory that awaited him (Hebrews 12:2). This illustrates an important point. That any undeserved pain we endure will be compensated (if that is an adequate term) is not only necessary for God to be truly good, it also provides a motivating power to endure. (See also Romans 8:18.)

Job's children were killed, his possessions stolen or destroyed, his closest friends and loved ones turned against him, his life filled with constant and excruciating pain. Will he retaliate and turn against the God who yet deserves his commitment? Israel must face the same test. Her children slaughtered, her possessions plundered, betrayed by her trusted friends; will Israel turn against her God or will she cry out with Job, "Though He slay me yet will I trust Him"?

God asks, "Will I be your only refuge? Will I be your only inheritance? Or are there other things you cling to more than me?" If we question why we should cling to God, the only answer must be because, very simply, God deserves it.

A holocaust survivor answers, "But I loved my children, I loved my family. You didn't let me hold to them. Why did you take them from me? Why must I cling to you alone?"

God answers, "I do not ask you not to cling to them, I don't ask you not to love them. I only ask that if I take them from you for now, you do not cling to them more than me. The day will come when you will be with them again. But I must know if you will accept my decision. If I gave you life don't I have the right to take it back? Or will you so begrudge me my decision that you turn against me?"

A small man steps forward to make his accusation. How long he had waited for this moment. Glaring up at the One who allowed this, his words come out slowly and deliberately, dripping with hatred and bitterness. "It was not merely a life you took from me," he snarls. "My wife and daughter I watched raped before my eyes. My baby held by his ankles and swung against the trunk of a tree like a woodman's ax. My infant son drenched in oil and set aflame. Oh, the horror on his face as he cried to me to protect him. But you wouldn't protect him. And this you ask me to forgive? This you say was your decision? For this you deserve my worship and love? No, for this you deserve only my eternal hatred!"

"It was not my desire that this happen." God answers. "But yes, it was my decision to allow it. It was important that the power to prevent it be placed in other hands than mine. But there is no undeserved pain that is not compensated. Even a horror like this I am able to redeem."

"You cannot redeem this!" the hater screams.

"Come and see," God answers. "Repent of your hatred and turn back to me. Then you will see the good I can create from even this evil."

"Never! This is something you can never redeem. You deserve only my hatred!"

"No, you do not know that I cannot redeem your pain, you have merely decided to believe this. Your hatred is grounded solely on your decision never to forgive me. But it was necessary that you make your decision, that you face your test."

Our dialogue could go on but nothing substantially new would be added. There is a reason for the testing. What we do with God, particularly in the face of suffering and the emotional enticement to reject God, is the most important decision we could ever consider. And our testing is the most important reason God could have for allowing suffering.

This is not to diminish the reality or horror of evil, to claim that evil is an illusion, or to claim that God did not desire that there be far less than there is. Other possible explanations we have considered show that God desired that those who seek to be God's people could have caused there to be far less pain had they fulfilled their responsibility. But many evils, the book of Job tells us, did have to occur, though not necessarily in the form they did occur.

Does God Feel Pain?

Though it may be necessary in God's eyes to allow evil that a greater good occur, still God feels the pain we suffer. Even when we bring pain upon ourselves as God's just retribution for our actions, God endures all that we bear. Listen to the claimed words of God in Hosea 10:

When Israel was young, how I loved him and called him from Egypt to be my son. But the more I called to them, the more they deserted Me. . . .

But it was I who taught Ephraim to walk; I who took them up in My arms; yet they did not know that I healed them. With human cords I would lead them, with bands of love. I was to them as one lifting the yoke from their jaws, and, bending down, I fed them.

They shall return to the land of Egypt, and Assyria shall be their king; for they refuse to return to Me. So the sword shall whirl in their cities, destroy the bars of their gates, and devour them in their fortresses. My people are bent on wondering from Me, . . . How can I give you up, Ephraim? How can I let you go, Israel? How can I give you up like Admah or make you like Zeboiim? My heart overturns within Me; all my compassions kindle. I will not let the heat of My anger burn; . . .

This same sense of God's deep anguish over our suffering was paralleled in Yeshua's experience when he wept over Jerusalem as he foresaw its coming destruction (Luke 19:41-4; 13:34-5).

More than this, those who follow Yeshua claim that in order to deliver us from the pain and judgment we deserve, God endured that suffering for us. Though this is hinted at in the Hebrew scripture, more than any other sacred writing or religious system, it is the New Testament that claims that by this self-sacrifice God does feel our pain.

Did Missionaries Cause the Holocaust?

What root attitudes and beliefs led to this infamy and what would have prevented it? We can here look at only a couple of the most significant claims.

Lanzmann interviewed Raul Hilberg, a historian at the University of Vermont. In recounting the roots and background of the holocaust, Hilberg makes a subtle but significant error. He says, "The missionaries of Christianity had said in effect to the Jews: 'You may not live among us as Jews.' The secular rulers who followed them from the late Middle Ages then decided: 'You may not live among us,' and the Nazis finally decreed: 'You may not live.' " Hilberg says he sees a "logical progression" from conversion to expulsion and finally to extermination, the "final solution."

To tell someone, "You may not live among us as Jews" is not simple conversion, however, it's forced conversion. And Hilberg's failure to distinguish the two can foster only prejudice and reactionism. For all missionary efforts become viewed as exercises in coercion, no matter how far removed they may in fact be from that. At the very least, by a kind of guilt by association, missionary efforts are considered to be just a step away--and perhaps a logical step away--from forced conversion.

No logical progression to the final solution can begin with missionary efforts, at least not with any missionary effort which is built upon essential New Testament principles. But remove love, remove concern for the value and rights of the individual and, yes, you may find the ancestral roots of the holocaust in such a distorted kind of missionary activity.

Evangelism now becomes simply a desire to persuade. Now the desire to persuade is not in itself harmful either. Only by allowing the presence of as many competing belief systems as possible can a society sufficiently advance in knowledge. This is true whether the belief systems are religious or secular. Open confrontation and evaluation of beliefs allows only the best supported systems to stand.11

But when the desire to persuade becomes so strong that the right to decide and to evaluate for oneself is violated, then we have the beginnings of forced conversion and we have something far removed from biblical Christianity. Christian missionaries will inevitably cause harm once they deviate from the essentials of their scripture.

Opposition to missionary activity is the flip side, not of missionary activity, but of forced conversion. Both are equally harmful (except that forced conversion will very often involve more violence). One forces a population to a new belief while the other forces a population to maintain old beliefs by keeping them from competing claims and evidence. Both deny the rights of individuals to decide and to evaluate the evidence for themselves. Both are adept at the skills of book burning.12 If forced conversion had been the seed of the holocaust, can anti-missionary activity result in any lesser evil?

The Test of History

Can we really know whether such missionary activity--missionary activity which is deeply immersed in the values taught by Yeshua and his immediate followers--is harmful or beneficial? Some have claimed that only those who follow Yeshua in his very radical call of self-denial and self-sacrifice will be the true friends of Israel when real persecution comes. These questions can only be finally answered by looking at history. Researcher Richard Terrell points out that historically, anti-Semitism tended to decrease as the Bible came into acceptance and as it was accepted as literally true. Anti-Semitism increased as its authority diminished--as occurred with the development of German higher criticism.13 More specifically, we need to look at those who did act, the rescuers, and consider why they acted. Researchers Samuel and Pearl Oliner have done this in some detail.14 The best we can do at this point is to look at one specific family.

Isaac de Costa was a Portuguese Jew who became a prominent lawyer in Holland in the 19th century. When he became a follower of Yeshua he began calling upon the churches to pray for the Jewish people. Deeply moved by his words, Willem ten Boom started a prayer group for this purpose in his home. His son, Casper, told of how "love for the Jews was spoon-fed to me from my youngest years."15 Casper's daughter in turn relates that "as a result, deep respect and love for the Jews became a part of our home life."16

Casper sold and repaired watches and had business dealings with several Jewish wholesalers. His daughter, Corrie, while only a child, would take the train with him on his business trips. Speaking of his visits with these Jewish businessmen, she says that

these were the visits we both liked best. After the briefest discussion of business, Father would draw a small Bible from his traveling case; the wholesaler, whose beard would be even longer and fuller than Father's, would snatch a book or scroll out of a drawer, clap a prayer cap onto his head; and the two would be off, arguing, comparing, interrupting, contradicting, reveling in each other's company.

And then, just when I had decided that this time I had really been forgotten, the wholesaler would look up, catch sight of me as though for the first time, and strike his forehead with the heel of his hand.

"A guest! A guest in my gate and I have offered her no refreshment!" And springing up he would rummage under shelves and into cupboards and before long I would be holding on my lap a plate of the most delicious treats in the world. . . .17

This was not an intrusion into another person's privacy as some would caricaturize it. This is the kind of interchange of which the deepest friendships are made. To so sterilize relationships so that topics such as these should never be spoken is to strip friendships of any depth, openness, or honesty.

A Jewish watchseller owned a shop on the same street as Casper ten Boom. Mr. Kann consistently undersold and outsold the ten Boom shop. Once while walking with his grandson, Peter, the child pointed out Mr. Kann's shop and asked his grandfather if Mr. Kann were his competitor. "No," the old man replied, "he is my colleague. And do not forget," he continued, "he belongs to God's chosen people."18

During the Nazi occupation of Holland the ten Boom shop became something of a center for resistance work. A Jewish mother with her baby were sent there to find hiding. Corrie thought she had the perfect home when a local pastor brought a watch in for repair. His secluded house was set back in a large wooded park. At last she asked him,

"Would you be willing to take a Jewish mother and her baby into your home? They will almost certainly be arrested otherwise."

Color drained from the man's face. He took a step back from me. "Miss ten Boom! I do hope you're not involved with any of this illegal concealment and undercover business. It's just not safe! Think of your father! And your sister--she's never been strong! . . ."

I pulled the coverlet from the baby's face.

There was a long silence. The man bent forward, his hand in spite of himself reaching for the tiny fist curled round the blanket. For a moment I saw compassion and fear struggle in his face. Then he straightened. "No. Definitely not. We could lose our lives for that Jewish child!"

Unseen by either of us, Father had appeared in the doorway. "Give the child to me Corrie," he said.

Father held the baby close, his white beard brushing its cheek, looking into the little face with eyes as blue and innocent as the baby's own. At last he looked up at the pastor. "You say we could lose our lives for this child. I would consider that the greatest honor that could come to my family."

The pastor turned sharply on his heels and walked out of the room.19

It wasn't long until Father ten Boom was granted this honor. Captured by the Gestapo, the entire household waited to be interrogated.

Suddenly the chief interrogators's eye fell on Father. "That old man!" he cried. "Did he have to be arrested? You, old man!"

Willem led Father up to the desk. The Gestapo chief leaned forward. "I'd like to send you home, old fellow!" he said. "I'll take your word that you won't cause any more trouble."

I could not see Father's face, only the erect carriage of his shoulders and the halo of white hair above them. But I heard his voice.

"If I go home today," he said evenly and clearly, "tomorrow I will open my door again to any man in need who knocks."

The amiability drained from the other man's face. "Get back in line!" he shouted. "Schnell! This court will tolerate no more delays!"20

Casper died within ten days. Two of his daughters were sent to Ravenbruk; one of them would die there. Others of his children and grandchildren would die in other concentration camps or as a result of their internment.

In 1844 Willem ten Boom opened his home to people who would pray for and identify with the Jewish people. One hundred years later their prayers were answered when Willem's son and grandchildren came to fully identify with the Jewish people through imprisonment, persecution, and death.

Is the New Testament Anti-Semitic?

A life like that of Casper ten Boom is the inevitable result of seeking to live consistently and uncompromisingly according to New Testament teachings. Yeshua made it clear that the greatest commandment--next to that of loving God--is to love our neighbor as our very selves. And he also made it clear that everyone, and especially the most despised and rejected, is our neighbor (Luke 10:25-37). Furthermore, we find in these writings a special honor and love accorded to the Jewish people. Even those who were "enemies" of all that Yeshua and his followers taught were spoken of as specially "beloved for the sake of the Fathers" (Romans 11:28).

The problem is not with Christian scripture but rather with our ignoring or twisting its clear teaching. Like the pastor who refused to shelter the Jewish mother and her baby, his desire to protect his own life cost them theirs. Yet Yeshua said that only those who are willing to lose their lives would gain life (Matthew 16:25). It's incredible that one whose life profession is dedicated to proclaiming and admonishing others to follow Yeshua's teaching can so completely ignore the message once it becomes uncomfortable.

Even more sobering than this, Yeshua said that what we do to the very least, the person of absolutely lowest esteem, the leper, the untouchable; what we've done to that person, we've done to him. And God's judgment upon us will depend upon what we've done to that person. Indeed, one's loss and separation from God in the age to come (the life after death) is determined by what we do "to the least of these" (Matthew 25:31-46). And what were these sins that Yeshua considered of such enormous magnitude? Failure to comfort or aid the sick, the imprisoned, the oppressed; failure to feed the hungry or clothe the naked.

It was pointed out earlier that one could not be a Christian who would actively participate in the persecutions of the holocaust. We see now that neither could one be a follower of Yeshua who, when given the opportunity, had never sought to protect and aid the oppressed of the holocaust.21

I asked why all followers of Yeshua had not lived and do not live such lives of self-sacrifice as did the ten Booms. Some professed to be Christians who even killed the Jewish people. For the latter the obvious answer is that they were frauds. They weren't followers of Yeshua at all, they couldn't have been. Or if they were at one time truly followers of Jesus, they had by their actions denied their faith.

Why would so many who would seem to have such a great commitment to their faith participate in such evils as the pogroms or the Crusades? This might be explained by the fact that the stronger one's commitment to a system of thought, the more likely one would use force to defend it and attack its believed enemies. But notice that this fact applies to any system one has a strong commitment to, be it religious or secular. What historical persecutions by claimed "Christians" can match the slaughters instigated by fanatics of secular ideologies like Stalin, the Khmer Rouge, and so many others?

Yet those who would follow Yeshua must face one undeniable roadblock on their way to any similar course of action: The one they profess to follow had taught them that they cannot use force to defend him or his teachings. Only the weapons of the Spirit are allowed them.

To one who tried to defend him from capture he said that the one who draws the sword will die by it (Matthew 26:51-52). To the Roman governor who condemned him to death he said his servants could not fight because his kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36). To followers who wanted to call down fire from heaven on those who rejected him he said that these disciples do not know what spirit they are of and that he came not to destroy but to save (Luke 9:52-56). This is the one who taught us to do unto others as we would have done to ourselves (Matthew 7:12) and to love and pray for our enemies and oppressors (5:44-47). Oppression cannot possibly follow from such teachings as these which were so foundational to his thought.

Too many, even too many followers of Yeshua, are unaware of how radical his way is. Too many have simply ignored his words. He told us that we need to take up our cross and follow him. The cross was a means of torturous execution, not a piece of jewelry. It meant that we should not expect anything less than pain and death. He told us that if we deny him before people, he will deny us before God. And he told us that what we've done to the least, we've done to him. So the pastor who denied this Jewish baby had denied Jesus, the one he claimed to hold as Lord and master. He wasn't willing to face death as Yeshua had commanded him.

Followers of Yeshua who will honestly hear his words feel a strongly motivating power in his death. They hold that because he gave so much to bring us back to God, indeed, because God gave so much in sending the Messiah for this purpose, the only appropriate response is one of grateful submission, commitment, and obedience to God and Messiah. Seeing how much God loved us, how much God gave for us, we fall in awed adoration and obedience.

The New Testament writings even go further than this: Looking at those who are the most dejected, the most unwanted, the most undesirable; we understand that God willingly became a man and endured the most excruciatingly painful death out of love for this one. So much God loved this one that we would think so little of. (Even a very minimal Christian view omitting Jesus' deity would maintain that all that Jesus endured, all that he gave up, God also endured and sacrificed because God loved us so much.) How can we dare to look down upon this one God so values? We come to feel what God feels for this person. God's sacrifice for us motivates us to self-sacrifice. It's difficult to imagine any other religious system having quite the same motivating power.

(The reader may be interested in a related issue, our discussion concerning whether the existence of evil Christians counts against Christianity.)

Could a Secularist be a Rescuer?

In the Oliner study one rescuer said that he aided the persecuted simply because his Lord required this. His commitment made the difference. Of course some rescuers were not followers of Jesus. They acted solely out of commitment to what they knew was right. They happened to place their commitment in human worth to the extent of even, in many cases, denying their own lives.

As much as we may honor and esteem secular altruists, we still have to question whether they might not have just as easily chosen commitment to Fascism as to altruism. If they had no grounds for their belief in the worth of persons, can the choice be based on anything other than their chance social and psychological makeup or development?

Of course grounding one's moral motivation on religious beliefs could just push the problem back a step. Someone might hold to such religious beliefs because of strong social ties, encouragement by family and friends, etc., without good reason for those beliefs. And failure to find adequate reason for those religious beliefs could result in the rejection of those beliefs and with that the rejection of one's moral standards. We do need good reason for our beliefs. Truth is more important than social consequences. We need to believe what the evidence leads us to no matter how it might benefit or harm the world.

But the question we now need to face is, assuming our religious beliefs are rationally justified and not in question, what are the consequences in one's moral life? And likewise, what would be the result of rejecting one's religious beliefs?

The person who acknowledges the human worth of others may not have good reason for that belief. One may simply feel very intuitively a sense of worth in persons, a feeling of pity for the hurting, etc. This person may never have questioned the issues of God's existence, mortality, etc.; yet there is still an awareness of the reality of right and wrong and a deep driving motivation to do the right. I suspect that such a person is in some ways at the first steps of discovering that God is really there. (At least I think this is what happens to us when we remain honest with ourselves and do not close our minds to unwanted conclusions.)

But the altruistic personality who rejects such religious conclusions will eventually have to question her or his moral assumptions. If he or she will continue to cling to such a way of life, it will only be because of psychological reasons: because of, say, the thrill of heroism and self-sacrifice or because of identification with the people and standards of a particular moral community. For the honest minded person, belief in the worth of persons must be more than just an assumption; we need good reason for such beliefs (as do those who have good reason for their belief in God).

So what type of person would be found among the rescuers of the holocaust? The Oliner study points out that the most distinguishing characteristic of the rescuers is that they lived in "embedded relationships." "Shaped by the teaching and example of 'normocentric' communities," Richard Neuhaus comments, "rescuers readily understood the moral thing to do, and they did it. The most important 'embedded relationship' was the family, and such families were typically marked by a deep religious commitment to caring about others."22

Yet even if we were deeply a part of such a normocentric community, if we lack that religious element, we might find persecution too easily erode our commitment. If we believe that this is our only life, we will not readily be willing to give it up for someone else. More careful thought might cause us to even question the worth of those we were concerned to help. If we conclude that our ethical motivations are really nothing more than feelings (subjective emotions like our feelings toward, say, a certain type of music or our taste in food), then they might turn out to be very difficult to cling to.

For more on this topic the reader might look at our discussion with Antony Flew on moral nihilism.

This is the problem we face if we try to find among secularists an altruistic personality, someone who will resist when facing persecution oneself. But secularism isn't the only belief system to have such problems. Other religions have similar difficulties, some worse than others. We might look at just a couple of problems with some Eastern beliefs.

Eastern Religions

One popular writer claims that once we are freed from striving, our divine Self will bring us quite naturally to help others.23 It would be interesting to hear him attempt to verify this claim. Quite the contrary, all that we know of human nature shows us that once we are free of striving we are not concerned to help anyone. Indeed, it is not at all uncommon to hear Eastern and New Age advocates claim that we must get beyond not only concern about good and evil but even believing that they exist. Both are illusions of duality. This is often a practical problem in the East as well. Traditionally, those thought to be most spiritually advanced are those who renounce the world, follow ascetic practices, and do nothing to help anyone else.

To believe that ultimate reality is beyond good and evil opens us to the belief that nothing can be called good or evil. So it is not unusual to find Hitler, who had been much involved in Eastern and other forms of occultism, so often praised by spiritual leaders in the East.24 In spite of the unimaginable evil he had done, "Sri Hitler" is called a "mahatma, almost like an avatar."25 If good and evil are illusions, there is no real reason to do good or oppose evil.

Another belief which commonly accompanies Eastern monism is the belief in karma, the belief that for any good or evil we do, we shall receive reward or punishment either now or in a future reincarnation. For many of its advocates this implies that we should do nothing to stop the oppression of the (apparently) innocent. The holocaust victims received exactly as they deserved because of what they had done in previous lives.

In Islamic countries the truly righteous are often perceived as those who are most fatalistic, those who resign themselves to whatever happens, since God, in their view, so absolutely determines all events. Islamic fatalism may produce the same non-involvement as the doctrine of karma, but it doesn't have quite the same sting. At least the Muslim doesn't claim that because of their past lives the victims deserved it anyway.

Why?

Why did the holocaust occur? Because there were not enough people who were willing to resist at any cost. There were not enough people who had learned the worth of a human life. There were not enough followers of Yeshua who took his word as absolutely demanding and obligatory to their lives. There were not enough people who would intercede and call upon God for Israel.

Had there been enough resistance, had enough people passed the test, the suffering would have been far less. Jewish followers of the Torah as well as Jewish and Gentile followers of Yeshua maintain that God considered some form of the test to be necessary nevertheless. The Jobian testing of the Jewish people's choice to cling to God in the face of suffering, God's call to return to Israel, the testing of the nations, the testing of Yeshua's followers--all of these possible explanations show us that no solid accusation against God can stand. God was not guilty of this horror but people no different than you and I were.

References

1. Were the Jews responsible for Jesus' death? If a special curse had befallen the Jewish people, wouldn't the Jewish writers of the New Testament have mentioned it? (The destruction of Jerusalem in 70 and the concomitant dispersion and suffering of the people is possibly tied to the official national rejection of Yeshua [Luke 19:41-44; 13:34-35], but no curse is mentioned other than this outcome.) With perhaps one exception these writers were all Jewish. Wouldn't they have said something about their own sad lot? The fact that they were followers of Yeshua should make no difference. If the holocaust was caused by God's curse upon all Jewish people except those who followed Jesus, then why weren't those followers spared in the holocaust? They were the first to be liquidated! There could be no exceptions if God truly heeded the request of Jesus' antagonists that his blood be upon them and their children.

More than he hated ordinary Jewish people, Hitler hated those who claimed they could be Jewish and follow Jesus. Christianity, even if only as an empty title taken on by the general Gentile population, was too ingrained in the culture to be overtly and widely attacked and removed at this time. That would have to wait. At this early stage only in certain pockets of German society, such as when one gradually reached the higher positions of power in the Nazi hierarchy, did pressures increase to renounce one's faith. (See for example, National Review 32 [8 August 1980]: 956.) But from the very beginning, any notion of the Jewishness of Christianity had to be totally eradicated.

There is a second problem with this view. Pilate washed his hands, presenting himself and perhaps even believing himself to be innocent of Yeshua's blood. In turn Jesus' opponents called for his blood to be on them and their posterity (Matthew 27:24-25). These statements are far too glaring to have been so completely passed over without comment by the New Testament writers, unless they knew full well that no such curse was passed onto Judaism.

These writers spoke much of the condition of the Jewish people who follow Yeshua as well as of those who reject him. Wouldn't someone have mentioned this infamous curse if they believed it were in effect?

The third disproof of this view for any who accept the Hebrew and Christian scripture is the statement in Exodus 20:5 and 34:7 that one's sin will bring judgment to one's children to no more than the third or fourth generations. Furthermore, there may be indication by a later prophet that even this principle is no longer in effect (Jeremiah 31:29-30). Each person will bear the result of his or her own sin alone. So it would be impossible for the sins of a handful of people to bring about judgment to a generation over nineteen centuries later. No, the New Testament writer, Rabbi Shaul, or Paul, makes it clear that God has not rejected his people Israel (Romans 11:1).

Who then should the follower of Yeshua believe was guilty of his death? Consider first of all that though Jewish leaders initiated the appeal to have Yeshua crucified, it was a Gentile governor alone who had the authority to have the request carried out and it was by Gentile hands alone that Yeshua was apprehended and his life ended.

Within this context the New Testament definitely does not confer exclusive guilt upon the Jewish people for taking Yeshua's life. Through the acts of the Jewish and Gentile leaders who represent all humankind, it rather indicates that both Jews and Gentiles are guilty of his death (Acts 4:25; 1 John 2:2). Yet on the other hand, Yeshua said that no one could take his life without his freely giving it (John 10:17-18). Seeing himself as the suffering Servant of Isaiah 53, he judged that only by this act could he bring us reconciliation with God. Yet if we had not alienated ourselves from God by our sin he would never have had to make this sacrifice (Revelation 5:9; 1 Peter 2:24). So all of us are responsible for his death; and yet, no one forced him, he gave up his life by his own free choice.

2. This chapter appears to says that the poor will always be present in Israel (Deuteronomy 15:11) while at the same time claiming that there will be no poor in the land (v. 4). This apparent contradiction can be resolved once we understand that the covenant through Moses was conditional. If the people did as God commanded them then the promised prosperity would come. As they would give to the poor, as God commanded, the poor would prosper. But others would eventually replace them, giving the prosperous further opportunity to obey God's command of giving to the poor. By a continuing process there would always be poverty and yet poverty would constantly be eliminated from the land. So absence of poverty would be conditional upon continual obedience. Even with complete obedience each generation would have opportunities to be tested as to whether they would obey this part of the covenant.

3. Eusebius, ii. 23. 10.

4. Origen, Joann, T. i. §2.

5. For the largely unknown story of the divorce between official Judaism and Christianity see Dan Juster, Jewishness and Jesus (Downers Grove, Il.: InterVarsity Press, 1977).

6. Cited in "A Word from Jerusalem," in the January-February 1987 Newsletter of the International Christian Embassy, P.O. Box 1192, Jerusalem, Israel 91010.

7. Corrie ten Boom with John and Elizabeth Sherrill, The Hiding Place (Old Tappan, N.J.: Fleming H. Revell, 1971), 162.

8. John Paul Jackson gave this prediction for the winner of the 88 campaign before either candidate was selected. This thus indicated that George Bush would be the president possessed by Hitler's spirit. We might believe that the prophecy has proven completely false were it not for one caveat: Like many Biblical prophecies, this might be a conditional prophecy. Jonah appeared to have been told categorically that Ninevah would be destroyed, but when the city repented God withheld judgment. It is not inconceivable that president Bush was removed from this special position because of a choice or choices he had made in his own spiritual life. So it is not impossible that this prophecy is yet to be fulfilled by a president who would follow Bush.

9. See Sid Roth's Time Is Running Out (Brunswick, Ga.: Messianic Vision Publishers) available from address in 11 below.

10. Hosea 11 (Modern Language Bible).

11. Only if God had chosen to call a particular people, as God chose ancient Israel, should there be no competing religions allowed. Usually the sole issue for Israel was one of choice, not knowledge. The question was whether they would follow the God of justice and goodness, the God worthy of their love, or whether they would follow unworthy gods or unworthy systems. Normally that choice could be made without even learning the content of other religions. If God desired a people who would serve no other god(s) and a people who would not be mixed with any others who serve any unworthy gods, it was quite right for God to command that anyone who would not follow this way should be killed. There was nothing to stop that person from leaving Israel to serve these other gods without being found out. Nevertheless, to serve a lesser god and to forsake the One who deserves to be worshiped does deserve death.

It does not follow from this that the Christian message should not be heard by the Jew who takes these commands of the Torah seriously. Because Yeshua presented evidence that he was the promised Jewish Messiah, he should be heard and considered just as we would hear and test any claimed prophet of Israel. But each individual must evaluate his claims for oneself. No authority has the right to speak for the whole nation on this point. Just as some kings, priests, and prophets of ancient Israel, those of highest political and spiritual authority, had rejected the God of Israel, so it should not be considered inconceivable that even a council of the highest rabbis might reject God's will today.

Some rabbinical tradition places the authority of majority rabbinical decision over even the signs that were to attest to a prophet (Deuteronomy 18:15-22) or even over the voice of God from heaven (see Are the Rabbis Right, Michael Brown, audiocassette tape available for $5 from Messianic Vision, P.O. Box 1918, Brunswick, Ga. 31521-1918). The obvious problem is that there is no good reason to accept such rabbinical tradition.

12. This is not to say that there is not a legitimate place for even book burning if the act is given a different meaning. When early Ephesian followers of Yeshua burned their books of magical arts (Acts 19:19) they were not advocating a censorship of ideas as Hitler did. They were saying that they had found themselves to be in bondage to oppressive spiritual forces through these works. They were not saying that others should not determine for themselves whether such arts are as destructive as they claimed; rather, they were merely expressing their opposition to and freedom from this system. It's the same as if an ex-Nazi were to burn his once loved copy of Mein Kampf.

13. Richard Terrell, Resurrecting the Third Reich (Lafayette, La.: Hunting House, 1994) 80-82.

14. The root beliefs that led to the holocaust and its resistance. Samuel and Pearl Oliner, The Altruistic Personality (New York: Free Press, 1988) look at the mindset of the rescuers. Terrell's Resurrecting the Third Reich looks at more of the historical background of this era.

15. Corrie ten Boom, Father ten Boom (Fleming Revel, 1978) 33.

16. Father ten Boom 33.

17. The Hiding Place, 25.

18. Father ten Boom, 146.

19. The Hiding Place, 99.

20. The Hiding Place, 138.

21. The New Testament teaches that God forgives those who call upon him in repentance and contrition, so I'm not saying that this pastor was without hope. Certainly his act cannot be excused by appeal to the command to obey your government (Romans 13:1). One may obey one's leaders only if God's commands are not thereby broken (see Acts 4:19).

22. Richard Neuhaus, National Review (10 June 1988) 42.

23. Ram Dass and Paul Gorman, How Can I Help? Stories and Reflections on Service (Alfred A. Knoff, 1985).

24. Dave Hunt, Peace, Prosperity, and the Coming Holocaust (Eugene, Or.: Harvest House, 1983), chapter 11.

25. Johannes Aagaard, "Hindu Scholars, Germany and the Third Reich," Update, Sept. 1982. Cited in Hunt, 150-51.

Encounter

The Time of Messiah

Nothing can be more important than determining if meaning or significance can be found for our lives. Assuming that there is no reason for human existence, philosopher Albert Camus said that the only serious philosophical problem is that of suicide. Ultimately we are nothing. Beyond our momentary desire and decision, there simply isn't any substantial reason to continue to be than to cease to exist. If there is a reason that we are here and, specifically, if we are here to know God, can anyone seriously pass up the chance to find out if this is true if there is even the slightest chance of finding out?

The evidence we're about to give urges that it is true. We only ask that you think through this evidence with a mind and will open to the evidence and open and searching after God. On nothing more than the possibility that God is there, we ask you to seek God and seek whatever truth God would give you. Of the various possible kinds of evidence available for this claim, we want to focus on one somewhat unique line. This is a study of some of the most forceful evidence available that God exists and that Yeshua (Jesus) is God's promised Messiah. And if this is true, it would follow that his teaching would be true that we need a relationship with God and that we can find it through Yeshua.

We would claim that no honest person can avoid this evidence. It speaks to those who would accept the one the Hebrew prophecies point to as the Messiah as well as those who do not. To the latter, to the honest skeptic and agnostic, it speaks with logic and evidence. To the former, such as to the orthodox Jew, it speaks with evidence as well, but it also speaks with a special concern. And before getting into our main argument we need to look at this concern. It finds expression in the following scenario which has repeated itself over the past twenty centuries with only minor variations.

From antiquity the Jewish people have anticipated the coming of one from God who would be a deliverer, a specially anointed one who would reign over Israel and the whole earth and who would bring unending peace and prosperity. The Hebrew scripture defines and identifies the promised Messiah.

A Jewish man or woman (let us say a man in this case) takes the time to search the Hebrew scripture for himself to determine just how to identify the promised Messiah. He looks at all of the passages that have been argued as applying to the Messiah and especially to those the rabbis had at one time or another considered Messianic. He finds the picture of a Messiah depicted in endnote 2. He concludes that one person and only one person could and did fit the qualifications: a Jewish rabbi named Yeshua.

Now because of this conclusion and because of his commitment to Yeshua, he is told by his Jewish community that he is no longer a Jew. But isn't there an inconsistency here? What could be more Jewish than to search to discover the identity of the longed for Messiah? And if one Jewish man fits the qualifications, would any Jewish person who is persuaded by this evidence not be obligated to believe that this is the Messiah? Or must this one Messianic candidate be precluded from consideration simply because Gentiles have also followed him as their Messiah, or because some have taken on his name and sewn hatred and death in that name? (Can one be considered a "Christian" who acts in contradiction to the very teachings of Yeshua? Certainly no more than one can be a Marxist who rejects the essential teachings of Marx.)

Neither can one say that because our forefathers have rejected Yeshua, one cannot be a Jew who accepts him. That reasoning won't work because while some of the ancestors rejected him, others followed him as Messiah. What right do we have to choose between them? Furthermore, how do we know they had rejected Yeshua for adequate reasons? To be honest with ourselves we must evaluate their arguments for ourselves.

Indeed, when God spoke through Moses he commanded the people to carefully evaluate the claims of every person who claimed to be a prophet (Deuteronomy 13 and 18:15-22). If one passes these tests, that prophet must be believed and obeyed. God says that to fail to do so would bring his judgment (18:19). Deuteronomy 18 is being disobeyed when one only listens to the arguments of Yeshua's opponents and not to the arguments of Yeshua's advocates and to Yeshua's own words.

Whatever the reasons others have rejected Yeshua as the Messiah, no honest Jewish person can consider him or herself to be truly Jewish without evaluating the evidence for oneself. The deepest sense of one's Jewishness resides in the most ancient goals and longings and anticipations of Judaism. And there are few things more primal to Judaism than the longing for the coming of the Anointed One.

(Note: For further inquiry we would refer the reader to the endnotes. The topics noted in the endnotes in bold print are provided for easier reference. In this study CE and BCE will be used in place of AD and BC respectively.)

We hope to show that Daniel 9:24-26, Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks, demonstrates the existence of the God of the Hebrew scripture who has sent his Messiah and the identity of the Messiah1. Indeed, with nothing more than this prophecy and one other we will see that one and only one individual could be the Messiah: Yeshua (Jesus) of Nazareth. Other Messianic prophecies support this claim, some even independently of other prophecies and other historical evidence2. None, we believe, is as difficult to deny as this one. In conjunction with other traditional evidence for Christianity such as the evidence for the resurrection, this prophecy becomes enormously more powerful for demonstrating the existence of God and the messiahship of Yeshua.

(Note: the following translations are presented together for comparison.)

The Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks

Daniel 9:25 states that "from the issuing of a command to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be 7 sevens and 62 sevens. . . ." This must be the Messiah and not merely "an anointed one" like any normal king, priest, or prophet, as some would argue. This time period ends on 30 March (or 10 Nisan) 33 CE. The origin point of the prophesied time period is at the time of Artaxerxes' command given on 5 March (1 Nisan) of 444 BCE (Nehemiah 2:1-8). The prophesied time period, 7 sevens and 62 sevens, following the ancient 360 day calendars, equals 476 solar years plus 25 days. The terminal point of the prophecy, 476 solar years and 25 days from 5 March 444 BCE is 30 March 33 CE.

Yeshua entered Jerusalem on a donkey as the crowds proclaimed him king, just as Zechariah had foretold of Messiah (9:9, John 12:13). But this occurred on Monday, 30 March 33 CE, the very day Daniel said the Anointed One would come. This was also the day the Pascal lambs were being selected for slaughter. Again, as Daniel foretold that after that Messiah would be "cut off," so Yeshua was crucified only a few days later on Friday, 3 April (14 Nisan), when the Passover lambs were being sacrificed.

One early account records Yeshua's contemporary, Yohanna (John) the "immerser" or "baptizer," as saying that Yeshua is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). Yeshua died on a part of the same mountainous structure which formed the foundation of Jerusalem. Here some twenty centuries earlier "God provided his own sacrifice" (following the words of Genesis 22:8, 14) as a substitute for Abraham's commanded and nearly executed sacrifice of his son Isaac. With a dust storm on the day of Yeshua's death and a lunar eclipse that evening, the sun was darkened and the moon had turned to blood: a sign in the heavens which the Hebrew prophets had reserved for the most ominous and spiritually significant events of history. Less than 40 years later, Jerusalem and the Temple would be destroyed, again as Daniel had foretold (9:26).

So not only do the prophecies indicate that Yeshua was the promised Messiah, but the events of his life and death perfectly fit his claim to be the one foretold who would die in our place--as our substitute--to remove our sin and bring us back to God.3

A Prediction of the Coming of Messiah

Daniel 9:25 and 26 speak of the coming of "an anointed one, a prince" and an "anointed one" respectively. On the basis of what is in essence the Masoretic punctuation of the text, some will argue that these are two distinct individuals appearing at different times. Some will also claim that because the terms have no articles, they must not speak of the Messiah but simply two anointed ones. The above text (on the right) from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible reflects this view. (Underlining is mine to pinpoint important terms. The reader may wish to compare this text with the New American Standard Version in the left column.)

The anointed prince and the anointed one are the same person who will come at the end of sixty-nine sevens. Daniel 9:25 should read, "seven sevens and sixty-two sevens." Thus the time of the anointed prince of v. 25 will be as the NASV above indicates, at the end of 7 sevens and 62 sevens, not merely the first 7 sevens. With this, the exact time of the anointed prince can be determined. The anointed prince and the anointed one mentioned in Daniel 9:25-26 are also likely speaking of the same individual. We will argue for these conclusions by considering the following objections and arguments.

A disjunctive punctuation mark indicating a separation between the 7 sevens and the 62 sevens is found in the accepted Massoretic text. As the above NRSV indicates, this would mean that the first mentioned anointed prince would come after only the first 7 sevens. But this punctuation mark, the athmach, was added in the ninth or tenth century CE and its placement here cannot be shown to reflect the original intent of the author. Furthermore, the athmach is elsewhere placed in passages in which its addition makes no logical sense while it does add to the musical flow of the passage in the Hebrew. It clearly cannot be used to argue for a logical or syntactical separation in the two sets of numbers.4

Another problem with this reading involves the words in v. 25: "it [Jerusalem] shall be built again with streets and moat, but in troubled times." This more likely applies to the time of the first 7 sevens, not a later time. This was the uneasy time of rebuilding after the Exile. After the first 7 sevens there was no significant rebuilding of the city, particularly of its defenses as the passage indicates, during turbulent times. Before the time the first 7 sevens ended the builders worked with sword always near at hand and with watchmen constantly looking for their enemy. But to make this passage place a grammatical separation between the 7 and the 62 sevens would put this rebuilding during the 62 sevens. Note how the NRSV puts it: "until the time of an anointed prince, there shall be seven weeks; and for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with streets and moat. . ." Therefore the better reading would be ". . .until the time of an anointed prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks. It shall be built again with streets and moat, but in troubled times." This reading does not force this rebuilding during the second group of sevens, the 62 sevens.

Another difficulty arises if we see two anointed ones appearing at different times. If the "anointed one" of v. 26 is not the same "an anointed one, a prince" of v. 25, then we have the anointed one of v. 26 being killed some indeterminate time "after" the end of the second group of weeks, the 62 weeks.

Certainly it was a common idiom to use the word "after" to mean "at the same time." For example, in Jesus' time it was said that he would rise from the dead "after three days" and also that it would be "on the third day." These expressions meant the same thing. But the word "after," if used without a parallel term or phrase to define it, could also mean some indeterminate time after the event in question. Because of this possibility, we cannot use v. 26 in the NRSV reading to pinpoint a specific date if Daniel 9:25 and 26 speak of two anointed ones. We know nothing about the anointed one of v. 26 other than that he dies. Why his death is even mentioned is a complete mystery. His death can mean nothing to us on this interpretation. We have no way to determine the time of this individual's coming or, given the ambiguous nature of the word "after," of his death. We don't even know that he was alive during any of the 70 sevens. How do we know that his death is not a thousand years "after" the 69th week? Prophecies are usually taken to speak of events of some importance. This prophecy does not. It cannot, on this interpretation, be reasonably applied to any event or person no matter how important that event or person might be.

But if this anointed one is the same person as the anointed ruler of v. 25, then the time sequence makes sense. There will be 69 weeks until the anointed ruler comes and then after the 69th week he will be cut off. If the time of this individual's coming can thus be determined, more information might be discovered about him that would shed light on the significance of his death. We see again that the punctuation allowing for two anointed ones, one after the first 7 weeks and the second after the following 62 weeks, is likely incorrect.

An even stronger reason for rejecting the claim that Daniel is here speaking of two anointed ones is the fact that no anointed one can be identified who appeared at the end of the first 7 sevens.

Consider the dates that have been variously offered for the decree which would originate the seventy weeks period (9:25):

(1.1) 605, 597 BCE

Jeremiah's prophecies he received of
Jerusalem's future restoration after the exile
(Jeremiah 25:11-12, and 29:10 respectively).

(1.2) 539/538 BCE

King Cyrus' decree to rebuild the Temple
(2 Chronicles 36:22-23, Ezra 1:1-4).
This was almost exactly the same date
Daniel was given his prophecy.

(1.3) 521 BCE

Darius' decree to rebuilt the Temple
(Ezra 6:1-12).

(1.4) 457 BCE

Artaxerxes I decreed the financing of the
rebuilding of the Temple
(Ezra 7:12-26).

(1.5) 444 BCE

Artaxerxes I commanded Nehemiah to lead
the rebuilding of Jerusalem
(Nehemiah 2:5-8).

 

Of these several possible reconstruction decrees or commands of the preexilic, exilic, and postexilic periods, only Artaxerxes' commissioning of Nehemiah (1.5 above) is a command to rebuild Jerusalem.5 Jeremiah's prophecies speak of only the return of the exiles after seventy years. The others only speak of rebuilding the Temple.

Artaxerxes was king over the dominant Persian empire after Babylon's destruction. Nehemiah 2:1-8 records that in the month of Nisan in Artaxerxes' 20th year, Nehemiah, the king's cupbearer, is given permission to go to Jerusalem and conduct its rebuilding.

The decree of Artaxerxes I in 457 (1.4 above) is often claimed to be the command mentioned in Daniel 9:25. Here it is stated that of the funds to be used for rebuilding the Temple, Ezra may use whatever might be in excess as it would seem good to him (7:18). It is possible that Ezra took this to mean he could use some of it to start to rebuild Jerusalem (9:9). Upon receiving a particular complaint that the city was being rebuilt, Artaxerxes decreed that the city not be rebuilt unless or until he would say it should be (4:11). Possibly Artaxerxes' decree in chapter four forbidding rebuilding the city followed his decree recorded in chapter seven financing the building of the Temple. Whether given before of after, Artaxerxes was very clear that he did not intend the city to be rebuilt via his financing decree. No mention of rebuilding the city is found in the Temple financing decree of chapter seven. So the financing decree cannot be used as the origin point of Daniel's prophesied time table.

But assuming that any of the above five possible decrees and commands might be the origin point the prophesied time period (the terminus a quo) we reach the following dates for the 49th year:

The date of the 7th seven.

(2.1) 556, 548 BCE
(2.2) 490/89 BCE
(2.3) 472 BCE
(2.4) 408 BCE
(2.5) 395 BCE

Possible candidates for the first anointed ruler are the Persian king, Cyrus; Jeshua, the postexilic high priest; and Zerubbabel, the postexilic governor of Judah. Cyrus' date would be 539; Jeshua and Zerubbabel's would be about 537 or slightly later. But none of these come sufficiently close to any of the above five possible dates. So it is very evident that no one qualifies as a first anointed prince if he only appears at the end of the first 7 sevens. To make sense of this passage he must appear at the end of the 69th seven and be identical with the anointed one of v. 26.

One argument claiming that there must be two different anointed ones spoken of in these two verses would say that if there were only one, then v. 25 would say, ". . . from the time that the word went out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the time of an anointed prince, there shall be sixty-nine weeks. . ." It would not say, as it does, "seven weeks and sixty-two weeks" (whatever the punctuation). There would be no reason to distinguish between the two groups of sevens unless they pinpointed two different anointed ones.

But by this same reasoning we might think that it should not even say sixty-nine sevens; why doesn't it just say that there will be 493 years or units of time? Why would there be a distinctinction between the "sixty-nine" and the "sevens"? The answer is that just as the units of weeks of years were significant earlier in the chapter, so they are still prophetically significant here. Likewise there is a prophetic significance in the first 7 weeks just as there is in the second unit of weeks, the 62 weeks. There is a prophetic significance in the distinction between the two. The first unit of time brings us to the completion of the rebuilding of Jerusalem; the second unit brings us to the time of an anointed one who will be killed. So the distinction between the 7 weeks and the 62 weeks gives us no reason to see two anointed ones.

The anointed one of Daniel 9:25 and 26 is the Messiah. First of all, we do have to admit that merely because Daniel 9:25 and 26 say that this is an anointed ruler and anointed one respectively does not in itself mean these two must refer to the Messiah. No article is present before the anointed prince of v. 25 or the anointed one of v. 26. So v. 26 should read "an anointed one" rather than "the anointed one" just as v. 25 should read "an anointed ruler." Priests and kings were specially anointed of God for their roles. Obviously, that does not mean that just any priest or king could be the Messiah.

However, this does not prove that either the anointed one of v. 26 or the anointed prince of v. 25 cannot be the Messiah. Michael Brown points out that "the Hebrew language can sometimes specify a particular person or event without using the definite article, as recognized by the standard grammars and, in certain phrases, in virtually all translations."6 This is much like the modern Jewish usage of the term. Jewish people have for many centuries now omitted any definite article before the word; they have spoken of the Messiah as simply "Maschiach."

Secondly, we need to recognize that no claimed Messianic prophecy is definitely Messianic. They will speak of "the Lord," "the branch," "a son of David," a "root of Jesse," "a ruler," "a star," etc. Only by analyzing the text and the context can we determine if the prophecy is speaking of the Messiah. Indeed, Daniel 9:25-26 comes closest to explicitly identifying this prophesied individual with the word used for the Messiah.

The reason Daniel 9 must be speaking of the Messiah is as follows: First of all, we have seen that the anointed ruler of v. 25 appears at the end of the 69th week. Vs. 25 and 26 are speaking of only one individual. The anointed one is the same as the anointed ruler.

Secondly, we can identify only one person who appeared on the very day Daniel said the anointed ruler of v. 25 would appear because he fulfilled another Messianic prophecy on that day. Yeshua entered Jerusalem on a donkey to the acclaim of the crowds thus fulfilling Zechariah 9:9. Because he fulfilled Daniel 9:25 so precisely, Jesus must be the anointed one of v. 26.

Thirdly, because this was one who was specially anointed of God, we should accept any claims he would make and especially the claims he would make for himself. We would expect that the prophet Daniel would have mentioned if this anointed one would be evil or if he would be a deceiver. If this anointed one should claim to be the Messiah and be lying, wouldn't Daniel give some hint of his clearly and uniquely evil nature?

Next, the king in Zechariah 9:9 is normally taken to be the Messiah. Now it may be difficult but it is not necessarily miraculous for someone to enter Jerusalem on a donkey and for him to get crowds of people to acclaim him as Messiah--as happened to Jesus. So certainly even a false Messiah might be able to fulfill Zechariah 9:9 alone. But if a particular man does fulfill this prophecy of the coming Messiah, and if he fulfills this prophecy on the very day Daniel said an anointed one would come, this anointed one must be the Messiah. In this case the "anointed one" of Daniel 9:25 and 26 must mean Messiah. At least this must be the conclusion of anyone who accepts the authority of the Hebrew scripture. And from the fact that Jesus fulfilled both prophecies to the very day one of the prophecies predicted, even those who do not accept the authority of the Hebrew scripture would have to admit that this is very likely the work of a superintelligent power.

We have claimed earlier that no purported Messianic prophecy is necessarily Messianic. So if it is questioned whether Zechariah 9:9 does truly speak of the Messiah, let's assume for the sake of the argument that it does not. Because this anointed one of Daniel 9:26 has also fulfilled Zechariah 9:9, and because Zechariah here speaks of a worthy, just, and anticipated king of Judah, we should expect that this is not an evil king. And if this king who is specially anointed of God claims to be the Messiah, we should accept that this claim is true.

Finally, we have good reason to believe that Yeshua, the one who fulfilled Zechariah 9:9 on the day Daniel said an anointed one would appear, did claim to be the Messiah. At his trial he admitted upon direct questioning that he was the Messiah and told his listeners that they would see him, the Son of Man, coming on the clouds--a direct allusion to the superhuman heavenly figure of Daniel 7. All of the Synoptic Gospels claim this (Matthew 26:63-65, Mark 14:61-63, Luke 22:69-71). So it appears that he was condemned because of the religious leaders' jealousy. He was condemned because he, someone who would dare to question their teachings and moral character, would also dare to claim to be the Messiah. Other passages could be cited. We would refer the reader to the writings of scholars like Blumberg, Bruce, and Guthrie among others for the evidence that these writing are basically reliable historically.76 (Also see the last section of this paper, "The Historical Accuracy of the Earliest Surviving Biographies, the Gospels.")

If we were to exclude any statements from the Gospels that Yeshua claimed to be the Messiah, we should recognize that his followers definitely claimed this of him. From writings dating less than twenty years after Jesus' death and from historical accounts describing events almost immediately after his death, we have his direct followers (those who knew Jesus while he was alive on earth) and nearly direct followers claiming this: e.g., Peter (Acts 2:31-32), Paul (1 Thessalonians 1:1, Galatians. 1:1). Always his followers call him the Messiah (or in Greek, the Christ). If they claimed this so adamantly and consistently and so early on, is it conceivable that Jesus did not claim this of himself?

Non-biblical sources as well indicate that Jesus was very early regarded as the Messiah by his followers. Josephus in the Jewish Antiquities, written in the 90's, says this. Tacitus, writing around 110, does so as well.7 He says that an immense multitude of Christians was arrested in Rome. Historians say this would be about 64 CE. Tacitus says they were named after their leader, whom he called Christus (or Christ) and who was executed in Judea under Pilate during Tiberius' reign.

The basic logic of this argument may be summarized as follows:

1) On the very day Daniel's prophecy of a coming anointed ruler was fulfilled, Zechariah's prophecy of a coming king was also fulfilled (9:9). It was Jesus who fulfilled both prophecies on this day. Jesus was thus the predicted specially anointed ruler. Such an event is far too unlikely to accept as having occurred by chance.

2) Neither Daniel's prophecy nor Zechariah's gives any indication that this is an evil king or anointed one. Such a specially prophesied individual would have been depicted as evil or a deceiver if he truly was. Zechariah depicts him as a good and trustworthy king.

3) Jesus claimed to be the Messiah.

4) Because Jesus is demonstrated to be this trustworthy king and anointed one and because he claimed to be the Messiah, Daniel 9's 'anointed one' must mean Messiah and Jesus must be the Messiah.

Another argument can be given that "an anointed one" of v. 26 must be Yeshua. First of all, this anointed one will be cut off or killed the text says. The death of Yeshua had been ascribed very great spiritual significance both by his followers and by himself.8

Secondly, Yeshua can arguably be claimed to fulfill all six of the infinitives of v. 24, the events that must occur before all seventy weeks are fulfilled. (Only the application of the last infinitive to Yeshua--"to anoint the most holy"--might be more questioned than the others. The word "place" is not found in the original text. But if the text cannot refer to the anointing of Jesus and it must refer to a place--as some would argue--then it likely refers to the anointing of the holy place when the second Temple was completed.) One could also argue that his death fulfills one or even several of these infinitives.9

Thirdly, the time of Yeshua's death at least fits the time Daniel said this anointed one's death would occur (v. 26). Yeshua's death was four days "after" the day the 69th seven was fulfilled. We have pointed out earlier that "after" might indicate some indeterminate time after an event. But it could and often does indicate a short time after the event or even the same time as the event. So Jesus' death four days after the end of the 69th week does fit the prediction of v. 26.

Fourthly, no other Messianic or non-Messianic candidate who might be claimed to fit the identity of the anointed one of v. 26 had a death that can be ascribed any spiritual significance at all (other than the obvious significance their deaths would have to themselves and those close to them).

Why would Daniel's prophecy mention this anointed one's death if that death had no significance? Would it not apply to one whose death is at least claimed to have had enormous significance; enough significance that one or more of the infinitives of v. 24 have been applied to him?

To look at this argument a little more closely, consider the other possible candidates who are sometimes claimed to be the anointed one, the one who would be cut off after the 69th week:

1) The high priest Onias III,

who very possibly was killed in 171 BCE.
(Josephus contests that he was murdered at this time.)

2) King Agrippa I, d. 44 CE.

This is the usual traditional Jewish candidate.

3) Alexander Yani, an evil high priest, 103-76 BCE10

Considering the possible dates claimed for the origin point of this prophecy which we had mentioned earlier, we can determine the end of the 69 weeks. The date calculated using normal solar years is given first; the date calculated using the ancient 360 day calendars is in the second column. Numbers 3.1-3.5 below correspond to the listed numbers given earlier (1.1-1.5 and 2.1-2.5).

The date of the 69th seven.

(3.1) 122 or 114 BCE	129 or 121 BCE
(3.2) 56/55 BCE	63/62 BCE
(3.3) 38 BCE	45 BCE
(3.4) 27 CE	20 CE
(3.5) 40 CE	33 CE

None of the individuals listed above (1-3) had a death that was of any spiritual significance or any significance for the history of Judah. Only Yeshua could claim that. Other than Yeshua, only Agrippa comes close and he misses it by four years. And we have argued earlier that only the origin point corresponding to list item 3.5 above could be a possibility. Only the one who came and died in 33 CE could be the Messiah. (For other arguments that Daniel 9 predicts the time of Messiah's coming see note 11.)

The Date of the Appearance of Messiah

We now need to consider in greater detail the evidence that Yeshua appeared in history at the end of the 69th week, the date Daniel predicted the anointed one would appear. First we need to consider the evidence that the decree or command of which this prophecy speaks was given by Artaxerxes on 5 March 444 BCE.

Jerusalem was destroyed by Babylon in 586 BCE (Figure 1). Most of Jerusalem's inhabitants were taken into exile at that time and many were taken earlier. About 48 years after the initial occupation, around 538, Daniel, one of the exiles, is purportedly given a visitation by the angel Gabriel and is given this prophecy. Now the book of Daniel is often considered to have been written much later, around 160 BCE, largely because of the very accurate predictions of the history of this period. But the late dating is not likely; the evidence for a sixth century BCE date is increasingly difficult to refute.12 However, either date could be admitted for our study. This issue makes no difference to the coming arguments since the events would in either case be far beyond the control of any normal human power.

The prophecy speaks of a decree or command to rebuild Jerusalem. Of several possible reconstruction decrees or commands of this period (1.1-1.5) only the one given by Artaxerxes in 444 refers to rebuilding Jerusalem and not the Temple. We have pointed out earlier that the reconstruction depicted in verse 25, "it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress," portrays the situation of Nehemiah's reconstruction under Artaxerxes' order.5

The first year of Artaxerxes' reign was 1 Tishri (September/October) 464--1 Tishri 463 by the Jewish reckoning. His 20th year then was September/October 445 to September/October 444.13 The asterisks (*) on the graph in figure 2 indicate the beginning of Artaxerxes' first year and the beginning of his twentieth year. Nisan (March/April) of Artaxerxes' twentieth year would then be in 444. Using astronomical calculations, the first day of Nisan for that year can be determined to be 5 March.14 Though Nehemiah 2 does not specify the exact day of the month, there is some good reason to believe that these events occurred on the first.15

We have determined the time at which this prophecy was to begin. We now need to ask what the predicted period of time to be covered would be. The passage states that from the time of the command "until Messiah the Prince are seven sevens and sixty-two sevens." We will see that these are sevens of years of 360 days each.

The passage reads, "seven sevens and sixty-two sevens." We have argued earlier that it should not read that Messiah will come only after the first seven sevens.

"Weeks" literally means "sevens." Usually it means seven days but the context indicates that units of seven years are intended.16 The years considered were 360 days long as this refiects some of the dominant calendar systems of the time as well as the most ancient known calendar of Hebrew or pre-Hebrew history.17 Using these sevens to indicate a period of years of any other feasible length, we would reach or come close to Yeshua's lifetime but we would not come close to any other possible Messianic contender.18

The 7 sevens and 62 sevens of 360 day years equal 476 solar years plus 25 days. Add 7 and 62 to get 69. Then 69 sevens is 483. So we have a total of 483 years of 360 days each. The total number of days would then be 173,880. A solar year has 356.2422 days. The total number of days, 173,880, divided by 365.2422 would give us the number of solar years, which would be 476.06767. The final fraction of years, .06767, is 24.719539 days or (rounded off) 25 days (.06767 years times 365.2422 days per year). So we have 476 solar years plus 25 days.

We have determined the origin point of this prophecy and the amount of time to be covered. At what point in time does the prophesied time period end? With 476 solar years plus 25 days after 5 March (1 Nisan) 444 BCE we reach 30 March (10 Nisan) 33 CE. To get this we first do simple subtraction: 476-444=32. We then add one year to 32 to get 33 since there is no year "0." For example, 5 years after 3 BCE is 3 CE: (5-3=2)+1=3. If it would help to visualize this, consider the diagram in Figure 3.

So exactly 476 years after 5 March 444 BCE would put us at 5 March 33 CE. Add the extra 25 days on to that and we arrive at 30 March 33 CE. This was on Monday, the date of Yeshua's triumphal entry into Jerusalem a few days before his death on Friday (See Figure 1).

What is the evidence that the triumphal entry occurred on Monday? If we accept a Friday crucifixion (which we will give evidence for shortly) the following considerations make a Monday entry most likely.

Sunday is traditionally accepted as the day Yeshua entered Jerusalem. But Monday better fits the chronology of events as depicted in the earliest surviving biographies, the Gospel accounts. Assuming a Sunday entry, we have one day, Wednesday, unaccounted for. This is unlikely because the account is so detailed for this week that it is improbable that the events of any particular day would be left out.

Furthermore, Monday was the day the Pascal lambs were selected for their slaughter on Friday. Yeshua saw himself as the suffering Servant of Isaiah 53, the lamb which would die as a substitute for the people.3 Daniel 9:26 begins by saying that after the last 62 weeks (the last of the 69 sevens) Messiah will be "cut off." The term implies a sudden, violent end such as we would find in a death by crucifixion.

Until Rashi in the eleventh century, the rabbis almost without exception accepted that Isaiah 53 spoke of an individual person, and very often the Messiah. Until then no authoritative rabbinical traditions accepted that it spoke of Israel or a righteous remnant of Israel. Some thought only the specific statements concerning the Servant of the Lord's suffering and death didn't apply to Messiah. Some sought to reconcile the statements of the Servant's death with other prophecies of Messiah's eternal reign by positing two Messiahs: a Messiah ben Joseph who would die and a Messiah ben David who would reign forever. Sometimes even the Davidic Messiah would be said to suffer (though not die).19 Yeshua reconciled the prophecies by claiming that he would die, rise from the dead, reign in the presence of God in heaven, and return to the earth in the clouds. He would have the eternal reign of the Son of Man of Daniel 7.

Believing himself to be the one who would fulfill the typology of the sacrificial lamb, it would not at all be a problem for him, as it is for that segment of Judaism which rejects his teaching, to know that the Temple sacrifices would cease with the destruction of the Temple. For the Torah, the Law of Moses, is quite clear that there is no remission of sin without the shedding of blood: "for it is the blood that makes atonement," the Lord says (Leviticus 17:11).20

The suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 depicted one who would fulfill the symbol of the sacrificial lamb (as was the Passover lamb) whose life would be given as a substitute for the people. He would bear the sins of the people to bring them back to God. Yeshua died as the Passover lambs were being slaughtered in the Temple. If this was something he had arranged, he would probably have also planned his entry into Jerusalem--when he would be "selected" and acclaimed king--to be on Monday when the Pascal lambs were selected.

Of course it may be questioned whether any normal person could so arrange the timing and the occurrence of such historic events. If so, then the fact that Yeshua died when the lambs were slain may give us reason to think that a power greater than any normal human power had arranged these events. Wouldn't this "power" have also arranged Yeshua's triumphal entry to occur on that almost equally significant Monday?

So if the crucifixion occurred on Friday, the triumphal entry would have occurred on the previous Monday. What, then, is the evidence that Yeshua died on Friday? The historical accounts all indicate that the crucifixion was on the day of preparation, which normally meant Friday, the day of preparation for the Sabbath.21 Mark 15:42 specifically states that this was the day before the Sabbath.22

The crucifixion occurred on 14 Nisan, the eve of the official Passover and the date the lambs were being sacrificed (this we will call a harmonizing view, see Figure 4, HV A). (By some technical variations in the dating systems used, certain Jewish parties might have considered the crucifixion on the 15th, though by the official Jewish calendar it would have been the 14th. Such differences might have been officially tolerated. See HV B & C.) John 18:28 tells of some not wanting to defile themselves on the morning of Yeshua's trial and crucifixion in order that they might eat the Passover that evening. The Passover meal and sader occurred that evening, the lambs having been slain in the afternoon. Because the Passover was seen as beginning with the Passover sader and because a new day began at sunset in Jewish reckoning, Passover day, 15 Nisan, began at sunset with the sader. The Babylonian Talmud would confirm this dating when it says that "On the eve of Passover, Yeshua (ms. M: the Nazarene) was hanged."23

There is some evidence that Yeshua was killed on the following day, on 15 Nisan by official dating, Passover day, instead of 14 Nisan (this we will call the traditional view; see fig 4, TV). This writer believes that this confiicting evidence can be most adequately reconciled to point to a 14 Nisan crucifixion,24 but to be certain of our date we will include the possibility of both a 14 and a 15 Nisan crucifixion date. So we will be looking for a Thursday and a Friday 14 Nisan.

What was the year Yeshua died? We can first set the limits between 26 and 36 CE. We know that Pilate, the appointed governor who tried Yeshua, began his office in 26 CE at the earliest. Josephus states that Pilate governed 10 years and that Tiberius died (which was in 37) before Pilate reached Rome.25 So it is most likely that he began his reign in 26 and left Judea in the winter of 36/37. Caiaphus, the high priest at Yeshua's trial, was deposed on the Passover of 37.26 So the latest Yeshua could have died would have been on the Passover of 36.

If we should go no further in determining the exact date of Yeshua's death, we should recognize that we have here a prophecy of the appearance of the Messiah whose fulfillment occurs well within the time of Yeshua's life. This is sometimes the case even when the 360 day years are not followed.17

Daniel 9:26 continues by saying that after Messiah is killed, "the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary." The only event to fit this prophecy since Daniel's time was the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 CE. Malachi 3:1 also confirms that Messiah will come before the Temple is destroyed.

Moishe Rosen comments that, "Even if one were to totally avoid the startling evidence of those computations, one fact stands crystal-clear in this passage--the Messiah had to come before the destruction of the Temple and the holy city. If Jesus is not the Messiah, what figure in his generation was?"27

We now need to determine the exact year of Yeshua's death. (For the following it may be helpful to refer to the chart in Figure 4.) The 14th of Nisan fell on a Friday in 33 as well as, very likely, 30 CE. However, there is also a good possibility that it instead fell on Thursday in 30. It fell on Thursday in 27 unless atmospheric conditions were very poor at the beginning of that month, in which case it would have fallen on Friday. With unusually bad weather conditions in 34, 14 Nisan could have fallen on Thursday.28 With this the following lines of evidence point to 33 CE as the year Yeshua died.

Between 26 and 36 CE a lunar eclipse occurred on the Passover of 33 but on none other. We also have some indication that a lunar eclipse occurred, turning the moon blood-red, when Yeshua died. Centuries earlier the Hebrew prophet Joel foretold that the moon would be turned to blood and the sky would be darkened, "before that great and dreadful day of the Lord."29 Other scriptures indicate that such phenomena in the stars and heavens are reserved for the most prophetically significant events of history.30 The comments of one observer shortly after Yeshua's death indicate that the moon was eclipsed and that this was just such a prophetically significant time.31 Latter tradition, which might have come from much earlier sources, likewise indicates that the moon had turned blood-red at the time of his death.32

One important line of evidence from political history indicates that Yeshua died after 32 CE. From historians such as Philo, Josephus, and Luke we find Pilate depicted as a headstrong, greedy, and vicious governor perfectly fitted for the anti-Semitic goals of Sejanus who appointed him.33 But the Pilate depicted in the passion narratives was a broken man, fearful of the Jewish leaders.34 This gives us reason to believe that Yeshua died after Sejanus was deposed and executed in October of 31. Only then, when Pilate's political future was so tenuous, being so much in the hands of the Jewish leaders, could we expect his character to be so changed.35

A crucifixion on the Passover of 32 would have been too soon after Sejanus' death for Pilate to have a complete change of mind. It also would have been too soon if, as was most likely, the votive shields episode intervened. This final insult to the Jewish nation, Pilate's placement of gilded votive shields in Herod's former palace, brought an official complaint from Jewish leaders to Caesar and, in turn, Tiberius' strong reprimand to Pilate.36 With this incident Pilate had no doubt that he had better not again offend the Jewish leaders.

So the crucifixion would have been between 33 and 36. Between 33 and 36 only 33 and 34 were years 14 Nisan fell on a Friday or Thursday (respectively) and the latter is a possibility only if an extra leap month had been added because of bad weather. Again the evidence points to a 33 crucifixion.

We have more evidence of a 33 execution in that we can pinpoint four Passovers in Yeshua's ministry,37 the first of which occurred in 29 or 3038 and the last one being at the time of the crucifixion. So exactly three years from the Passover of 29 and of 30 would put us at the death of Yeshua on the Passover of 32 and 33 respectively (and 32 can be excluded because neither Passover eve nor Passover day occurred on Friday in that year).

With this accumulation of evidence, a 33 crucifixion date is certainly the most likely date. This was Friday, the third of April.

Watching for the evening appearance of the full Pascal moon in order that the Passover meal might begin, observers in Jerusalem instead saw rising above the horizon a moon turned blood-red. This was at 6:20 p.m. A dust storm had hidden the sun from noon until 3 p.m. that day. Yeshua was crucified at about 10 a.m.39 and died around 3 p.m. when the Passover lambs were being sacrificed. He died on a part of the same mountainous structure which formed the foundation of Jerusalem. As was earlier pointed out, very possibly this was the same spot on which, twenty centuries earlier, God "provided his own sacrifice;" God provided a ram to be killed in place of Isaac, whom God had earlier commanded Abraham to sacrifice (Genesis 22, especially vs. 8, 13, 14).40

Earlier in the week of the crucifixion, on Monday, 10 Nisan (30 March), Yeshua had entered Jerusalem on a donkey. The crowds acclaimed him as king as he fulfilled the Messianic prophecy of Zechariah 9:9. He was "selected" on this same day that the Pascal lambs were being selected for their coming slaughter. This was the same day that Daniel foretold Messiah would come, just as "after that" he foretold that Messiah would be "cut off" (9:26). In less than forty years Jerusalem and the Temple would be destroyed, again, as this same prophecy foretold.

The Meaning of the Seventieth Week

We cannot ignore the final week spoken of in Daniel 9. We need to see whether the meaning of the last week has any relevance to our interpretation of the rest of the prophecy.

Verse 27 says that he, either the Messiah or the coming prince who will destroy the city and Temple, will make a strong covenant with many for one week and for half of the week will make sacrifice and offering cease.

The most obvious understanding would be that it was the Roman General Titus who made sacrifice to cease and he did so by besieging Jerusalem and destroying the Temple. The meaning of the covenant he confirmed is not as clear. Possibly this speaks of a covenant with Rome or the Gentile world, a reaffirmed promise, to crush rebelling Judea.

We run into difficulties if we see the Messiah as the one who will make the covenant with the many on the last week and stop sacrifice in the middle of the week. It is difficult to believe that this entire prophecy could speak so much about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, about the war and desolation, and about the desolator and his coming end; that all of this should be interspersed throughout the last verses of this prophecy; and yet these specific statements should have nothing to do with the actual seventy weeks prophecy. But this is what we must conclude if Messiah makes this covenant and stops the sacrifices. For the wars and the destruction of Jerusalem occur about 30 to 40 years after the 70th week in this view. So again, it appears more likely that the desolator, Titus, is the prince who is to come in v. 26 and that he determines the time of the last week and halts sacrifices in the middle of the week.

Also, the idea of causing sacrifice and offering to cease seems to most appropriately fit the setting of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple (see v. 26b, c, d; 27d). The NRSV actually connects the two very directly, apparently claiming that it is the coming desolator who will cause sacrifice to cease, replacing it with the abomination: (v. 27) "He shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall make sacrifice and offering cease; and in their place shall be an abomination that desolates, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator."

The greatest problem with this view is that it places a near 40 year gap between the end of the 69th week and the beginning of the 70th week. Messiah comes at the end of the 7 and 62 weeks and is cut off shortly "after" that. Over 30 years later the 70th begins with a covenant being confirmed and then in the middle of that week sacrifices cease. Certainly Jewish and Gentile Christian scholars as well as non-Christian Jewish scholars have conjectured similar gaps between any or all of the three segments of this prophecy. But why should we imagine a gap at this particular point between the 69th and 70th week?

A gap at this point would not do harm to any calculation of the time of the last week since the identity of the events of this week and their agent (the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus) are easily discerned. But a gap at the other time separation, between the first 7 weeks of years and the next 62 weeks, would destroy our ability to determine just who the anointed one might be. Unlike the participants of the last week, we do not know in advance who the anointed one who comes at the end of the 69th week might be. Because the three segments--the 7 weeks, the 62 weeks, and the last week--are clearly distinguished, there might be an indeterminate time separation between any two or even three of them. Nevertheless, it is not as intuitive that there should be any such gaps.

The bottom line is that we must assume that there cannot be a separation between the first and second segment of time unless the author (or Author) of this prophecy intended the identity of the Messiah (from this prophecy at least) to be forever unknown. It is very difficult to imagine that God or even a mere human writer would give us this prophecy to tell us virtually nothing about the anointed one. A gap between the second and third segment, on the other hand, would make no difference in this regard.

Probably the strongest evidence for Jesus' messiahship is the evidence that he had risen from the dead. With the prophetic evidence just considered, we now need to look into this second line of evidence in order to grasp the unusual force of these two arguments together. What is the evidence that Yeshua rose from the dead and predicted he would do so in substantiation of his claim to be the Messiah?41 And why should we believe this would be evidence for his messiahship and God's existence?

First of all, that Yeshua did claim he would rise from the dead in substantiation of his claims is stated in the earliest surviving biographical accounts of his life.42 (The evidence for the accuracy of these biographies is summarized in the third portion of this article, "The Historical Accuracy of the Earliest Surviving Biographies, the Gospels.")

If, for the sake of the argument, we were to admit that we have no good reason to believe that Yeshua said he would rise from the dead, this would not significantly affect our claim. For if we have reason to think that Yeshua appeared exactly when Daniel said Messiah would appear hundreds of years before the event and if hundreds of people believed they saw him alive after his public execution, then we should still believe this to be God's promised Messiah and that he had risen from the dead by the power of God. Chance cannot account for such events. The probability of natural events coinciding by chance to produce such events are far too slim to be taken seriously by any reasonable person. Neither could a normal person plot or plan such events to occur. Only someone with a far greater than normal human intelligence and/or power could have done this. (To understand the logic of the inference from superintelligence/power to the God of the Bible see endnote 1.)

The resurrection appearances. What is the evidence that Yeshua rose from the dead? Primarily, it is the fact that so many people claimed to have seen him alive after his death.

A Jewish rabbi, a strict Pharisee appearing in history shortly after the time of Yeshua's death, became convinced that Yeshua was the Messiah, though he fought this conclusion long and hard. Rabbi Shaul, or Paul (his Roman name), in one of his writings (1 Corinthians 15:6) stated that some five hundred people saw Yeshua alive after his death. This is so matter-of-factly stated that he appears to be saying to his readers that they can check it out and question these witnesses for themselves. Most of the witnesses are still alive, he said. And they should have been alive at that time since this was written only twenty to twenty-five years after the crucifixion.

Now Paul couldn't have been lying about there being so many witnesses. He could too easily have had his claim disproven and he had too much to lose if he were found to be lying. He would lose his influence with his readers and that was something he very much did not want to lose. Having been the first to give the message of the "good news" of Yeshua to Corinth43 he wanted these followers to continue in and not to fall away from their new life in Yeshua. He had almost a parental concern that they not do so.44 He needed his authority established in order to make demands on those who were beginning to fall away and to disregard his teachings. To do this he stated and assumed his authority,45 even standing on his authority as an apostle.46

But perhaps Paul wasn't lying, couldn't he just have been mistaken? No, the same conclusion would follow. How could he be mistaken about knowing there to be five hundred witnesses? If he was willing to make this claim, wouldn't he have at least asked some of the witnesses about it (at least enough of them to feel sure that the rest would say the same thing)? More likely, he would have asked as many of these people as he could exactly what they experienced and what Yeshua did and said. And he spoke as though he did know every one of these people (15:6). Paul would never have made such an easily falsifiable claim and let so much hinge on that claim if he was not certain it was true.

That Paul wrote 1 Corinthians to Yeshua's followers at Corinth just over twenty years after the crucifixion is extremely well attested. The authorship is better attested than any other New Testament book.47 Furthermore, virtually all biblical scholars admit that Paul is here in chapter 15 repeating a very old creed. It was possibly given to him by James and Cephas (Peter) in Jerusalem only a few years after the crucifixion48 or he may have received it even earlier.

Notice that in introducing this creed he says that he "delivered" to them "as of first importance that which he received" (v. 3), using what are commonly technical terms for receiving and passing on tradition. This is thus the first and most important message Paul would have been concerned to verify, particularly in his two week visit with James and Cephas who were themselves eyewitnesses. As several of its features indicate49 this verbatim or nearly verbatim creed or tradition may go back even further to the very beginning of the proclamation of the resurrection message.

We have here a very early claim, clearly not Paul's own creation, of multiple eyewitnesses to the resurrection (at least "the twelve," v. 5). And it is very likely that this is a very early testimony that the original five hundred eyewitnesses (v. 6) saw the resurrected Yeshua. Aside from the evidence for the early date of this creedal statement, the fact that Paul presents it to his readers when it could so easily be refuted makes it virtually inconceivable that there could have been less than hundreds of claimed eyewitnesses to the resurrection.

A parallel line of evidence supporting the claim that Yeshua was seen alive after his death comes from the book of Acts. This is the fact that after his death every recorded proclamation of his followers' message to an audience which had not before heard it (and in which the content of the message was not too summarily recorded) openly claims that the resurrection occurred. The hearers could too easily check with those who had claimed to have seen Yeshua alive, which would usually have included the speakers themselves. The speakers could too easily be proven to be lying and all that they had proclaimed about Yeshua would be rejected.

The book of Acts is extremely well attested as to its historical accuracy. A. N. Sherwin-White, the distinguished Roman historian, said, "For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. . . . Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted."50 The fact that this document states not once but time and again that the resurrection was proclaimed by professed eyewitnesses makes it difficult to conceive that this did not occur. Even as radically skeptical a scholar as Rudolf Bultmann admitted that history proves that the first disciples believed they saw Yeshua alive after his death.51

From Luke, this same writer whose historical accuracy we have just established, we have further accounts of witnesses touching Yeshua, speaking with him, and even eating with him after his resurrection.52 This makes individual and mass hallucinations untenable. The fact that he could be heard, seen and touched in unfamiliar settings53 contradicts all that we know of hallucinations. In mass hallucinations there is a law of development. They become chronic and continuing; they do not abruptly end as these witnesses maintain they did.54 Indeed, it is far less common to hear a knowledgeable critic argue for mass hallucinations any more.55

Those who do argue that these appearances originated from hallucinations usually claim that only certain key figures had hallucinations (viz. Peter and later Paul) and that the other claimed witnesses were caught up in a kind of mass suggestion or even a mass hysteria.56 But the usual examples of mass suggestion in the psychological literature are just as often as easily explained as mere hoaxes at worst or vague and fleeting sightings of mere shapes and shadows at best (e.g., the Big Foot sightings in South Dakota57). And those that are not so easily explained are usually so vague that they cannot credibly demonstrate mass suggestion/hysteria (e.g., the "mad gasser" experiences57). But even if it might be possible that people can be caught up in mass suggestion out of the desire that some new belief be true, there is still always an awareness that this belief is a lie. One is always aware at some level of consciousness that this new belief has no real experiential justification.

So then, suppose those who claimed to have witnessed the resurrected Jesus were aware that they were lying? Would all of these people lie about what they had seen? Would even one of these Jewish God-fearers be willing to fabricate a story which would lead people into false beliefs, knowing with certainty that they would have to face their God in judgment some day? Or would they be willing to give up their lives for such a lie?

Other problems with the hallucination/mass suggestion argument might be noted. The large diversity of viewers, some of whom were quite opposed to belief in Jesus' resurrection, is incompatible with this view. For example, in the pre-Pauline formula found in 1 Corinthians 15, we are told that Yeshua appeared to his brother James (Yakob) whom the Gospels indicate was somewhat antagonistic toward Yeshua prior to the resurrection and definitely not a follower (John 7:3-5).

Several other groups and individuals are mentioned in the Corinthians passage as well as the five hundred. Paul mentions himself among this list. So we have Paul who was violently opposed to this new sect; James, one who disbelieved in Yeshua; and a group of over five hundred who, because of this sheer number alone, must have been made up of some considerable diversity of individuals. Also John's Gospel indicates that Thomas disbelieved the reports that Yeshua was seen by the other disciples until he saw him for himself. With one skeptic, one unbeliever, one opponent, and likely many others with similar views because of the number involved, it is difficult to accept these claimed appearances as either hallucinations or contagions. Hallucinations and copycat "secondary visions" or vision claims do not occur to those who do not want to see them.

Another problem is that the disciples had no predisposition to believe in a resurrection. If one or more of them had an hallucination of Yeshua or if they self-generated copycat visions, they would have seen him exalted, perhaps sitting at the right hand of God, but not walking around on earth. And they would not have called it a resurrection any more than if they thought they had seen a ghost. A resurrection always involved a physical body for these people. It might not now be the same as the original pre-death body; it might be called a spiritual body (as Paul called it); but it always had some physical nature and was connected with, and came from, the original pre-death body. If Jesus' body could be found and clearly identified, the resurrection would have been disproved without question.

The resurrection was a topic of common discussion in Yeshua's time. Some believed in it, some didn't; but everyone knew what it involved: The resurrection would occur at the end of the age, not before. This is one reason the disciples were so uncomprehending when the Gospels record how Jesus forewarned them that he would die and rise from the dead (Mark 9:9, 31-32; cf. John 11:24).

At Jesus' time, there was definitely no idea of a rising Messiah and there was no notion of a dying Davidic Messiah. (There has never been any idea of a dying Davidic Messiah in any of the traditional Jewish commentaries.) These notions are there in the Hebrew scripture (Isaiah 53, Daniel 9:25); they were simply not entertained. The Gospels indicate that after his resurrection, Jesus had to show the disciples how such an unknown concept as a dying and rising Davidic Messiah was found throughout the Hebrew scripture (e.g., Luke 24:25-27).

Another reason Yeshua's followers would never have imagined he had risen from the dead had they not seen him alive, and would never have hallucinated a risen Jesus was the fact that he was crucified. Anyone executed by hanging on a tree, which included crucifixion, was seen as cursed by God (Deuteronomy 21:23). It was a sure sign that this man must have been a heretic had he not actually been seen alive after his death. With that, his death on a tree came to be understood as the means by which Jesus bore our curse; he "became a curse for us."

In none of the known failed Messianic movements in the centuries before and after Yeshua is it claimed that the leader had risen from the dead. N. T. Wright comments that though their followers were fanatically committed to their leader, they never continued to hold him to be the Messiah after his death.58

Nothing could be more unexpected and unprecedented than that Yeshua's followers might claim to have seen him risen from the dead and believe him still to be the Messiah if, indeed, he had not risen.

What about the possibility of mistaken identity? Don't we keep hearing of people who claim that "Elvis" isn't really dead because they saw him--maybe coming out of the "Seven-Eleven" store at 2 o'clock in the morning? (The famous American singer, Elvis Presley, died in 1977.) Well, we might suspect that in a nation as large as the United States we would find many people who look very much like a particular person. So it isn't surprising every now and then to find someone say that they saw Elvis in this or some other part of the country. But when you have a land as relatively small in size and population as first century Judea, when you consider the possibility that an exact look-alike has appeared to the very same people who saw Jesus die, when many of the witnesses were those who had lived with Jesus very closely for years and who knew his appearance perfectly, when this happens between less than three days and up to 40 days after they witnessed his death, when no one around even suspects that the popular teacher has a double, and when over five hundred are willing to testify that they did indeed see him alive all at one time, the likelihood of mistaken identity is too small to seriously consider.

Also recall that these were not just fleeting glimpses to individuals without other witnesses present, as many (most?) of the Elvis sightings turn out to be. That Jesus is said to have "appeared" to the various named individuals (1 Corinthians 15:5-8) indicates that these were far more than quick and vague encounters. All other usages of this term in the New Testament indicate clear and unquestionable visual encounters. Though some of the appearances of Jesus might have been to individuals with no other witnesses being present (e.g., Peter's), most of the Gospel accounts indicate appearances to a couple of people at a time or to small and even larger groups of people. As many as five hundred saw Jesus at one time the Corinthian passage tells us. The Gospel accounts even indicate long conversations and physical contact.

We should emphasize our earlier point that even if the Elvis appearances were close to as certain as the Jesus appearances claim to be (in 1 Corinthians 15) and if more than one person had witnessed each appearance, this should not be unexpected in a country as large as ours. Sooner or later we should find someone who looks very much like Elvis. On the other hand it would have been very unlikely had there been a Jesus look-alike around in this very limited period of time without this being widely known.

If this many people claimed they had seen Yeshua alive and had spoken with him and if this is rejected as evidence, then no testimonial sense experience can be the source of any knowledge. If these were hallucinations, then so must be any other sense experience. Whether they be lies, hallucinations, or even cases of mistaken identity, the conclusion must be the same: if five hundred (or even merely eleven) witnesses cannot stand, then neither can any other testimony, and all historical and testimonial knowledge is impossible.

The missing body. Needless to say, there was no body to be found after the claimed resurrection. Announced sightings of a risen Yeshua would not have had any effect if the Jewish authorities could have produced a corpse. The Jewish conception of resurrection at this time involved a physical body. Paul's repetition of the early creedal statement that Yeshua died, was buried, and was raised on the third day (15:3, 4) confirms that this is exactly what he meant and what the others who first proclaimed the resurrection meant.59 It appears that from the very beginning Yeshua's opponents never questioned that the body was missing.60

In the following we attempt to show that only a resurrection adequately accounts for the missing body. But whether our argument on this point is persuasive or not makes little difference. The important point is that whatever the reason, the there was no body to be found after Jesus' death. The evidence for the resurrection consists in the appearances. The following does, however, provide some supporting evidence for the resurrection. To the degree that naturalistic explanations of the missing body are inadequate, so the resurrection would be more likely. It is necessary that the body be missing for the resurrection to have occurred but the missing body is not sufficient to establish the resurrection.

Yeshua's opponents could not have taken the body. If they had, they would have publicly exposed it once his followers began saying he had risen. Even if it had decayed to some degree, such a display would have certainly halted any further growth of the early Jewish church. Even a skeleton would have been better than nothing. At least they would not then be admitting that no body was to be found.

Yeshua's disciples couldn't have taken the body. Wouldn't one of them have confessed under threat of torture or death? Would these Jewish believers in God give their lives for a lie and not expect God's judgment for such an act?

Perhaps secret disciples took the body. Remaining unprofessed followers, they were not subject to persecution. But would they be willing to face God's judgment for such a deception? Or wouldn't they confess to the world this horrible deed? If they remained secret disciples, they would have no motivation for such an act. They couldn't even seek a position of esteem or authority in the early church.

Or couldn't some unknown grave robber have heard that a king had been buried and have taken the body? But grave robbers are after money more than bodies. It would have been much easier to quickly check the body and surroundings for valuables rather than to try to carry a corpse away.

For any of the stolen body scenarios we should remember that one of the early biographies maintains that because a resurrection was publicly predicted, the tomb was guarded by soldiers. And again the resurrection appearances give us evidence that no grave robbing was involved.

Maybe Yeshua didn't really die; isn't it possible that he swooned and revived in the coolness of the tomb? But if he had, he would have been too weak to effect the transformation of the disciples we find in these accounts. Instead of running out to proclaim a resurrection, they would have run out to find a doctor. Yeshua wouldn't have been able to remove the large disk shaped boulder that sealed the sepulcher or overcome the soldiers guarding the tomb. One archeologist has stated that it is impossible for a single healthy person to open such a tomb from the inside.61

Crucifixion was a slow, painful death which ended in asphyxiation. To hurry the process along--when it was so desired--the soldiers would break the victim's legs so that the body could not be held up and asphyxiation would ensue. The account states that because Yeshua appeared to be already dead, the soldiers instead thrust a spear in his side, evidently in or near the heart. This too was a common procedure in crucifixion, in this case to assure death.62

But there is also good reason to believe that he was definitely dead. The heavy flow of blood and "water"63 confirmed that he was dead. This may indicate the flow of the coagulated and separated blood of a corpse rather than the strong spurting of a living heart. Another possible explanation for the flow of blood and clear liquid is that the heart and pericardium were both pierced with the clear liquid flowing from the latter. In either case, he was either dead or instantly killed.

Notice that in addition, after having received word that Yeshua was dead, Pilate had a centurion confirm this.64 Should a guard fail in matters of similar responsibility the penalty for the guard would be death. The guard could take no chance that Yeshua was still alive. Four executioners would normally confirm a death, each one checking the other.65 No mistake could be made. These soldiers were professional executioners; however they did it, they knew how to make sure that their victims were dead.

Assessing the argument. If we have nothing more than the evidence that many people actually believed they saw Yeshua alive after his death, and the fact that there was no body to be found, we still have some pretty astonishing evidence. It may have been possible for someone living at this time to look up the historical records (if they were available) and determine the date of the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks (9:25). But could this person have determined the fulfillment time to the very day when the time period involved hundreds of years? This seems very unlikely. But if he could do this, it may not be completely inconceivable that with enough genius and popular charisma he could even set up a "triumphal entry" on this day to fit and fulfill Zechariah 9:9. But could this same person also so plan the events that hundreds of people would be sure that it was he that they saw alive after his execution and that his corpse would never be found?

In his once popular critique, Hugh Schonfield has maintained that it is not inconceivable that a very intricate plot such as this (sans the prophecy fulfillment) could develop in the conjectured genius but megalomanic mind of Yeshua.66 But the probability against this is too great. The witnesses who could be consulted were not in any doubt as to who it was they saw.67 Many of them had personally known him for years; some had even known him intimately as a friend, teacher, or close relative. If they had any doubts as to who they saw, they would never have made themselves so readily available to any wishing to question them. (For a very pointed critique of Schonfield's arguments from the historical documents see reference 68.)

We have already alluded to our most conclusive reason for finding Schonfield's hypothesis unacceptable. We should think it unbelievable that such a uniquely insane and/or malicious genius should be living at precisely this time in history in Palestine, be of Jewish culture and Davidic ancestry, gain access to the necessary documents and chronologies, and fulfill these signs and prophecies so precisely by his own human powers. There is no Messiah to fulfill Daniel's prophecy, but this one person has appeared who has observed the times, fulfilled the prophecies to the day, and so manipulated historical events as to survive his public execution or deceive hundreds of people into believing that they had seen him alive after his death. No, it is more probable that the resurrection actually took place and that this is the Messiah.

Some would claim that no matter how improbable any natural event may seem, it cannot be more improbable than a miracle. It may not be likely that professional Roman executioners would fail in their task or that a megalomaniac would carry out a complex Passover plot, but such events would be more probable than that a man would actually rise from the dead. But this claim would be true only if the resurrection were simply impossible or if it were a purely chance occurrence--if, for example, the molecular structure of the cells of the body should just happen to rearrange to a pre-mortem state.

Now it is very unlikely that a professional crucifixion team should botch an execution. But it is not unlikely that a superhuman intelligence/power, if there be one, could effect a resurrection. And we do not know in advance that there could not be such a being; a theistic world view is prima facie no less likely than any other world view. And since we have good reason to believe that an actual death did occur, the most reasonable explanation would be that a superhuman intelligence/power carried out the resurrection. David Hume said that the wise will apportion their belief according to the evidence. The probability, the likelihood of a resurrection allows no other conclusion for the intellectually honest.

If the reader is still unconvinced that a brilliantly conceived Passover plot is less likely than a resurrection, even this (or at least something very close to it) could be conceded for the sake of the argument. Notice that in any case a superhuman power/intelligence is displayed. This is so whether it is a spiritual power such as God who carries out a resurrection or a genius who succeeds in manipulating the course of history. For even a mere genius has at least a greater than normal human knowledge or power, or if you will, a superhuman power/intelligence, if a full Passover plot can be carried out. For the moment we are uncertain only as to how this superhuman power/intelligence has acted and how limited it is. If a Passover plot did occur then of course we could not believe Yeshua's claims. But we only know that such a power/intelligence has been displayed. We have no evidence of deception. It is his displayed power/intelligence that justifies acceptance of his claims.

Once we see that Yeshua has displayed superhuman power/intelligence, we have to take his spiritual claims seriously. To see this the reader may need to look into the logic of miracles in a little more detail. For this we would refer you to reference 1. But our point is that because he has displayed superhuman power/intelligence we now know that it is quite possible that he has access to the spiritual knowledge he claims; not only do his claims fit the power/knowledge displayed, but we should distrust such claims only if we have reason to question his character or sanity. Not only is there no such evidence of this but Yeshua even challenged his opponents to find any fault in him, and his followers maintained that they had never seen him do any wrong.69 So we do have sufficient reason to accept that Yeshua was--and is--who he claimed to be and that he was not just a malicious or insane genius.

Confronting the implications. To recap our argument, we have first claimed that a resurrection is the most reasonable explanation of the events surrounding Yeshua's death and that the existence of a superhuman power/intelligence is evidenced.

If Yeshua predicted he would rise from the dead; if over five hundred people claimed to have seen him alive after his execution; and if he appeared in history to fulfill a major Messianic prophecy (Zechariah 9:9) on the same day another prophet said Messiah would come hundreds of years before the event (Daniel 9), then clearly a superhuman intelligence and power are evident.

Yeshua claimed that this superhuman power/intelligence was the God of his ancestors and the one he called his Father. We have reason to accept all that he said about this God because he demonstrated through this display of superhuman intelligence/power that he knew what he was talking about. His teachings were thus verified by his resurrection and by fulfilled prophecy. It is interesting to note that according to the Torah, the Hebrew Law, this would be the one person uniquely given the prophetic and teaching authority of Moses.70

In one of his writings rabbi Shaul (Paul) claimed that people suppress or ignore the truth they have about God because they do not want to obey or believe in God.71 Yeshua indicated that this was also true of his teachings. Those who desire to follow God's will--a God who deserves our highest love--will discover its truth.72 This coincides with the claimed word of God given in the Torah concerning the value and limitations of signs and miracles as evidence.73

In our own time a writer who had himself long lived and known the atheistic mindset wrote a story portraying very graphically what Paul and Yeshua had said so long ago. Imagine the counterpart of a guardian angel, one's personal demon who tempts and maneuvers his human subject away from God. Now imagine the stories a senior devil might tell an apprentice devil in advising him of his work:

I once had a patient, a sound atheist, who used to read in the Metropolitan Library. One day, as he sat reading, I saw a train of thought in his mind beginning to go the wrong way. The Enemy, of course, was at his elbow in a moment. Before I knew where I was I saw my twenty years work beginning to totter. If I had lost my head and begun to attempt a defense by argument I should have been undone. But I was not such a fool. I struck instantly at the part of the man which I had best under my control and suggested that it was just about time he had some lunch. The Enemy presumably made the countersuggestion (you know how one can never quite overhear what He says to them?) that this was more important than lunch. At least I think that must have been His line for when I said "Quite. In fact much too important to tackle at the end of a morning," the patient brightened up considerably; and by the time I had added "Much better come back after lunch and go into it with a fresh mind," he was already half way to the door. Once he was in the street the battle was won. I showed him a newsboy shouting the midday paper, and a No. 73 bus going past, and before he reached the bottom of the steps I had got into him an unalterable conviction that, whatever odd ideas might come into a man's head when he is shut up alone with his books, a healthy dose of "real life" (by which he meant the bus and the newsboy) was enough to show him that all "that sort of thing" just couldn't be true. He knew he'd had a narrow escape and in later years was fond of talking about "that inarticulate sense for actuality which is our ultimate safeguard against the aberrations of mere logic." . . . Thanks to processes which we set at work in them centuries ago, they find it all but impossible to believe in the unfamiliar while the familiar is before their eyes.74

One most important point of this story is that the evidence does come along sooner or later for everyone and we can do with this evidence exactly as we will. What we choose to do with it determines whether we will be brought to more truth or whether we will enter deception. Aldous Huxley said he once had a very strong motivation for wanting life to be meaningless and ethics to be relative and as a result he found good reason to believe this.75 We can actually deceive ourselves into seeing the evidence as we want to see it.

We have confronted some very forceful evidence that Yeshua is the Messiah and that the God of the Hebrew and Christian scripture lives and seeks us. We can honestly confront the evidence or we can seek to avoid or deny it. I'm not saying that one should not critically analyze the evidence. I'm saying that we should do that, but do it with a will to believe in and follow God's will on the possibility that God is there, no matter how much you may feel motivated to the contrary.

To confront evidence for a living God and his Messiah we must deal with this Messiah's claim that he can restore to us the deep relationship with God we were meant to have (John 17:3, 14:6). All that separates us, it is claimed, can be removed because of his death and resurrection. It can be ours if we seek and entrust ourselves to God, committing ourselves to Yeshua and forsaking all that separates us from God (John 11:26, Luke 13:3). Our sins, past and present, separate us from God (Isaiah 59:2, Romans 3:23). Our thoughts, words, actions--even our desires and inclinations--which harm others or ourselves or which usurp that which rightfully belongs to God, ourselves or others would be called sin (Matthew 15:18-20). Most importantly, our rejection of or indifference toward God would be sin (Matthew 22:36-40).

If this is what we need to do to be brought back to God, how does the process work? Just how is it that this relationship can be restored? Consider first of all that the God we seek must be perfectly good. Anything less would make God unworthy of our highest commitment and love. But our sin alienates us from such a perfect God. How can a perfectly good God have relationship with people like ourselves who do evil? Our sin must be removed, yet we cannot erase what we have done nor completely cease to do evil no matter how we may strive to do so. We must find one who can remove what we cannot. The Messiah--a sinless man and yet one who is more than a man--was able to remove our sin by becoming our substitute, bearing in our place our sin and death (Isaiah 53, Matthew 20:28, 2 Corinthians 5:17, 19-21). So the means was provided in God's plan by which reunion could occur.

As we have said at the beginning of this inquiry, it could very well be that the reason we exist is to know and have a living relationship with God. Don't pass up the chance to find out if this is true and if so to find the ultimate reason for living.

If our evidence convinces you, then make the commitment. If it doesn't, then on the sheer possibility that God is there, make the commitment to seek God (one who deserves your greatest commitment and your highest love) and to seek and accept whatever truth God would give you. We ask no more than this.

To consider the historicity of the Gospels we first need to understand that they were written very close to the time the events occurred. Some Gospels may have been finalized as early as 27 years after the crucifixion, other New Testament books as early as 15 years. Likely none of either were written later than 70 years after the event. (See Figure 5.)

Matthew and Luke could have been written before the fall of Jerusalem even though they recorded this event. After our consideration of the evidence of the 70 weeks prophecy and the evidence for Jesus' resurrection and his prediction of his resurrection, it becomes very conceivable that Jesus could have also accurately predict the fall of Jerusalem. For those who will not even consider such a possibility however, we might note that even as early as the time of Jesus, if not earlier, it was a common fear that the Romans would destroy Jerusalem and kill or take captive the population. This fear became particularly pronounced as the time of the Jewish war drew near. So any way we look at it, there is no good reason to think these books were written after 70.

Until these writings were made, the desire and need of Yeshua's followers for a knowledge of his teaching and the events of his life made it necessary that such information be passed on. Most of this was probably in oral form at first.

Oral teachings were commonly very accurately memorized and passed on in Jewish culture at this time. This occurred even prior to the culmination of this ideal in Jewish Rabbinical tradition. Accurate memorization was also emphasized in the surrounding ancient cultures, The distinct poetical forms which can be discerned in much of Yeshua's teachings when translated from the Greek back to the original Aramaic most likely indicate that he did intend these to be memorized.77 The Synoptic Gospels display among themselves the same kind of insignificant variations as are found among other memorized oral traditions.78 However, the writers also appear to have felt at liberty to paraphrase some of the material they had directly witnesses or received. Such minor differences appear to reflect the writer or speaker's emphasis or estimation of the importance accorded the various materials.

In the earliest years particularly, the presence of a large number of eyewitnesses to Yeshua's life (including hostile witnesses) made it very unlikely that this oral tradition could be inaccurate. It is not even imaginable that some early church leader would fabricate a supposed public teaching of Yeshua when so many made up the church who had earlier made up Yeshua's audiences.

As time passed, this oral tradition became more firmly established making it virtually impossible for inaccurate accounts to enter this corpus of teaching. Very likely, much information was recorded in written notes, perhaps even very extensive notes and documents to supplement this oral tradition. These notes and this oral tradition likely formed much of the reference material for the soon-to-be-written Gospels.

Now some teachings and biographical information would have been known initially only to particular individuals or small groups. Their information would have been accepted and incorporated into the oral tradition (and/or written notes) once it had been established that these were trustworthy eyewitnesses. The early leaders, who were themselves direct witnesses to Yeshua's life and teachings, would not have accepted just anyone's claims. They would not have allowed false accounts from others and they would not have created them themselves.

From that which would have been public knowledge of Yeshua's life and teachings we know that he taught a very high ethical standard. He made it clear that the only goal worth attaining is finding God's acceptance and approval and escaping the horror of God's displeasure and judgment. Is it really conceivable that his followers, particularly his most intimate followers, would have contradicted these teachings when they had opportunity by adding purportedly private teachings which Yeshua did not actually give? Would they be willing to face God with that on their hands?

As for subsequent leaders, they could not have allowed in new unverified accounts if they had wanted since the oral tradition would have been well established and at least the first Gospels would have been accepted by their time. They would have needed very good evidence that this new information had somehow earlier been missed if it were to be accepted. And definitely, neither the early leaders nor anyone else could have accepted any purported teachings, private or public, which contradicted Yeshua's public teachings. As we have seen, too many people were around from the beginning who knew what those popular teachings were and with time that oral tradition would have become entrenched.

With such a narrow time gap between the events and their final written record and because of the evidence that these Gospels were accepted by the early followers of Yeshua, it is likely that these documents were written by direct eyewitnesses or researchers closely associated with the witnesses as the documents and/or our earliest witnesses maintain.

The evidence is far too strong that we have in these biographies the eyewitness testimony of the apostles Matthew, Peter (through Mark), and John, and possibly others. Luke's research particularly drew upon various witnesses.79 In varying degrees Matthew, Peter, and John must have contributed much to the oral tradition(s). Likewise in varying degrees, all four Gospel writers depended on such tradition and on direct eyewitness reminiscences from others. Matthew, Peter, and John also depended much on their own oft repeated and contemplated (perhaps even written) reminiscences.

Certainly no inaccurate accounts could have been foisted upon Yeshua's followers at such an early date as when these biographies were written. At this time these followers would have still included disciples and others who had been with Yeshua during his earthly life. And the well established oral tradition would have served the people as an additional check as to its accuracy. (John's Gospel would have been more of an exception to this pattern, to this particular means of verification, than the others, and it would have been accepted more primarily because of the status and knowledge of its writer, the apostle John.)80

As we may expect, archeological findings have with time increasingly tended much more to confirm the accuracy of these records than to question them. Critics of the past have given us hundreds of purported biblical inaccuracies which with time have been vindicated as historically accurate.81

Furthermore, more than any other historical documents of antiquity, we are very certain that we have an accurate reconstructed text of the original writing of the New Testament. Indeed, our oldest still existing manuscripts are so uniform that any passages we would reconstruct are very few and insignificant. We have such an accurate reconstructed text because of the closeness in time between the originals and these oldest extant manuscripts and because of the large number of later, very uniform extant manuscripts. (A large number of uniform later manuscripts could indicate the existence and content of an earlier lost manuscript.) This state of the documents is better, usually overwhelmingly better, than that of any other unquestioned ancient documents.82 The closeness in time between the originals and our oldest copies also helps substantiate the early dating and, thus, the authorship traditionally claimed for the originals.

 (For further discussion concerning the resurrection, see the following response to Paul Doland in issue 9. For more on the historical reliability of the Gospels and the Bible more generally see our further discussion with Doland.)

References

1 The evidential force of miracles. Events such as the resurrection and the fulfillment of the seventy weeks prophecy would not be within the power or intelligence of any normal person to arrange or control. Neither would they be the kind of phenomena that could have occurred by chance. At least that possibility would have been too unlikely for any rational person to take seriously. It is not unlikely that one with greater than normal human power and/or intelligence (hereafter, superhuman power /intelligence) could effect such an event. And because we have no antecedent reason to believe that there could not be such a being, the most reasonable conclusion would be that a superhuman power did effect this event.

To the degree we accept a person's normal claims to be true without full proof of those claims, so we should accept one's exceptional claims without full proof or verification. However, we would need at least a proportionately greater degree of evidence than we have for the normal claim.

If an acquaintance (say someone whose credibility is neither established nor questionable) says he has just seen a friend who was not known to be in the area, and if little depended upon my believing him, we wouldn't find it necessary to check this claim in order to believe him. We do not need full proof. If, however, someone were to make a claim of much greater significance, he or she would need to supply evidence for the claim, though not absolute point to point verification. We shouldn't need full proof of Yeshua's claim to know one powerful enough to create the universe if he demonstrates the superhuman power or knowledge of predicting and fulfilling a resurrection from the dead. (Yeshua's claim would be vindicated by the One who effected the resurrection.) By a limited demonstration of superhuman power and/or intelligence we thus have evidence of far greater intelligence and power. And because we would then have reason to believe that Yeshua does have knowledge of such a superpowerful/intelligent being, we can accept his word when he tells us other information about this "God." It also follows that we should accept Yeshua's claim to be the promised Messiah, the one sent and specially anointed of God.

For further discussion, see this writer's article: Dennis Jensen, "The Logic of Miracles," Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 33 (March 1981): 145-53. This journal is now entitled Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1981/JASA9-81jensen.html

2 Messianic prophecy. If one would look at most of the passages that have been argued as applying to the Messiah and especially to those the rabbis had at one time or another considered Messianic, we would find the following picture.

We would find a Messiah who will

(1) suffer humiliation, rejection, and physical pain, (Isaiah 52:13-15, Zechariah 12:10, Psalms 22:1-18, Isaiah 53) and

(2) die (Daniel 9:26, Zechariah 12:10, 13:7, Isaiah 53:5, 8-10,12)

(3) and yet live (Psalms 16:10, Isaiah 53:10-12) and

(4) reign forever (Isaiah 9:7, Daniel 7:14).

(5) His death will bear the sins of the world (Isaiah 53:5, 6, 8,10-12).

(6) A son of David (Jeremiah 23:5, 6)

(7) whom David, the highest of all human kings (Psalms 89:27) considered a higher king than himself (Psalms 110:1, 2).

(8) Born in Bethlehem

(9) yet one whose origin was from antiquity, perhaps even from eternity (Micah 5:2).

(10) One whose suffering closely resembles that of crucifixion (Psalms 22:1-18) Zechariah 12:10).

(11) One who would appear before the destruction of the second Temple (Daniel 9:26, Malachi 3:1, 2)

(12) and before certain basic rights of regnal authority would be taken from Judah (Genesis 49:10) as occurred in the first years of the Common Era (that is, the first years AD). Robert C. Newman, "The Testimony of Messianic Prophecy," in Evidence for Faith, ed. John Warwick Montgomery (Dallas, Tx.: Probe Books, 1991) 208-09. See also Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict (San Bernardino, Ca.: Here's Life Publishers, Inc., 1979) 168-70.

(13) One who would be a prophet with the authority of Moses (Deuteronomy. 18:18-19).

(14) One who would save and make followers of people from all nations (Genesis 49:10, Isaiah 42:4, 49:6, 52:15).

(15) One who would come to the earth in the clouds (Daniel 7:13-14),

(16) reign over the entire earth and

(17) bring peace to the earth (Zechariah 9:9-10).

Though one or two of these have yet to be fulfilled, one person and only one person fits the qualifications of fulfilling all the others: a Jewish rabbi named Yeshua.

3 Yeshua saw himself as the sacrificial lamb which would die as a substitute for the people. Isaiah 53 speaks of one who would die as a substitute for the people like a lamb that is led to be sacrificed. Yeshua claimed that the Hebrew scripture indicated that the Messiah must die, clearly referring to Isaiah 53 and similar passages (Luke 24:25-27, 44-46). He earlier said that he would give his life as a substitute or ransom in our place (Matthew 20:28). (Cf. endnote 8.)

4 See Harold W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids, Mi.: Zondervan, 1977) 128, 130-31 for further discussion.

5 The prophesied time period began with Artaxerxes' command in Nehemiah 2. Hoehner, Aspects, 119-28; especially 119-21.

6 Michael L Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus (Baker Books, 2003) 3: 91.

7 Josephus Jewish Antiquities 20: 197-203. Tacitus Annals of Imperial Rome 15:44, 2-5).

8 See endnote 3. Other sample passages: Luke 9:22, John 18:11, 12:24, Acts 2:23-24, Romans 3:24-25.

9 Brown, Objections 3: 95-98.

10 Brown, Objections, Vol 3, endnote 211, p. 221.

11 Brown, Objections, Vol 3, pp. 86-111 (no. 4.18-4.21); Gleason Archer, cited in Brown, endnote 172, p. 217.

12 See for example Gleason Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago, Moody Press, 1974) 377-403.

13 Artaxerxes' twentieth year began with Tishri (Sept/Oct) 444 BCE . Hoehner, Aspects, pp. 127-29. R.A. Parker and W.H. Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.-A.D. 75 (Providence, RI.: Brown University Press, 1956) 32. (A note for the nonspecialist might be helpful for understanding Parker and Dubberstein. Year 20, the 20th year of Artaxerxes I, begins with Nisan in this list because it is the Persian Nisan to Nisan calendar. So the date under Tishri [Tas. on the list for the corresponding Babylonian month of Tashritu] of the 20th year line would be the first day of the first month of the 20th year by the Jewish reckoning. The following Nisan [Nis.] is marked as beginning April 3 [4/3] of 444. Hoehner indicates that this should more likely be the previous month's first day, March 4 [3/4] since Parker and Dubberstein intercalated an extra month one year too soon. Intercalary months had to be added every few years to have the calendar keep up with the solar year.)

For the evidence that Xerxes died in the last half of December of 465 see S. H. Horn and L. H. Wood, "The Fifth-Century Jewish Calendar at Elephantine," Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 13 (Jan 1954): 9.

The month of Tishri following Xerxes' death began Artaxerxes' first year, and his 20th year can be determined from that point as Hoehner demonstrates (above reference).

14 March 5, 444 BCE was the first day of Nisan of Artaxerxes' twentieth year. Mathematical calculations indicate that the true new moon (when the moon would be completely invisible) occurred on 2 March. (See Herman Goldstine, New and Full Moons, 1001 B.C. to A.D. 1651 [Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1973], p. 4 and month number 6891. Note: year 444 BC or BCE is -443 in astronomical years listed here. Also compare Parker and Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology, 32.) Sighting of the first visible sliver of the new moon determined the beginning of the month. Hoehner comments that "Nisan 1 in 444 B.C. was March 4, or more likely March 5 since the crescent of the new moon would have been first visible so late at night (ca. 10 p.m.) on March 4 and could easily have been missed." Aspects, 138.

15 The origin point of the prophesied time period is the first day of Nisan. The Mishna cites the Jewish practice of having the religious new year of 1 Nisan used as, "a new year for the computation of the reign of kings and for festivals." (Mishna: Rosh ha-Shana 1.1.) This indicates that the prophetic period of the seventy weeks should be computed from 1 Nisan, for surely this is the computation of the reign of a king, indeed, a most important king. We know definitely that the prophecy's origin point was sometime in Nisan and custom indicates that the computation should be dated from the first of that month. We do not know how far back before the Mishnaic period this custom goes. It might be very early. (The above argument is essentially the one given by Sir Robert Anderson in The Coming Prince [London: Pickering and Ingles, 1895] 122.)

There is one other line of evidence this writer has not been able to adequately investigate but which might have potential and should be investigated. This is the fact that the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures in the second century BCE) for a particular passage indicates that the first month is intended when the Hebrew text only says the day and year (Ezekiel 32:17). This might indicate a very early tradition that when a time marker (day, month, etc.) is not mentioned, the first day, month, etc. is intended.

Whether these arguments appear convincing or not we should at least recognize that the first of the month would still be the most plausible date. As in the traditions just cited, so common sense would suggest that when a month is the primary designation for an event, the date selected for that month would most appropriately be the first. Whereas the first is the simplest, most fitting date, any other date would appear gratuitous.

16 "Weeks" indicates units of seven years, not days. A comparative biblical example is the term normally translated as "ten days." In three cases the context necessitates that it be translated "ten strings" (Hoehner, Aspects, p. 117). In Daniel 9, "weeks" does not clearly designate any particular unit of time. Daniel would have indicated if weeks of days were intended since he elsewhere adds the words "days" when referring to seven days (10:2-3) even though the context alone indicates that seven days is the meaning.

Notice secondly that the context of Daniel 9 is referring to years and multiples of years (9:1, 2). Because in this context Daniel is specifically considering weeks of years in the past, the seventy weeks of verse 24 would likely be units of years. Daniel had been considering Jeremiah 25:11 and 29:10 in the context of Leviticus 26:34-35 (cf. 2 Chronicles 36:21) which indicates that seventy sabbatical years have been violated over 490 years or one each seven years. (A sabbatical year was each seventh year in which the land was not to be worked.) Thus the captivity would last seventy years in compensation. As seventy weeks of years were being considered for the past, so the seventy weeks spoken of by Gabriel in this prophecy (9:24) seem only appropriately applied to units of years.

Finally, the term for "sevens" is used in the Mishna to indicate units of seven years. (Baba Metzia 9. 10; Sanhedrin 5. 1.) See Hoehner, Aspects, 116-19.

17 The years considered were 360 days long. In ancient times it was not uncommon to use 360 day calendars and to regularly make additions to keep up with the solar year. Egypt and Assyria's calendars would be good examples. The obvious advantage is the simplicity of such systems. Months would have a set number of days (usually 30) and years would have a regular number of months.

Since the length of the years in Daniel 9 is not indicated, we should not assume that these must be solar years or that they must be adjusted to fit solar years. Prima facie, there is no greater likelihood that one length of year would be used than another as long as it is relatively close to a solar year.

The 360 day year was used in Babylon and Persia. This prophecy was ostensively given in and it began within the context of the dominion and culture of these empires.

Another reason this prophecy might have assumed such a calendar is because the most ancient calendar to be found in scripture had 360 days. This is evident in Noahic times and/or from a subsequent period prior to the time of the Hebrew lunisolar calendar. This can be determined from Genesis 7:11; 8:4; 7:24; and 8:3. We should not consider it unusual that this prophecy should reflect a calendar of such unique credentials and antiquity. (The writer or source of the much later New Testament book of Revelation or the Apocalypse definitely held these "sevens" to be units of 360 day years. See Hoehner, Aspects, 136.)

For more information on the 360 day calendars used in so many ancient cultures see Immanuel Velikouski, Worlds in Collision (Garden City , NY.: Doubleday, 1950), pp. 330-40; Encyclopedia Britanica, 14th ed., s.v. "Calendar," by J. L. A. Filiozat, H. Lewy and M. S. Drower; 15th ed., s.v. "Calendar," by J. A. B. van Buitenen, E. J. Bickerman, J. D. Schmidt, W. Helk, and T. Proskouriakoff; 15th ed., s.v. "Chronology," J. E. S. Thompson.

18 Robert Newman demonstrates that using normal solar years (the Hebrew lunisolar years but considered in cycles of seven years as the text indicates) we arrive at a date anywhere between 28 and 35 CE for the appearance of Messiah (in Evidence for Faith, 210-12).

If by utilizing the ancient 360 day calendar we arrive at such an exact prophetic fulfillment (Yeshua fulfills Zechariah 9:9, the triumphal entry, on precisely the day Daniel says Messiah will appear) we must consider that this cannot be coincidental. Thus although a less precise computation will work, the nature of the data indicates that the computation of this study is correct as well. It is difficult for this writer to see why both computations cannot be correct. Hoehner's objection that Newman's date does not fit the time of Jesus (Aspects, p. 134) is answered by a more precise calculation of the first sabbatical year cycle (Evidence, 211).

19 Raphael Patai, The Messiah Texts (N.Y.: Avon, 1979), p. 166. Brown, Objections, Vol 3, pp. 57-62 (4.7-4.8). Brown, Objections, Vol. 2. (Baker, 2000), 220-32 (3.23).

20 For a thorough defense of this and similar claims, see Brown, Objections, Vol. 2, 69-198 (3.8-3.19.)

21 Matthew 27:62, 28:1, Mark 15:42, Luke 23:54, 56, John 19:31,42; Josephus Antiquities Judaicae 16. 6.2. 163.

22 The evidence for a Friday crucifixion. Hoehner, Aspects, 70-72.

23 Sanhedrin 43a.

24 The crucifixion occurred on Passover eve (14 Nisan) not Passover day (15 Nisan) by official calendar reckoning. There is some reason to believe that Yeshua's Last Supper, eaten on the evening before the day of his death, was a Passover meal (Mark 14:12, Matthew 26:17, Luke 22:7-8). Thus Yeshua would have eaten the Passover meal in the evening which began 15 Nisan, Passover day, and he would have died the following afternoon, still 15 Nisan (see fig. 4, TV). On the other hand, John's Gospel seems to indicate that he died on Passover eve (14 Nisan) when the lambs were being slain for the Passover meal that evening (fig. 4, HV A). (John's use of the term "Passover" in 18:28 must at least mean the Passover sader of Passover day beginning that coming evening after Yeshua's death. See Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John [Grand Rapids, Mi.: Zondervan, 1971] 778-79, F. F. Bruce, gen. ed., The New International Commentary of the New Testament.)

The most likely explanation would be that he partook of a Passover meal which did not accord with the official Passover date (HV A). Because we definitely know of at least one Jewish group at this time which did not follow the official calendar for festivals--namely the Qumran community--it should not be thought unusual that there may be others. For example, there might be reason to think that the Passover was reckoned differently by the Galileans and the Pharisees than it was under the official system of the Sadducees (see under HV B & C, though these latter two might have been officially recognized as permissible). The large number of Jewish pilgrims in Jerusalem for this feast could very possibly have had much to do with influencing the Sadducees into allowing some of the lambs to be slain a day earlier than on the officially determined Passover eve.

And this need not have involved a violation of Mosaic law. The difference may have involved merely a change in the dating of the first day of the month. The law indicates that the lambs must be slain on the 14th of Nisan and that they must be eaten that night. So it is not as though the lambs would be slain on the 13th for some parties in contradiction to the clear statement of the law. (Hoehner, Aspects, 76). Billerbeck's view, for example, is that disagreement between the Pharisees and Saducees (fig. 4, HV C) would have resulted in different determination of the first day of the month and that two dates for the Passover would result for each group respectively (Aspects, 83-4). Here HV C allows both systems to be taken together. This would show the dating of the same events as seen by the two groups. Jesus would have followed the system used by the Pharisees under HV C and the Last Supper is noted there. The official dating determined by the Saducees in HV C has their Passover meal indicated after the crucifixion.

Again, if there were two systems for reckoning the beginning and end of the day, say sunset to sunset for the Judeans (under the Saducees) and sunrise to sunrise for the Galileans (fig. 4, HV B) with Jesus following the Galilean method, this could also allow for two Passover meals and two days for slaying the lambs with no violation of the Mosaic law. Here again, the two views in HV B should be taken together. This would show the dating of the same events as seen by the two groups. There is some but not definite evidence that these two methods of determining the boundaries of the day were used in the first century (Aspects, 85-90). If any of these various dating methods mentioned above were followed, the records--like so many other records of this time--were lost with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.

Perhaps the most damaging evidence against a Passover day crucifixion is the fact that it is very difficult to conceive that the Jewish officials would publicly advocate a crucifixion on such a high holy day as Passover. (This does not mean that this was not Passover day in some minority views.) Indeed, they dare not even arrest him on Passover because of public reaction (Matthew 26:5). Neither the Gospels nor any other historical accounts indicate any controversy, discontent, or protest from any religious leaders or the population as we would expect had Yeshua been killed on Passover day. If Yeshua had been arrested on Passover eve, this would in part explain why the religious leaders carried out an illegal trial at night. They didn't have the time to wait until day if they were to have Yeshua killed before Passover day. And if they were to wait until after the Passover to have him killed, they would have to wait a whole week, enough time for Yeshua's followers to regroup and appeal to Pilate (or so they might have thought).

See Hoehner, Aspects, 85-90 for more detailed arguments and 81-84 for other possible explanations.

25 Josephus Antiquities 18. 4.2. 89.

26 Matthew 26:3, 57; Josephus Antiquities 4.3. 90-95; Harold W. Hoehner, Herod Antiapus (Cambridge, 1972) Appendix 8, 313-116. See also Hoehner, Aspects, 97-99.

27 Moishe Rosen, Y'shua: The Jewish Way to Say Jesus (Chicago: Moody Press, 1982) 40.

28 The years 27, 30, 33 and 34 were the only possible years in which the death of Yeshua could have occurred. Between 26 and 36 CE the most certain dates 14 Nisan fell on a Friday were in 30 and 33. However, there is also a good possibility that 14 Nisan instead fell on Thursday in 30. (See Hoehner, Aspects, p. 100 and cf. footnote 35 on the same page.) On the possibility that Yeshua died on the 15th (if he followed the officially determined Passover date to eat the Last Supper as a Passover meal) the only year in which the 14th fairly definitely fell on Thursday was 27. The first of Nisan was determined by an official sighting of the first visible sliver of the new moon. Poor atmospheric transparency could thus delay the sighting of the new moon which would delay the first day of Nisan. On this possibility 14 Nisan of 27 could have fallen on a Friday.

Using a lunisolar calendar, the Jewish year had to regularly have a month added to it so it would be adjusted to the solar year and the months would correspond to the proper seasons. We can usually account for such leap months in the astronomical calculations used to determine when such ancient Passover dates occurred. But there is one other possibility which is not so easily accounted for. Sometimes unusually bad weather could delay the time of harvest. Because the first fruits had to be ripe on 16 Nisan and the lambs had to be mature enough for Passover, in such years an intercalary month could be added before Passover to provide the extra needed time. On the possibility that such a leap month was added during one of these years, it can be calculated that 14 Nisan would have fallen on Friday on none of these years and it would have fallen on Thursday only in 34.

See C. J. Humphreys and W. G. Waddington, "The Date of the Crucifixion," Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation (March 1985) 3, 4 for the evidence of these computations.

29 Joel 2:31

30 Matthew 24:29, Isaiah 13:10, Ezekial 32:7, 8. Revelation 6:12, 13; 8:12.

31 The moon turned to "blood" on the evening of Yeshua's death. Fifty days after Passover of Yeshua's death, on Shavuot or the day of Pentecost, Yeshua's followers were observed to be speaking in languages they presumably did not know (Acts 2:1-14). Peter explained to those watching that this was the outpouring of the Holy Spirit of God promised by the prophet Joel (Acts 2:14-21; see Joel 2:28-32). One of the signs of this time would be that the sun would be turned to darkness and the moon to blood (Acts 2:20). It is possible that a Khamsin dust storm turned the sun to darkness from noon until at least 3 p.m. on the day of the crucifixion as the Gospel accounts indicate (Matthew 27:45). (See G. R. Driver, Journal of Theological Studies 16 (1965): 327 and Sibylline Oracles 3. 800. in R. H. Charles, The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament [London: Oxford University Press, 1931] for more on this point.) Very possibly Peter is also indicating here that the moon turned to blood on that same day. (See Humphreys and Waddington, "Date," 6-9.)

Supportive evidence of this is found in some early Christian traditions. One New Testament apocryphal fragment, the Report of Peter, may reflect an early tradition when it says that the moon "appeared like blood" on the day of the crucifixion. (R. M. James, The Apocryphal New Testament [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953] 153.) Again, Cyril the Patriarch of Alexandria in 412 CE cites the tradition that the moon "seemed to be turned to blood" at Yeshua's death. (P. E. Pusey. Cyrilli archiop. Alex. in XII Prophetas, i, p. 341, in Joel 2:30-31.)

Lunar eclipses were so commonly described in medieval annals as "the moon turned to blood" that the two were virtually synonymous. The refraction and scattering of light through the earth's atmosphere onto the moon sometimes causes it to appear deep blood-red.

We have evidence of only one lunar eclipse occurring on a Passover between 26 and 36 CE. On 3 April 33 at 6:20 in the afternoon, the moon rose partially yellow-orange but mostly deep red. A red "bite" soon appeared in the yellow-orange moon as it became more fully visible. This lasted half an hour. Dust still suspended in the atmosphere from the recent storm may have darkened the eclipse even more. (Humprhies and Waddington [in "Date;" see note 28 above] consider the lunar eclipse evidence in much greater detail.)

32 "Date."

33 Philo Legatio ad Gaium 301-2; Josephus Antiquities 18. 3.1. 55-59., Bellum Judaicum 2. 9.2-4. 169-77.; Luke 13:1.

34 John 19

35 The evidence that Yeshua died after Sejanus' execution in 31 CE and the question of responsibility for Yeshua's death. Sejanus was executed in October of 31 after Tiberius finally saw him for what he was: one who would stop at nothing in his climb to become emperor, even though he had virtually the full power of emperor already. The Jewish leaders could make no complaint to Caesar without Sejanus intercepting it. After Sejanus' death, Tiberius ordered local governors not to mistreat the Jewish people (Philo Legatio 159-61). He saw that Sejanus had made them a scapegoat and had falsely accused them. Pilate did take steps to placate the Jewish nation. He made one mistake however. He set up inscribed gilded votive shields in the former palace of Herod the Great. The inscription possibly referred to the divinity of Caesar. The shields offended the Jewish people and several Jewish leaders protested to Caesar. Why Pilate set up the shields is not entirely clear. Possibly he underestimated the influence the Jewish leaders now had or he thought to use this display to promote emperor worship and thus to ingratiate himself to Caesar. In any case, his old anti-Semitic habits didn't die easily. Tiberius ordered the shields removed and expressed strong disapproval (Legatio 229-305). With this incident, Pilate, having finally become fully aware of the power of the Jewish leaders, was all the more cautious not to offend them.

At the time of Yeshua's trial Pilate was threatened with accusations of disloyalty in that he would not be a friend of Caesar if he allowed this usurping "king" to live (John 19:12). Such accusations would not have phased Pilate if they occurred before Sejanus' death. A "friend of Caesar," amici Caesaris, was a technical term indicating the elite of Roman officials loyal to Caesar. Should Caesar be told how Pilate shows himself to still be a friend of usurping kings other than Caesar? At least the Jewish leaders could claim to "have no king but Caesar" (John 19:15). So despite Pilate's desire to release Yeshua (Luke 23:1-25; likely more from his antagonism toward the Jewish leaders than from any positive feelings toward Yeshua) he finally yielded to pressure from the Jewish leaders. (For more extensive discussion of the evidence that Yeshua died after Sejanus' execution see Hoehner, Aspects, 105-11.)

Notice that this does not remove Pilate's responsibility. It was ultimately by his choice that Yeshua was killed just as it had been Gentiles who directly took him captive and put him on the cross. Though the mass of Jewish people did not seek his death, the New Testament appears to claim that the Jewish and Gentile leaders, as representative of all Jews and Gentiles by their actions, placed responsibility for his death in the hands of us all (Acts 4:25-27). But even so, the New Testament claims that Yeshua gave his life on his own accord and that no one took it from him without his allowing it (John 10:17-18).

This is not a paradox. The New Testament claims that we (that is, all people) are responsible for his death because of our sin. Only by his substitution, by his dying in our place, could we be reconciled to God (cf. Isaiah 53). It was by Yeshua's free choice that he gave his life. Yet God's love for us was so great that he couldn't leave us in this living death of separation from himself. Because Yeshua's will and desire were ultimately one with that of God his Father, he really had no other choice. Perhaps, then, in some sense Yeshua was not really free in this choice; but he was free in the sense that no one took his life from him without his consent.

36 The votive shields incident occurred after Sejanus' execution and before Yeshua's death. (For a description of the votive shields incident, see reference 35 above.) That this occurred after Sejanus' execution is evidenced by the fact that appeal was made directly to Tiberius and the incident contained reference to Pilate's possible impeachment, both of which would not have been possible before Sejanus' death. That it happened before Yeshua's death is evidenced by the fact that the enmity between Pilate and Herod Antiapus before Yeshua's death (Luke 23:12) was likely caused by the shields incident and placated when Pilate sent Yeshua to be tried by Herod.

37 Yeshua's ministry was three years long. From the first Passover of Yeshua's ministry we can determine that there occur three more Passovers traversing a three year period. The first occurred in Judea (John 2:13). The second is indicated as the Passover season in Galilee (Mark 2:23). The third, the feeding of the five thousand in Galilee in Mark 6:39 is the same event found in John 6:9. The fourth Passover was at the time of the crucifixion (Mark 14:1, John 11:25). (See Hoehner, Aspects, 55-60 for more extensive evidence on this.) This would put his death in 32 or 33 since the first Passover recorded here occurred in 29 or 30.

38 The first Passover of Yeshua's ministry was 29 or 30 CE. Luke records (3:1, 2) that John the immerser or the baptizer began his public ministry in the fifteenth year of Tiberius. Writing to a Roman official (Hoehner, Aspects, 36) he most likely used a Regnal or Julian ascension year calendar. Both were in use in Rome and both were particularly used by Roman historians at this time. Luke's habitual use of precise and specialized terminology--according to the historical events at hand and in order to accurately record those events--makes it likely that he would use the dating system most familiar to his reader(s), most used by his contemporary historians, and/or most universally used. Using either system, Tiberius' fifteenth year began at the earliest in 19 August 28 CE and ended at the latest on 31 December 29 (Aspects, 29-37). Since Yeshua's ministry began not very long after John's (see Luke 3) the first Passover of Yeshua's ministry could not have been before that of 29 and it is very unlikely that it could have occurred after the Passover of 30.

We have another line of evidence supporting this date. There is good reason to believe that John 2:20 should be translated as stating that the Temple edifice had stood 46 years at this the time of the first Passover of Yeshua's ministry. From the time Herod the Great finished this central portion of the Temple in 19/18 BCE until 28/29 CE (that is, sometime between September/October 28 and September/October 29) would be 46 years. Depending on whether this 46th anniversary occurred before or after the Passover (mid-April) of 29, the statement in John 2:20 would have been made during the Passover of 29 or 30 CE (see Aspects, 38-43 for further arguments).

39 Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (IVP, 1987) 179-80.

40 Compare Genesis 22:2 and 2 Chronicles 3:1; New Bible Dictionary, s.v. "Moriah," by T. C. Mitchell.

41 Sources for the resurrection evidence. A more complete but still introductory examination of the evidence for the resurrection may be found in J.N.D. Anderson's booklet Christianity: The Witness of History (Downers Grove, Il.: Inter Varsity Press, 1969). Josh McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict and William Lane Craig's Knowing the Truth About the Resurrection (Chicago: Moody Press, 1988) are more complete but popular studies. Frank Morrison's Who Moved the Stone (IVP, 1958) is one of the most fascinating pieces of investigative reporting in this area. This initially skeptical and antagonistic inquirer began his search intending to disprove the resurrection but ended with a very different conclusion. More recently, a couple of major debates have presented much of the current state of the issues. One is a debate between Gary Habermas and Antony Flew entitled Did Jesus Rise from the Dead: The Resurrection Debate, ed. Terry L. Miethe (Harper and Row, 1987). A second is a debate between William Craig and Gerd Lüdman entitled Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment? (IVP, 2000), Paul Copan and Ronald K. Tacelli (ed.). Also, William Craig has presented a very detailed and scholarly account of the evidence in Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus (Lawston, NJ.: Edwin Mellen Press, 1989).

42 Mark 8:29-31, Luke 9:20-22 most likely indicates that Yeshua considered there to be a relationship between his claim to messiahship and his predicted death and resurrection. In Matthew 12:39, 40 Yeshua claimed this would be the primary sign justifying his claim to authority. (Those seeking a sign did so to verify Yeshua's authority for his acts and for his claims and teachings. We might also note that Yeshua's reprimand of those seeking a sign was not a rebuke to a request for evidence but an expression of anger at the presumption and hardness of heart of those seeking more evidence when sufficient evidence has already been given. Compare Matthew 11:20-22.)

43 Acts 18

44 2 Corinthians 2:4, 10:5-6, 11:2-3.

45 2 Corinthians 3:1, 2; 1 Corinthians 9:1, 2.

46 2 Corinthians 11:5, 12:11, 12.

47 Leon Morris, Tyndale New Testament Commentary: The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids, Mi.: Eerdmans, 1958) 26-29.

48 Galatians 1:18, 19.

49 Resurrection Debate, 23.

50 A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963) 189. See Edwin Yamauchi, The Stones and the Scripture (N.Y.: Holman, 1972) 96-98 for further discussion.

51 Rudolph Bultmann, "New Testament and Mythology," revised translation by Reginald H. Fuller, in Kerygma and Myth, Hans Werner Baitsch (ed.) (Harper and Row, 1961) 42.

52 Luke 24:39-43.

53 Luke 24:13-37, John 21:1-23.

54 Acts 1:9-11. Earnest F. Kevan, The Resurrection of Christ (London: The Campbell Morgan Memorial Bible Lectureship, Westminster Chapel, Buckingham Gate, S.W. 1, June 14, 1961) 11.

55 Resurrection Debate, pp. 52-55 for Antony Flew's agreement on this point. Though he does seem to vacillate later in the debate on this point, he eventually does appear to agree that mass hallucinations must be rejected.

56 Copan, Jesus' Resurrection.

57 Jesus' Resurrection, 96-97.

58 Lecture at Asbury Theological Seminary, November 1999. Cited in Copan, Jesus' Resurrection, 183.

59 Paul did not consider the resurrection appearances to be visions. Some would claim Paul's grouping of his own visionary experience of Yeshua with the resurrection appearances to the disciples (1 Corinthians 15:5-8) indicates that he considered both to be of the same type: that is, merely visions. But this is really insufficient evidence for such a claim; it could as easily mean only that he considered them to be of the same evidential force and of the same veridicity (that is, in each case the viewer saw a real person). The terms were commonly used of normal sensory experience (Jesus' Resurrection, 115-16).

The only detailed accounts which we have of Paul's experience of seeing Yeshua after his death are recorded in the book of Acts. From the descriptions of his encounter here it is often claimed that he simply had a vision. But if we examine these accounts we will find this encounter to be quite as strong as Paul claimed it to be.

Paul traveled from Jerusalem to Damascus with a band of men to persecute Jewish followers of Yeshua in that town. A light as bright as the sun appeared in the heavens (Acts 26:13) and a voice came out of it speaking to Paul. Paul and his companions fell to the ground (26:14). The companions heard the voice but could not understand it (22:9). They and Paul saw the light (22:9) but only Paul saw a human form speaking to him out of it (9:7; 26:16).

The multiple witnesses to the unnatural light and (obscured) voice must be taken as evidence for the veridicity of Paul's experience if it is accepted that Paul had a vision at all. We cannot arbitrarily pick and choose which parts of the account we wish to discard and keep. If it must be considered visionary, it must be considered multiply witnessed. As such, Paul likely saw this experience as being far more than just an ordinary vision. The corroboration by the other witnesses made it much more like a normal sense experience. He felt that he was actually seeing someone who was there and something which had the effect of physically blinding him. So in this way, too, Paul felt at liberty to class his experience with the disciples' normal sense experiences of the resurrected Yeshua.

The post-resurrection appearances to the disciples in the Gospel accounts were never quite so extraordinary as Paul's experience. But then Paul never met Yeshua before his death and he would not likely have been able to recognize him had he appeared as a normal person on the road to Damascus. Likewise, Paul would not have believed such a person if he did identify himself as Yeshua. So this might have been the only type of experience that would have persuaded Paul.

In the appearances to the disciples, Yeshua displays a power to conceal his identity (Luke 24:13-32), walk through locked doors (John 20:19), allow people to touch him and even to place a hand through an otherwise mortal wound (John 20:27), and ascend into the sky (Acts 1:9-10). It seems then that had he wanted to, Yeshua could have appeared to the disciples as he did later to Paul. Both experiences are alike in that they exhibit a person possessing the superhuman power to (among other things) control how he appears to others. So in this way, too, Paul might be indicating the experiences to be alike. Yeshua appeared to Paul in only a slightly more unusual a manner than he did earlier to the others.

Though Paul's experience was more like a vision than those recorded of the disciples, we have no adequate reason to believe that Paul thought of their experiences to be visions. It's not even evident that he thought of his own experience as a vision, though if he did he certainly considered it to be veridical. If it did occur as the book of Acts indicates, then we too should consider it to be veridical.

60 Wolfhart Pannenberg in Resurrection Debate, 130.

61 Yamauchi, Stones, 112.

62 Quintillian Declamationes maiores 6,9.

63  John 19:32, 33.

64 Mark 15:44, 45.

65 George Currie, The Military Discipline of the Romans from the Founding of the City to the Close of the Republic, an abstract of a Thesis published under the auspices of the Graduate Council of Indiana University, 1928; 41-44, 49-50. Josh McDowell and John Gilchrist, The Islam Debate (San Bernardino, Ca.: Here's Life Publishers, Inc.) 166.

66 Hugh J. Schonfield, The Passover Plot (London: Bernard Geis Assoc., 1966).

67 There were other accounted instances in which the witnesses were at first unaware of who Yeshua was. But these appear to have been caused by the viewing distance and other physical conditions and/or by a lack of expectancy of seeing Yeshua, and sometimes by Yeshua's power to now hide his identity (cf. John 21; 20:15, Luke 24:13-36). (If Yeshua had a resurrected body, we should not find it difficult to believe that he also could have the power to conceal his identity.) These instances also provide additional evidence against hallucinations. For hallucinations which result from an intense desire to see the missing loved one, one cannot be uncertain as to who is being seen. And these cases cannot be considered simply mistaken identity since Yeshua was eventually definitely identified in all of them.

68 A critique of Hugh Schonfield's arguments from the historical documents. Edwin Yamauchi, "Passover Plot or Easter Triumph?: A Critical Review of H. Schonfield's Recent Theory," in Appendix A, 261-67 of J. W. Montgomery (ed.) Christianity for the Tough Minded (Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, Inc., 1973).

69 John 8:46, 1 Peter 2:22.

70 Deuteronomy 18:18,19; New Bible Dictionary, s.v. "Messiah," by F. F. Bruce, 813.

71 Romans 1:18.

72 John 7:17.

73 The Hebrew view of miracles as evidence. Speaking specifically of the signs given through prophetic fulfillment, Deuteronomy 18:18-22 indicates that such a miracle should be sufficient to persuade someone that God has spoken. However, some prophecies will be fulfilled which still should be rejected if the prophet draws us away from the God of scripture (Deuteronomy 13:1-3). God allows these, it says, because God wants to know where our commitment, where our choice lies (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12). This applies to the person who is initially uncommitted as well as the one who is committed to God. It asks if you will commit yourself to One who deserves your full commitment and love. The most important question, that of our choice, must be answered first. After that, the evidence will be given which will be sufficient to persuade.

Compare C. S. Lewis' "On Obstinacy in Belief," in The World's Last Night (NY: Harvest, 1960), pp. 13-30 for what is almost a commentary on Deuteronomy 13:1-3.

74 C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters (Old Tapan, NJ: Revel, 1976), 22-23.

75 Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means (Greenwood, 1937), 270ff.

76 Historical accuracy of the earliest surviving biographies of Yeshua's life. For a more complete but still introductory study see Robert C. Newman, "Miracles and the Historicity of the Easter Week Narratives," in Evidence for Faith, 281-89. More comprehensive studies begin with F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Downers Grove, Il.: Inter Varsity Press, 1960); Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels; and Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (IVP, 1970).

77 Bruce, Documents, 39.

78 Blomberg, Reliability, 25-31.

79 Authorship of the four Gospels. The evidence is that Matthew, one of Yeshua's immediate disciples, wrote the first Gospel; Mark recorded Peter's reminiscences in the second; Luke, a long time coworker with Paul, wrote the third; and John, another of Yeshua's immediate disciples, wrote the last.

Between 130 and 140, Justin Martyr spoke of the "memoirs of the apostles" (Justin Apology 1. 33, 66, 67; Dialogue with Trypho 100-104, 105, 106, 107.) which were written "by apostles and those who followed them" (Dialogue, 103. 7.). That Justin was referring to our present four Gospels and that he considered them authoritative is further supported by their equal and authoritative use in the Diatessaron, written by his student Tatian. (Cf. Guthrie, Introduction, 269.) Robert Newman comments that Justin "quotes from or mentions matters found in each of the four Gospels, and apparently alludes to Mark's Gospel as Peter's memoirs." (Evidence for Faith, 285.)

Around 130, Papias, now an old man who had earlier been a student of the apostle John, named Matthew and Mark as authors of two of these biographies, mentioning how Mark received his material from Peter (recorded in Eusebius Church History 3.39. 15-16.). Though the section of Papias' fragment on Luke is missing we do have good evidence that he knew John's Gospel (F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture [IVP, 1988] 126).

About 180 CE, Irenaeus (who studied under Polycarp, who in turn was a student of John) named all four Gospels with these writers. He spoke of the fourfold Gospels as though they had long been established and unquestioned as the only authoritative biographies of Yeshua (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3. 11. 8.). A contemporary witness repeats the authorship of Luke and John (The Muratorian Canon; see Evidence for Faith, 285) and all subsequent authorities state and assume this authorship of these four without question (Evidence; Guthrie, Introduction, 260).

The earliest surviving Gospel manuscripts are all titled with these writer's names and never in these first centuries is there a suggestion that these could have any other writers or that the authors were unknown. If these were not the authors, we might ask (as does Robert Newman) how can we "explain the complete loss of the correct names and their complete replacement by a single set of spurious names--a set, moreover, in which three of the names are relatively obscure." (Evidence for Faith, 285.) Wouldn't a forger have picked Peter or Paul, for example, rather than Mark or Luke?

The authors were most probably known to the original audiences as comments by at least two of the writers suggest (John 21:24, Luke 1:1-4; Evidence, 284). Internal evidence also suggests that Mark was an eyewitness at least to the end of Yeshua's life and that the other three wrote the Gospels ascribed to them (Ibid., p. 285-86). In Newman's powerful critique he comments, "Of course, one may claim that the original authors faked these details, that the early Christians were taken in by this deception and that they unanimously agreed in guessing who wrote each one. Such procedures, however, will explain away any historical data whatsoever." (Evidence, 286.)

80 The historical accuracy of John's Gospel. John's Gospel is sufficiently different from the others that large portions of it do not follow the oral tradition or sources that make up the Synoptics, the other three Gospels. Among other things, the writer of John sought to provide information the others had missed. Because it was so early accepted by the churches and because of very early and credible witnesses to the apostle John's authorship, it is most likely that we do have here his eyewitness account (Bruce, Documents, 17, 18, 50-54; Canon, 127-29; Guthrie, Introduction, 258-61, 268-71). So even though this biography could not have been entirely checked by the predominant oral tradition(s) or the Gospels which used those traditions as their primary sources (there is much significant correspondence between John and the Synoptics), John's Gospel would have been accepted because of the authority of its author.

Because so many of the events and teachings of John's Gospel would have been accessible to only small audiences, their exclusion from the other dominant oral tradition(s) should not be considered unusual. And there are other very feasible explanations for other differences between John and the Synoptics. Though the writer provides his own theological emphasis and possibly some of the thought forms of an adopted Gentile culture, there is in any case no good reason to question his apostolic authorship and the historical accuracy of this writing.

81 For an interesting example of how critics in the past have felt at liberty to ridicule biblical accounts (Thomas Huxley in this case) only to have themselves become the subject of entertainment once better information had become available, see Bruce, Documents, 63, 64, n. 2. For further examples see 93ff. and Yamauchi, Stones, 18, 20, 92ff.

82 Bruce, Documents, 14-20.

Bibliography

Anderson, J.N.D. Christianity: The Witness of History. Downers Grove, Il.: InterVarsity Press, 1969.

Anderson, Sir Robert. The Coming Prince. London: Pickering and Ingles, 1895.

Archer, Gleason. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Chicago, Moody Press, 1974.

Baitsch, Hans Werner, ed. Kerygma and Myth. Harper and Row, 1961.

Blomberg, Craig. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. Downers Grove, Il. InterVarsity Press, 1987.

Brown, Michael L. Vol. 2 of Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: Theological Objections. 3 vols. Grand Rapids, Mi: Baker, 2000.

------. Vol. 3 of Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus: Messianic Prophecy Objections. 3 vols. Grand Rapids, Mi: Baker, 2003.

Bruce, F. F., The Canon of Scripture. Downers Grove, Il.: InterVarsity Press, 1988.

______. The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Downers Grove, Il.: InterVarsity Press, 1960.

Charles, R. H. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament. London: Oxford University Press, 1931.

Copan, Paul, and Ronald K. Tacelli, eds. Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment?: A Debate Between William Lane Craig and Gerd Lüdman. Downers Grove, Il.: InterVarsity Press, 2000.

Craig, William Lane. Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus. Lawston, NJ.: Edwin Mellen Press, 1989.

______. Knowing the Truth About the Resurrection. Chicago: Moody Press, 1988.

Currie, George. "The Military Discipline of the Romans from the Founding of the City to the Close of the Republic," Thesis published under the auspices of the Graduate Council of Indiana University, 1928.

Driver, G. R. Journal of Theological Studies 16 (1965): 327.

Douglas, J. D. New Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids, Mi: Eerdmans, 1962.

Filiozat, J. L. A., H. Lewy and M. S. Drower. Encyclopedia Britanica, 14th ed., s.v. "Calendar."

Goldstine, Herman. New and Full Moons, 1001 B.C. to A.D. 1651. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1973.

Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. Downers Grove, Il.: InterVarsity Press, 1970.

Hoehner, Harold W. Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ. Grand Rapids, Mi.: Zondervan, 1977.

______, Herod Antiapus. Cambridge, 1972.

Horn, S. H. and L. H. Wood. "The Fifth-Century Jewish Calendar at Elephantine." Journal of Near Eastern Studies 13 (Jan 1954): 9.

Humphreys, C. J. and W. G. Waddington, "The Date of the Crucifixion," Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 37 (March 1985): 2-10.

Huxley, Aldous. Ends and Means. New York: Greenwood, 1937.

Irenaeus. Against Heresies.

James, R. M. The Apocryphal New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953.

Jensen, Dennis. "The Logic of Miracles," Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 33 (March 1981): 145-53.

Josephus. Antiquities of the Jews.

Justin Apology. Dialogue with Trypho.

Kevan, Earnest F. The Resurrection of Christ. London: The Campbell Morgan Memorial Bible Lectureship, Westminster Chapel, Buckingham Gate, S.W. 1, June 14, 1961.

Lewis, C. S. "On Obstinacy in Belief," in The World's Last Night. New York: Harvest, 1960.

______. The Screwtape Letters. Revel, 1976.

McDowell, Josh. Evidence that Demands a Verdict. San Bernardino, Ca.: Here's Life Publishers, Inc., 1979.

______. and John Gilchrist. The Islam Debate. San Bernardino, Ca.: Here's Life Publishers, Inc.

Miethe, Terry L. ed. Did Jesus Rise from the Dead: The Resurrection Debate, Gary Habermas and Antony Flew. New York: Harper and Row, 1987.

Mishna, Baba Metzia 9. 10; Sanhedrin 5. 1.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to John. Gen. ed., F. F. Bruce. The New International Commentary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mi: Zondervan, 1971.

______Tyndale New Testament Commentary The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids, Mi.: Eerdmans, 1958.

Morrison, Frank. Who Moved the Stone. Downers Grove, Il.: InterVarsity Press, 1958.

Newman, Robert C. "Miracles and the Historicity of the Easter Week Narratives." Evidence for Faith. Ed., John Warwick Montgomery. Dallas, Tx.: Probe Books, 1991. pp. 281-89.

______."The Testimony of Messianic Prophecy." Evidence for Faith. Ed., John Warwick Montgomery. Dallas, Tx.: Probe Books, 1991. pp. 203-14.

Parker, R.A. and W.H. Dubberstein. Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.-A.D. 75. Providence, RI.: Brown University Press, 1956.

Patai, Raphael. The Messiah Texts. New York: Avon, 1979.

Philo. Legatio ad Gaium.

______ Bellum Judaicum.

Pusey, P. E. Cyrilli archiop. Alex. in XII Prophetas, in Joel 2:30-31.

Quintillian. Declamationes maiores 6, 9.

Rosen, Moishe. Y'shua: The Jewish Way to Say Jesus. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.

Schonfield, Hugh J. The Passover Plot. London: Bernard Geis Assoc., 1966.

Sherwin-White, A. N. Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963.

Thompson, J. E. S. Encyclopedia Britanica 15th ed., s.v. "Chronology."

van Buitenen, J. A. B., E.J. Bickerman, J. D. Schmidt, W. Helk, and T. Proskouriakoff. Encyclopedia Britanica, 15th ed., s.v. "Calendar."

Velikouski, Immanuel. Worlds in Collision. New York: Doubleday, 1950.

Yamauchi, Edwin. "Passover Plot or Easter Triumph?: A Critical Review of H. Schonfield's Recent Theory." Ed., John Warwick Montgomery. Christianity for the Tough Minded. Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, Inc., 1973. 261-71.

______. The Stones and the Scripture. N.Y.: Holman, 1972.

Encounter

Debate and Critique

A major debate took place in January of 1986 at the University of Maryland between Messianic Jewish and non-Messianic Jewish positions. Dr. Michael Brown and Dan Juster presented arguments that Yeshua (Jesus) definitely is the Jewish Messiah while Rabbi Steven Bayer and Mickey Miller argued that he cannot be. In 1994 another very significant debate on the Messiahship of Yeshua took place between Dr. Brown and Rabbi Dr. David Blumofe in Chicago. Blumofe wrote his doctoral dissertation attempting to prove that Jesus could not be the Messiah.

Because of copyright limitations we are not able to print the first debate but we are able to offer both for purchase from the source at the end of the debate. Only an analysis of the first debate from the view of a Messianic Jewish position is here printed. (See "Format" below for the reasons we considered this approach to be necessary.)

Some of these arguments have been developed and sharpened over centuries of debate. We hope that we can say that in the tapes we offer here we have some of the best arguments available on both sides of the issue. It's hard to imagine a more important topic, especially for the honest Jewish seeker of spiritual truth. Official Judaism says the answers are to be found in its tradition which rejects Yeshua as the Messiah. Messianic Judaism claims the Jewish Messiah has come and that because of this one's Judaism can be fulfilled and completed in him. Both offer centuries of scholarship and tradition (one certainly less continuous than the other) and both deserve careful evaluation, not blind adherence. If this is a false Messiah, the followers of Yeshua need to know it and turn against him. If this is the Messiah, how can Jewish seekers stand before God and say they have allowed their tradition to dictate to them what they are to believe? How can either group say they have never even investigated the issues and sought the truth from God?

Format:

Point /Counterpoint had originally intended to make the first debate available in an outline form, analyzing each point individually and adding arguments and information to both sides of the debate in order to draw out both cases as completely as possible. This outline has been completed but the traditional Jewish position has refused to allow their portion of the debate to be published other than by tape. With this limitation, the following analysis will necessarily appear very one-sided. We are here presenting the best of the Messianic Jewish position plus additional arguments and commentary. Even the affirmative case outline is added to help clarify the argument. Though we have presented additional points for the non-Messianic view, indeed, the strongest ones we could come up with, these are necessarily far fewer than those presented in the unpublished analysis. And all of the given non-Messianic arguments, either from the debate or ones we had added, have herein been answered by the original or extended Messianic arguments.

Although the above must be presented as essentially a critique of the non-Messianic position since their original arguments can only be very summarily and obliquely presented, these arguments can be determined from the critique without much difficulty or completely from the tapes. The locations of most cited Messianic Jewish statements from the tapes are noted in parentheses.

Speakers:

"The Great Debate: Can Yeshua be Proven to be the Jewish Messiah from Jewish Scripture?" (Note: the following credentials were current at the time of the debate.) Representing the Messianic Jewish view were Michael Brown (professor at Messiah for the Nations Institute and Ph. D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literature from New York University) and Dan Juster (President of the Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations, M. Div. from McCormic Theological Seminary and Jewish Studies at Spurtis College of Judaica). Representing the non-Messianic views were Steven Bayer, (rabbi of Mishkan Torah Congregation, Greenbelt, Maryland; B.A. and M.A. in Biblical Studies from the University of Virginia and Rabbinical degree from the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College in Philadelphia) and Mickey Miller (director of the Philadelphia branch Anti-missionary Institute).

"Who is Jesus?" Rabbi David Blumofe, Ph.D. in Hebrew Literature from the Hebrew Theological College at the Jewish University of America in Skokie, Illinois and Michael Brown (already noted).

Summary

Affirmative Case Summary: Yeshua is the Jewish Messiah

1. There is no atonement without the shedding of blood. (Atonement is removal of sin, without which there is no possible relationship with God or acceptance by God.)

2. Animal sacrifice is not sufficient to provide atonement.

3. With the destruction of the Temple no animal sacrifice is acceptable to God.

4. A blood sacrifice, but not an animal sacrifice, is necessary for atonement after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE (from 1 and 3).

5. A blood sacrifice, but not an animal sacrifice, has always been and will always be necessary for atonement, the animal sacrifices being effective only as a representation of the non-animal blood sacrifice (from 1 and 2).

6. Other than the animal sacrifices, the Hebrew scripture mentions only the Servant of Isaiah 53 as providing atonement.

7. Hebrew scripture indicates that only the suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 can provide atoning sacrifice (with 4 and 6 or 5 and 6)

8. The suffering Servant is the Messiah.

9. Messiah must die in atonement for the sins of humanity (from 7 and 8).

10. Yeshua fits the qualifications of the atoning Messiah. Because he fits the qualifications as no one else possibly can, he must be the Messiah.

Negative Case Summary: Jesus Cannot be the Jewish Messiah

The non-Messianic Jewish team presented two arguments that Jesus could not possibly be the Jewish Messiah because he does not fit the proper line of Davidic ancestry. Two genealogies from the New Testament might be diagramed (and abridged) as follows:

Link to First Negative Case 1:No lineage though adoption (1.1)

Link to First Negative Case 2: No lineage through women (1.2)

Link to Second Negative Case 1: No lineage through Nathan (2.1)

Link to Second Negative Case 2: No lineage through Jeconiah (2.2)

One word of explanation is necessary before we can state the claims. Luke's genealogy says Joseph is the son of Heli. This conflicts with Matthew's genealogy. The Messianic Jewish position will claim that the wording in Luke allows that Joseph is here considered a son of Heli through Joseph's marriage to Mary who is Heli's daughter. So the use of dotted lines will here indicate indirect lineage of some type (an adopted son, other ancestors left out of this line, etc.). Thicker solid lines indicate direct parent to child lineage. If only for the sake of the argument, both sides are assuming this explanation.

The non-Messianic position gives two arguments. The first claims two things: One, lineage cannot be traced through adoption (Joseph was not Jesus' physical father) (1.1); and two, lineage cannot be traced through women (thus it could not come through Mary's lineage) (1.2). In the second argument they claim that the Hebrew scriptures tell us that the Messiah cannot come through Nathan (2.1) but neither could he come through Jeconiah through Solomon (2.2) because of a curse to this effect that God placed on Jeconiah. Thus each of these arguments, independently of the other, would close off both Messianic genealogical lines for Jesus. And followers of Jesus maintain that he had to come through one of these lines.

The Messianic position will argue that none of the claims of this argument can be supported. We should notice, however, that both genealogical lines must be closed to show that Yeshua is not the Messiah. If one line is open it does not matter if the other is closed.

Affirmative Case:

Yeshua is the Jewish Messiah

1. There is no atonement without the shedding of blood. (Atonement is removal of sin, without which there is no possible relationship with God or acceptance by God.)

Leviticus 17:11 indicates that blood was necessary for atonement. It says, "For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I [God] have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life [which is "in the blood"] that makes atonement." In other words, because the life is in the blood, you can have atonement. The wording indicates that only the blood can give atonement.

Leviticus 17 (and Deuteronomy 12) tell us that animal sacrifices can only be allowed at the altar. This indicates that after the destruction of the Temple, not that there can be no sacrifices, but that there can be no animal sacrifices. Neither Leviticus 17 nor any other passage of scripture says that all other possible sacrifices are forbidden. Yes, certain other kinds of sacrifice are forbidden, such as child sacrifice. An example of a sacrifice which is not precluded would be a human sacrifice which God provides and allows evil or unknowing persons to execute and which the victim willingly submits to. The sacrifice mentioned in Isaiah 53 would fit this.

The passages mentioned only say that we must have a blood sacrifice for atonement and that with the loss of the Temple animal sacrifice would now be excluded. The proper conclusion would be that we may still have atonement but it must be by blood sacrifice and it cannot be an animal sacrifice.

Because the Temple was destroyed at the time of the seventy year Babylonian Exile we see that atonement was available without animal sacrifice. Those in captivity had atonement in the same way as did those of the northern kingdom (if or when they could not sacrifice in Jerusalem when the Temple was standing) and as did the Gentiles who had no proper sacrifice so far as we know: They had atonement by means of the sacrifice God would someday himself provide though they were unaware of what this sacrifice was at the time. At best they were aware that they were relying upon God and whatever means God would make available, if he would do so.

There was still no forgiveness without the shedding of blood; Leviticus 17:11 is not negated. Any time Israel had opportunity to obey God's ceremonial laws exactly, God always made it clear that their atonement must involve the actual shedding of an animal's blood. This is because this symbol must always point to the one sacrifice which will fulfill it. If, when animal sacrifices could be offered, God allowed there to be any exceptions, this would indicate that there could be another means of atonement.

Those who kept the proper Temple sacrifices were told that somehow this would atone but they were aware that this was not really enough to atone in itself. So they were relying upon God and upon whatever means God would provide to atone through their action. Later the prophets showed that it would be the death of the Messiah that would fulfill this symbol of the animal sacrifice. It would again later be revealed (we will show) that Yeshua is this sacrificial Messiah. It doesn't matter that Yeshua had not died yet. His atonement is effective for both the future and the past, for all of time.

Rashi said, "Let life atone for life," (1a109). The Talmud says, "Surely, there is no atonement except in the blood," (1a141). Would such scholars have taught this if this conclusion were not clear in scripture? Unless forced by the clearest meaning of scripture it would have been much easier to accept the present Jewish view which rejects the necessity of blood sacrifice. What of the tradition of killing the rooster and saying, "this is my substitute, . . . my atonement," (1a199)? If the necessity of blood sacrifice were not so clear in scripture, such traditions would have never taken shape nor would they have continued.

Let's consider some of the other arguments against the need for blood sacrifice. Solomon did say that prayer toward the Temple would bring atonement (2 Chronicles 6:38, 1 Kings 8:48). But Brown points out that it was because the Temple was made a "house of sacrifice" that such prayer could be effective (2 Chronicles 7:12) (1a197). There was a necessary tie to blood sacrifice for forgiveness.

In 1 Samuel 15 God was disobeyed in order to sacrifice. Such a sacrifice cannot be pleasing to God. As the very act of sacrifice as it is tied with repentance is to bring forgiveness, so its whole purpose is contradicted if God is disobeyed in order to sacrifice. Thus Samuel says, "To obey is better than to sacrifice" (v. 22). How can we repent and sin at the same time? How can we seek forgiveness while sinning or disobeying? So God does not here indicate that he does not want sacrifice, he simply doesn't want it if disobedience is involved in the process.

Hosea addressed the sin of hypocrisy. Again, the purpose of sacrifice was to forgive sin. To sacrifice while oppressing the weak, while sinning, cannot be pleasing to God. God isn't saying that he doesn't want sacrifice at all when he says, "I desire mercy and not sacrifice" (Hosea 6:6), he just doesn't want it when it's purely hypocritical.

The context of this verse indicates that Hosea was addressing Judah (vs. 4, 11) as well as the northern kingdom. So he might have been speaking to those of Judah who sacrificed in Jerusalem and those of Israel who traveled to Jerusalem to sacrifice (if there were any). In any case, since it is obvious that sacrifices were occurring (v. 6), it is impossible to use this verse to claim that legitimate Temple sacrifice was inaccessible to these people. The same can be said of chapters 2 and 3 where forgiveness is offered. In Hosea 14:2 forgiveness is requested but we are not told that sacrifice is not also needed.

Concerning the Day of Atonement, the fact that one of two animals was not slain does not show that atonement can occur without the shedding of blood. Because at least one animal had to die, it doesn't matter what happened to the other animal. There is meaning in the other animal's being sent into the wilderness (removal of sin and probably separation and alienation from God because of sin) but it is not the symbolism of blood.

Flour was sometimes allowed in the place of a sacrifice when someone couldn't afford an animal. But since the flour was always mixed with blood there is no way that it can be claimed that flour alone was sufficient to atone (1a52). Concerning the Passover (1a85), the symbolism of blood to keep out the angel of death indicates that this sacrifice did have atoning significance.

Miriam was healed when Moses prayed for her but there is no reason to believe God forgave Miriam and Aaron because of Moses' prayer (Numbers 12:13). Prayer for oneself is a necessary condition for forgiveness, but so is sacrifice.

Abraham's prayer for Abimelech did not atone for him. Genesis 20 does not say that Abimelech sinned but that God kept him from sinning. The issue of atonement does not apply here.

If someone sins it is to be assumed that they will stop sinning before seeking atonement. That is what happened in Ezra 10. But for atonement, sacrifice also had to be given, as was also the case here (v. 19).

The immediate context of Isaiah 27:9 (that is, vs. 7-11) indicates that God is saying that he is the one who will destroy Judah's idolatry as he destroys Judah. God is not saying that merely destroying idolatry will forgive sin. It is this punishment that will atone or remove sin. Perhaps here we can make exception to our claim that only blood sacrifice can atone. Justice also atones. But this kind of atonement, this removal of sin, is what we seek to avoid. That's why it's rarely mentioned as atonement. What God in mercy offered the people and what we are concerned with was the kind of atonement by which our deserved punishment can be averted.

Psalms 78:38-39 says that being compassionate and remembering that we are but flesh, God forgives. Again, it does not say that sacrifice is unnecessary for forgiveness. This, like many of the other passages considered here, does not speak of sacrifice because it is assumed to be a necessary part of atonement. God's compassion, our repentance (turning from sin), and sacrifice are all necessary. Whenever scripture speaks of forgiveness must it repeat the obvious? Of course not! Because the other passages we've considered say that blood sacrifice is necessary for atonement, the only way this claim can be refuted is by coming up with another that definitely says that it is not necessary. Simply because a passage does not mention sacrifice when it mentions atonement is not evidence that atonement is possible without sacrifice.

Psalms 9:10 says that God does not forsake anyone who seeks him. If this means he forgives those who seek him, as other scriptures indicate, it still does not indicate that sacrifice is not also necessary for forgiveness. If we are thinking of those who do not know of God's requirement of sacrifice, it could be that when they seek God, God will show them they must sacrifice or accept a sacrifice already given. If they refuse to do so, their disobedience would show that they aren't really serious about seeking God in the first place.

Isaiah 53 shows us that suffering atones but it's grammar indicates that there is only one individual, the Servant of God, who suffers to atone for the rest of us. We will show that this is the one who fulfills the animal sacrifices.

2. Animal sacrifice is not adequate in itself to provide atonement.

Before the animal was killed or sent away the owner or priest would lay their hands upon the animal's head and in some cases would confess sins over the animal. By such obvious identification with the animal it was clear that the sins of one would be taken upon the other. Indeed, the scripture explicitly claims this (Leviticus 16:21, 22). As the animal would take our sins so it would take our deserved death and separation from God, because that is what our sin deserves.

All that a person can do is to repent and turn from one's sin. There is nothing we can provide or do of ourselves that can remove the separation between us and God. By repentance God knows that we are serious about forsaking our sin and that we have done all that we can do in our own power.

But to really remove the alienation between us, that God must do. What God had provided for the Hebrews to do in addition to repentance was to follow this unusual little ceremony. God required this in order that it be clear that they were following God's means of forgiveness and in order for them to understand the essence of what that means is: a substitutionary death. It's a ceremony that would seem totally gratuitous, totally inappropriate, unless it pointed to something else. Why blood? Why the death of an animal and all the accompanying ceremonial actions? How can this be a completely arbitrary ceremony God had chosen for them? How can this mean nothing?

And once the meaning of one dying in another's place is understood, it is also clear that the death of a mere animal is not enough to provide this substitution. As there is nothing we can provide that will remove our sin, so also it is God who must provide the true substitute which the sacrifice points to.

That many of the great rabbis understood that the death of a mere animal cannot atone and that it must point to something else (1a265) also gives evidence that this is implicit in scripture.

Animal sacrifice did not in itself atone but it did atone in that it pointed to and was thus connected with that which fulfilled it, that is, the sacrificial death of the Messiah. This fits all that the Hebrew scripture and the Christian scripture says about animal sacrifice. When the New Testament book of Hebrews says that animal sacrifice did not atone it means only that it fails to atone in itself. Hebrew scripture says it atones but it does not say it atones in itself without being tied to something else.

The need to have a literal, physical sacrifice does not contradict its symbolic nature. Disobedience, failure to carry out the animal sacrifice, indicated an unwillingness to accept what the sacrifice represented, whether fully understood or not. It at least represented resistance to the clearly understood principle of a need for substitution. Because of what the animal's blood pointed to, God could not accept any other means of atonement. Only if the physical blood of an animal were required could it be understood that this represents an actual substitutionary death of something else.

3. With the destruction of the Temple no animal sacrifice is acceptable to God (demonstrated in 1).

4. A blood sacrifice, but not an animal sacrifice, is necessary for atonement after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE (from 1 and 3).

Without the Temple, no animal sacrifice atones. If traditional Jewish readers find the evidence convincing that there is no atonement without the shedding of blood, they might find themselves in a quandary in that they would be unable to now have atonement and acceptance by God. Indeed, some have lived tortured lives over this problem and some have embraced Yeshua as the Messiah because of the answer he gives: He provided the blood sacrifice necessary for atonement after the destruction of the last Temple in fulfillment of the prophets. But even if the Temple had never been destroyed, we have seen that atonement must come from something greater than an animal sacrifice.

5. A blood sacrifice, but not an animal sacrifice, has always been and will always be necessary for atonement, the animal sacrifices being effective only as a representation of the non-animal blood sacrifice (from 1 and 2).

6. Other than the animal sacrifices, the Hebrew scripture mentions only the Servant of Isaiah 53 as providing atonement.

It is not questioned that the Servant of Isaiah 53 provides atonement. The fact that this is depicted as an asham sacrifice (which requires restitution) does not mean it does not atone. All sacrifice for forgiveness requires restitution insofar as it is possible.

7. Only the suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 can provide atoning sacrifice (from 4 and 6 or 5 and 6).

8. The suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah.

Can the Servant be Israel or even an ideal Israel? Since other of the Servant passages clearly refer to Israel, wouldn't this one? Just like the Servant, Israel is often spoken of with a singular personal pronoun such as he or she.

But Isaiah 53 speaks of one particular individual who will atone for the people. Israel, or the people, are spoken of in the plural, as "we," yet the Servant is only spoken of in the singular. If "we" are distinct from the Servant who will bring atonement for "us," that is, for Israel, then the Servant cannot be Israel (see 1b250)..

It says in Isaiah 49:6 that the Servant will raise up the tribes. If the Servant is ideal Israel, will ideal Israel raise up real Israel to become ideal Israel? There is no indication in this passage that the Servant reproduces more Servants in this way. Here Jacob who is raised up seems to be quite distinct from the Servant.

If all people are guilty of sin as Solomon says (2 Chronicles 6:36) then what individuals could ever qualify as ideal Israel? The need for a sinless sacrifice is pointed out in the symbolism of the sacrificial system. Only flawless and pure animals were accepted. Likewise, as the priests had to first sacrifice for themselves so that they might have their own sins forgiven so that they could sacrifice for the people, so it would be impossible to have anything but a sinless Servant provide an atoning sacrifice. The Servant would need atonement for himself if he were not sinless. If this is the one all other forms of sacrifice anticipate and represent (5), then he cannot receive atonement from anyone or anything else. He must be sinless. So the suffering Servant cannot be even an ideal Israel because even an ideal Israel is made up of individuals in need of atonement.

That Jewish tradition affirms that this is one individual (1a265, the Zohar) and, indeed, because the Targums and Sanhedrin 98b identify him as the Messiah (1b268), we have additional evidence that this is the most obvious meaning of Isaiah 53. The Targums were not merely the Reader's Digest Condensed Bible of its day. They were the interpretations of competent and accepted Jewish scholars of the time.

Juster begins one important argument by pointing out that Isaiah 42, 49, and 52:12-53:12 describe the one called the Servant of the Lord. Isaiah 9 and 11 are unquestioned Messianic passages in traditional Judaism (1b166). Because both groups of passages can be shown to describe the same individual, the Servant of the Lord must be the Messiah. Consider the following passages for comparison.

Servant	Messiah
1) will regather and restore Israel to God (49:6, 5) (1b225)	1) will reign over Israel in justice and righteousness (9:6, 7) (1b175) and will regather Israel to God (11:11) (1b230)
2) will be a light to the nations (49:6, 42:6) (1b233)	2) will be a sign or banner to the nations and will thus cause them to seek him (11:10) (1b185) ["Those in darkness will see a great light" (9:2). Because the context is speaking of Messiah (v.6) this indicates that Messiah will provide this light.]
3) brings salvation to the ends of the earth (49:6) (1b235) and is a covenant for the peoples (42:6) (1b205)	3) the nations seek after the Messiah (11:10) (1b185)

Brown backs the traditional Jewish view that Isaiah 9 is a Messianic passage but he also claims that Messiah is here named "Mighty God" (2a340, 2b264). He points out that because in the very next chapter God takes this name, El gibbor, for himself (10:21) and because the throne names of no other Jewish kings went beyond something like "God is my kinsman" or "God is my savior," this shows that this is a clear identification of the Messiah with God.

The alter Jacob built at Shechem was called El-elhoe-Israel, literally "God, God of Israel" (Genesis 33:20). Very possibly this was to memorialize that "El is the God of Israel," bringing to remembrance what God had done here. In any case it cannot be shown that the alter was given the name of God.

From these considerations we see that at the very least this clearly was no normal king. And Brown's argument is quite strong that this Messiah is, indeed, God incarnate. The traditional and dominant Jewish position that Isaiah 9 speaks of the Messiah must be correct. What other king will reign on David's throne forever or establish it in unending peace? (9:7.)

9. The Messiah must die in atonement for the sins of humankind (from 7 and 8).

The future reinstitution of the sacrificial system does not contradict the notion of the Messiah dying an atoning death. Animal sacrifice is a symbol pointing forward to the Messiah's sacrifice just as the practice of the communion meal points back to it. There is no need to have the animal sacrifice done away with any more than the celebration of Yeshua's last supper. When the animal sacrifices are restored they will represent and point back to the Messiah's sacrifice as does communion.

In addition to the evidence we have already looked at, there is one other very interesting line of evidence that appears when we look at Daniel 9 and Isaiah 53 together.

Daniel 9 speaks of the death of the Messiah (the normal meaning of "to cut off" when applied to a person) and within a particular period of time. The passage says that this time period (seventy sevens) is determined to bring about atonement, among other things. The death of no righteous one other than Messiah is mentioned here. Now because the death of the Servant of Isaiah 53 is said to bring about atonement, because the death of Messiah is mentioned here in Daniel 9, and because one of the prime features of this period of time is that it will bring atonement, it is most likely that this Messiah who will die is also the Servant of Isaiah 53 whose death brings atonement.

10. Yeshua fits the qualifications of the atoning Messiah. Because he fits the qualifications as no one else possibly can, he must be the Messiah.

Juster drew on several arguments that Yeshua is the Messiah. Perhaps the most important one he mentions might be looked at a little more closely. Yeshua fulfilled the predicted date of Messiah's coming. He fits the prophecy of Daniel 9 that Messiah will come and die before the Temple is destroyed. It says that a prince will then come and destroy the city (Jerusalem) and the sanctuary (2a207). But notice that for this to fit any Messianic candidate other than Yeshua and after 70 CE we need to have the Temple rebuilt (which hasn't happened yet), have the Messiah appear and die, and then have Jerusalem and the Temple destroyed again. And then they will have to be rebuilt again for the Messianic kingdom.

Isn't it strange that this prophecy should dwell so much on the time of the rebuilding and destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple and yet it doesn't even mention that the city and sanctuary would be completely destroyed and rebuilt between the time of the rebuilding and destruction it does mention? And it gives no indication that nearly two thousand or more years will pass after that unmentioned destruction before it will be again rebuilt for Messiah to come.

The only way out of this problem is to admit that Messiah must have come before the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. And no possible Messianic candidate other than Yeshua has appeared before 70 CE.

More detailed and involved studies indicate that Yeshua fulfilled the seventy weeks prophecy to the very day Messiah was said to appear. (See "The Time of Messiah".) But we present this more simplified argument to show that far less will suffice to prove our claim.

One other bit of evidence Juster presents which might be missed is his statement concerning Isaiah 53 where the prophet speaks of the Servant of the Lord dying (v. 10a) and then being alive again (10b). How can this be resolved unless he rises from the dead as is claimed (and argued) of Yeshua? (2a210.)

The fact that Yeshua did not bring a kingdom of peace and prosperity to the world is sometimes given as the primary reason official Judaism does not accept him as Messiah. Sometimes it is claimed that this is the most basic prophetic picture of the Messiah. Any other prophecy he might fulfill cannot mean much if he fails to fulfill this one.

Of course followers of Yeshua claim that he will fulfill this prophecy at a later time. It is unreasonable to believe that he isn't the Messiah simply because he hasn't fulfilled all of the prophecies yet. That Messiah will reign and bring peace to the world is not necessarily the basic, most essential picture of Messiah. It could be simply that traditional Judaism focuses on this feature and neglects the rest. But even if this is the most central feature, that doesn't mean it must be fulfilled first. Enough other prophecies have been fulfilled to believe he is the Messiah.

Brown points out that unless Messiah comes first to take sin out of our hearts, he won't be able to do us any good, he won't be able to set up an earthly kingdom of peace. People with sin in their hearts will not let there be peace (1a210). So the Messianic kingdom of peace must come later, after Messiah removes sin from our hearts. Those who will not turn from their sins and allow this removal of sin cannot have part in the Messianic kingdom. Perhaps Michael is saying that they must first be removed from the earth for there to be a kingdom of peace. So some amount of time must pass over however many generations are meant to be covered for this determining process to be complete.

Because Yeshua was resurrected, because he got his life back, is no reason to say that his death cannot atone or that he didn't really die. The price that Yeshua paid was that of enduring the pain of death and the full experience of death. Whether or not he is alive now, the death experience was still endured. If there is an afterlife, does that mean that no one has ever really died?

Many different religions, including followers of Yeshua and Jews of nearly all persuasions, include people who believe that animals will have an afterlife. Because this is not an issue of such great significance and because scripture has not spoken on this issue, any Jew might seriously believe it. But if animals have an afterlife, does it follow that the animal sacrifices at the altar did not atone because they got their lives back?

The death of the Servant in Isaiah 53 is said to bring atonement, whoever you might believe this person to be. But this passage also talks about him living after his death. Obviously it does not matter that the one who atones may live after his atoning death.

Yeshua's atonement might have included more than just the death experience. There might have been an actual but temporary separation from God. Futhermore, the very nature of God might be eternally effected, as if there is something like an eternal pain God endures at the price he paid in giving his Messiah, this one who was so close to God, in death. I bring this up to point out that there might have been something much more than merely enduring death involved here. But this possibility is more speculative and the possibility of it being false does not effect the argument. The fact remains that Yeshua endured death and it is this which gives us atonement.

Negative Case:

Jesus Cannot be the Jewish Messiah

Following the summary at the beginning of this debate we need to look at Matthew and Luke's genealogy of Yeshua. Matthew's genealogy reads, "person A begat person B." Luke's genealogy reads, "person A, son of person B." The word "son" is added and is not in the original writing. More literally then, it is "person A of person B." So Luke's list is not necessarily direct. Luke's listing of "Joseph son of Heli" (3:23) should read "Joseph of Heli." Matthew says "Jacob begat Joseph," (1:16). So Jacob was the physical father of Joseph and Heli was (legally) a father of Joseph through Joseph's marriage to Heli's daughter, Mary. Luke's listing would then be a genealogy for Mary and indirectly for Joseph. Matthew's would indicate the direct lineage of Joseph.

Can Messiah's lineage be traced through adoption? (If not, lineage would be blocked to Jesus at 1.1 on diagram)

Abraham's adoption of Eliazer would have been a legitimate and normal procedure in his culture for carrying on the line or the "seed" of Abraham. God did not contradict the legitimacy of carrying on lineage through adoption; he rather told Abraham not to do this because he had other plans for him. Miller's paraphrase of God's statement implies that Abraham's seed cannot come through an adopted son. The record does not have God saying that or anything that would imply such a thing. God simply told Abraham that for him, his heir would come through his own body (Genesis 15:3, 4). So an adopted son may carry on the lineage as Yeshua was adopted into Joseph's Davidic lineage.

The most important point that should now be made is that it has not been shown that lineage cannot pass through adoption. Indeed, following this example, we should see that because adoption was accepted in Abraham's culture as a means of carrying on the family lineage and because God did not negate this principle, this principle should stand.

Can Hebrew genealogical lineage be carried on through women? (If not, lineage would be blocked at 1.2 on diagram to Jesus).

If the "seed of the woman," promised in Genesis 3:15 to crush the serpent's head (the serpent was the one who tempted Adam and Eve to sin), is the Messiah as traditional Jewish thought affirms, this would fit in with the notion of the Messiah removing sin on the earth and bringing peace. But notice that if the seed of the woman is also the one born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14), these two designations may amount to the same idea. For one born without male agency there must be a break in male lineage, at least in direct physical lineage. So if it is true that lineage is normally traced through men, one born of a virgin would be an exception to this norm. And as Brown points out, the Bible doesn't say how you trace a supernatural virgin birth (2a320).

One explanation for how the lineage is traced for the Messiah would be the following: Though the possibility of the royal lineage going through Miriam (Mary) cannot be excluded, it may be that Yeshua received his royal lineage through his adoption by Joseph. On the possibility that Miriam's is not the genealogy for the royal lineage, it could be the line for the seed of the woman. Her line also maintains the physical connection between Yeshua and David, so he is very literally of the seed of David. Thus Yeshua is not only an adopted son of David through Joseph's kingly line, he is a literal son of David through Miriam's line. By virgin birth he is also the seed of the woman.

The most important point that should now be made is that it has not been clearly shown that lineage cannot pass through women. Until this is done it cannot be claimed that lineage can only pass through the male line. All that has been presented have been examples which can at best show us a norm. No statements have been produced which tell us that lineage can only pass through men. A clear statement from scripture would preclude exceptions, mere examples cannot. Furthermore, Brown has pointed out that special situations in the past have allowed exceptions for passing on the inheritance through women (e.g., when there were no male heirs as in Numbers 27:1-8) (2b194).

For the second genealogical argument it must be first asked: Can Messiah come through David's son, Nathan, or only through Solomon's line? (If only Solomon, lineage would be blocked to Jesus at 2.1 on the diagram.)

Since two individuals, Shealtiel and his son Zerubbabel, are mentioned in both Matthew and Luke's genealogies, it is evident that Solomon's line (in Matthew) merges into Nathan's (in Luke).

Differences in the names of Shealtiel's father might be explained by a levirate marriage or possibly through the passing of inheritance and lineage through one's daughter when one has no sons (Numbers 27:1-11).

Luke's genealogy thus reaches into Solomon's line as well as Nathan's. So it does not matter if the Messiah's lineage must go only through Solomon since both Luke and Matthew's lists go back to Solomon. Having said that, it still seems more likely that Matthew's line is the royal Solomonic line to Joseph while Luke's depicts the physical lineage from David to Miriam (Mary), a line that need not go through Solomon, though in fact it does happen to do so.

The second question for the second argument is if the curse of Jeremiah 22:30 applies to all of Jeconiah's offspring. (If yes, lineage would be blocked to Jesus at 2.2 on diagram )

The curse says that no man of Jeconiah's descendents will prosper, sitting upon the throne of David. If this curse does apply to more than his immediate descendents, it cannot apply to one adopted into the line of Jeconiah, Juster points out (2a147). Thus the non-Messianic critique could not apply to Yeshua as Joseph's adopted son.

This also fits the earlier suggestion that the royal lineage passed through Jeconiah while the physical lineage from David passed through Miriam as the "seed of the woman." Judah's kings must go through Solomon's line (1 Chronicles 17:12, 22:10).

Since the affirmative position, the non-Messianic position, claims that the Messiah cannot be of Jeconiah's line because of the curse, they would have the burden of proof to show that an adopted son could not be an exception. The opposing negative position need only show that it is possible that this is an exception.

It might also be that only Jeconiah's immediate offspring bore this curse. The term for "seed" or "offspring" may speak of only immediate offspring or it may speak of future generations or it may speak of both. Brown points out the context of Jeremiah's prophecy: The Messianic promises were renewed to Zerubbabel, the grandson of Jeconiah. God said of Jeconiah, "If he were my signet ring, I would throw it away," (22:24). Of Zerubbabel God said, "I will make him my signet ring," (Haggai 2:23). Surely this indicates the curse only applied to Jeconiah's immediate offspring (2a354-80).

If Zerubbabel were only blessed and did not become king, at least he did prosper. The curse said none of Jeconiah's offspring would be king or would prosper. Since Zerubbabel did prosper, again this curse must apply only to Jeconiah's immediate seed and not to any of his future descendents.

Also we know that Zerubbabel became governor under Darius (Haggai 1:1). This means that he had the power of rulership under a higher king. This is the same thing that can be said about earlier vassal-kings of Judah. Yet we never say that they were not kings simply because they were under the control of someone like Necho or Nebuchadrezzar. Whether called a vassal-king or a governor, the terms mean really the same thing. So Zerubbabel, the grandson of Jeconiah, became king of Judah as may other future descendents of Jeconiah. God did make Zerubbabel his signet ring. The curse did not apply to any but Jeconiah's immediate offspring.

To order the full debates:

1. Two audiotapes:The Great Debate: Can Yeshua be Proven to be the Jewish Messiah from Jewish Scripture? $10, CTGD.

2. Video tape: Who is Jesus? $25, VWHO.

Both available from Messianic Vision, P.O. Box 1918, Brunswick, Ga. 31521-1918.

 

Editorial and Material Contributors:

Rich Bledsoe, Michael Brown, Dennis Jensen, Justin Jensen, Dan Juster, Jo Kadlacek

Some of the specific writers in this issue wish to remain anonymous.

 

Art work adapted from the following: First picture in holocaust article, YIVO, as found in The Book of Jewish Knowledge by Nathan Ansubel (N.Y.:Crown Pub., 1964), p. 318; third picture: from Father ten Boom by Corrie ten Boom (Fleming Revell), p. 68; fourth picture: from The Screwtape Letters by C. S. Lewis (Fleming Revell and Lord and King Associates, Inc., 1976), p.143.