Christian Misojudaized Torah

Speaking to the נחש:

ואיבה אשית, בינך ובין האישה, ובין זרעך ובין זרעהּ; הוא ישופך ראש, ואתה תשופנו עקב‮:

Christians ignore the p^әshut implications of this pâsuq, asking you to assume that the singular "seed" has to refer to Yesh"u.

First, the "seed" of האישה can, under no circumstances, refer to an antinomian fabrication of gentile Roman Hellenist pagans who stands for "superseding" (displacing) Torâh with a NT (D^әvârim 13.1-6).

Further, the "seed" is spelled out in the last word of this pâsuq: עקב, alluding to יעקב, who embodied the b^әrit that culminated in Torâh (in contrast to his twin who rejected the b^әrit, Eisâu), not antinomian Yësh"u counterfeited by idolatrous Roman gentiles.

Thus, Ya·aqov, who embraced the b^әrit, is contrasted with Eisâu, who rejected the b^әrit, thereby defining him as a gentile (an Arab).

Exactly the opposite of prophesying an antinomian Yësh"u, this pâsuq teaches that anyone who fails to do their utmost to keep the b^әrit (which, at Har Sinai, culminated in Torâh) is defined as a gentile, not a candidate for Mâshiakh.

The idea of a Mâshiakh who contradicts the Torâh of ha-Sheim is ludicrous.

ויעש, י--ה אלהים לאדם ולאשתו, כתנות עור וילבשם‮:

From this, Christians "conclude" that ha-Sheim ordained "sacrifice for personal salvation." Logically, this is a non sequitur. The only connection is in the fertile imagination of Christian apologists. It hasn't occurred to them that the "sacrifice" (providing the leather) conjectured in this passage was performed by ha-Sheim, not man. Thus, if there is to be a paradigm here it would be that only ha-Sheim, not man, may perform "sacrifice for personal salvation." Christian Imagineering of this passage is, thus, self-contradicting. Further, such "sacrifice" promises a tunic, not "personal salvation."

In fact, "personal salvation" is an idolatrous Hellenist concept not found anywhere in the Bible. ישועה or תשועה refers to an outside intervention whereas the Biblical teaching is of a disciplining of one's free will to do one's utmost to keep the b^әrit of Torâh. It is this internal disciplining of one's free will, one's own making of t^әshuvâh, not an external contravention of one's free will, that opens the fountains of ha-Sheim's khein, providing kipur . The operative concept in Torâh is kipur, not ישועה.

ויהי מקץ ימים; ויבא קין מפרי האדמה, מנחה לי--ה:  והבל הביא גם- הוא, מבכרות צאנו ומחלבהן; וישע י--ה, אל- הבל ואל מנחתו‮:

Seeing only an apparent (actually non-existent, as I will show momentarily) superficial distinction between Qayin presenting an agricultural offering in contrast to Hëvël presenting an animal (blood) sacrifice, Christians "reason" (ex falso quodlibet) that this is the paradigm requiring animal blood sacrifice for "personal salvation" (probably based on mistaking ישע for הושיע).

Until gentile Roman Hellenist Christians mistook the Hebrew, 4,200 years later, Beit-Yisrâ·eil understood this passage quite differently: "From the subtle contrast between the simple description of [Qayin]'s offering and the more specific description of [Hëvël]'s offering – from the firstlings of his flock and from their choicest – the Sages derive that [Qayin]'s offering was from the inferior portions of the crop, while [Hëvël] chose only the finest of his flock. Therefore, [Hëvël]'s sacrifice was accepted, but not [Qayin]'s (Ibn Ezra; Radak)." (Artscroll Stone Edition Tana"kh).

To understand the implications of this pâsuq, one must understand חלב. Because kheilëv emitted a savory aroma when roasted, all kheilëv was reserved for ha-Sheim. No man was permitted to eat kheilëv (e.g. wa-Yiqrâ 3.16-17).

(Note: because חלב somewhat resembles חלב (visually, and spelled identically), this evidences the early prohibition against mixing חלב and bâsâr.)

Torâh proves that agricultural offerings are not summarily unacceptable as various wheat, cake, bread and barley offerings were accepted in the Beit ha-Miqdâsh.

Unknown to almost all Christians and most Jews, Biblical punctuation is dictated by cantillation marks (which I have included above). Note that a pause (comma) comes only after, and is dictated to separate after, the phrase "And Hëvël brought it also." This means that Hëvël also brought the agricultural offering like his older brother PLUS Hëvël's offerings were [a] firstfruits and [b] from both his agriculture and his livestock; from all of his work and endeavors – his utmost. This necessarily means that the Christian argument, that this passage ordains "personal salvation" only through animal blood sacrifice because the animal sacrifice was accepted while the agricultural offering was rejected is based on error. Hëvël's agricultural offering was accepted favorably for the same reason his animal offering was accepted favorably: because Hëvël presented his firstfruits to ha-Sheim.

Thus, this passage teaches that [a] firstfruits [b] from all income is required to be acceptable to ha-Sheim – implying these prerequisites to obtaining his kipur. Unlike the 4,000-years-later gentile innovation based on inability to understand the original language, and which contradicts Torâh with a "superseding" Displacement Theology, this passage dovetails in perfect consistency with the requirements of the Sh^әma: to do one's utmost to keep Torâh in order to receive kipur.

^א ויאמר י--ה אל- אברם, לך- לך, מארצך וממולדתך ומבית אביך; אל- הארץ אשר אראך: ^ב ואעשך לגוי גּדול, ואברכך, ואגדלה שמך; והיה ברכה: ^ג ואברכה מברכיך, ומקללך אאר; ונברכו בך, כל משפחת האדמה‮:

^ז וירא י--ה אל- אברם, ויאמר לזרעך, אתן את- הארץ הזאת‮…

This parallels promises to Avrâhâm, Yitzkhâq and Ya·aqov in b^ә-Reishit 13.14-17; 15; 22.15-18; 26.1-15; 28.3,4 and Sh^әmot 6.4-8.

Christians place great emphasis on the singular לזרעך, arguing that since Avrâhâm had many "seeds" (descendents), this has to refer to the Mâshiakh as the epitome of his "seed."

There is, however, a more direct intent: Yitzkhâq, the "seed" – singular – who kept the b^әrit, as opposed to Yishmâeil who rejected the b^әrit.

Even if we were to grant a suggestion of a messianic overtone, Torâh (D^әvârim 13.1-6) would still preclude the antinomian Yësh"u of the post-135 CE gentile Hellenist idolaters and their Displacement Theology..

A parallel Christian claim, also based in this verse, is that the גוי גּדול, ha-Sheim promised was fulfilled in Sh^әmot 1.7,9 (see there).

Such claim conveniently bypasses passages that stipulate that this b^әrit is for the duration of the world; e.g., inter alia, b^ә-Reishit 17.1-8, concluding in vs. 7-8:

^ז והקמתי את- בריתי, ביני ובינך, ובין זרעך אחריך, לדרתם לברית עולם; להיות לך לאלהים, ולזרעך אחריך‮: ^ז ונתתי לך, ולזרעך אחריך, את ארץ מגריך, את כל- ארץ כנען, לאחזת עולם; והייתי להם לאלהים‮:

Thus, while Sh^әmot 1.7,9 confirm that ha-Sheim is fulfilling this b^әrit, it can only be fulfilled by enduring to the end of the world. This is further corroborated in b^ә-Reishit

The b^әrit was an evelasting b^әrit and exclusively with with the descendents of "a son" (b^ә-Reishit 17.16) of Sârâh (i.e. Yitzkhâq), not Yishmâeil – b^ә-Reishit 17.19-21!!!

Note also that b^ә-Reishit 17.12 stipulates that B^әrit Milâh according to Torâh (i.e. according to Oral Law / Halâkhâh) on the eighth day after birth is the sign of this everlasting b^әrit with Yisrâ·eil; not at the age of 13 like Arabs nor mere ordinary circumcision that fails to conform to Oral Law (i.e. medical circumcision not by a Jewish מוהל.

The b^әrit is defined as "everlasting" in b^ә-Reishit 17.7, 13, 19; Sh^әmot 13.16; wa-Yiqrâ 24.8;

The b^әrit was explicitly "with Ya·aqov [not Eisâu-Ëdom], Yitzkhâq [not Yishmâeil] and Avrâhâm [not goyim]: wa-Yiqrâ 26.42, which, in the same passage, ha-Sheim promised He would remember.

The b^әrit is with Yisrâ·eil and forever: b^ә-Midbar 18.19. "Just as I was diligent concerning them, to uproot, to smash, to destroy, to annihilate and to cause bad things to happen, so will I be diligent concerning them to build and to plant – declares ha-Sheim" (Yirm^әyâhu 31.27).

No Torâh-keeper denies that the eternal promise to Pin·khâs′  (b^ә-Midbar 25.12-13) remains valid. Because Pin·khâs′  was a Kohein, this b^әrit, like every other b^әrit that ha-Sheim made, is consistent, forming an elite subcategory, within all previous b^әritot. While there are no Kohanim today who qualify Biblically (cf. N^әkhëmyâh 7.63), much less B^әnei-Pin·khâs′ , this poses no obstacle to an Omniscient Creator to restore such yukhasin in the eternal Beit ha-Miqdâsh of Y^әkhëzqeil.

These, and similar, passage(s) prove that the Bible clearly declares that Beit-Yisrâ·eil cannot be displaced by the Church (or anything else). This, and similar, passage(s) prove that the Bible clearly invalidates the Displacement Theology of Christianity and Christian claims of supersession of the NT.

Moreover, logic always requires that the known be assumed and it is any claimed change from the known, not the known itself, that must be proven. The Torâh interpretations were the known for millennia before the Displacement Theologies were ever conceived and claimed to displace Torâh and Yisrâ·eil – the changes from the known. The burden of proof will always be solely on the Displacement Theology, Christianity or Islam, to prove (not merely suggest, intimate or pose a possibility backed by blind "faith" in contravention of logic) their claims of displacement – exclusively from Torâh. If they don't displace Torâh, then Torâh precludes Displacement Theologies, defining them as illegitimate.

Christians (and more than a few secular Jews) unfamiliar with Hebrew mistakenly think, based on their King James Version, that גוי is synonymous with "gentile." (The Pauline Church deliberately blurred the term to enable the misojudaic argument summarized in the last paragraph of this section.)

That's like saying that animal is synonymous with horse. גוי means "people" and is used not only of Avrâhâm but of Ya·aqov (b^ә-Reishit 24.23 [along with Eisâu]; 35.11; 46.3), Moshëh (Sh^әmot 33.10; b^ә-Midbar 14.12; D^әvârim 9.14) and Yisrâ·eil as well (e.g. Sh^әmot 19.6; 33.13 (עמך הגוי); D^әvârim 4.6-8,24; 26.5).

This same blurring carries over into their NT, rendering Ελλην as "gentile." The term for "gentile" among Jews, however, was engraved in stone – αλλογενης (allogenæs) – prohibiting "gentiles" from approaching the Beit ha-Miqdâsh.

The KJV buried αλλογενης as "stranger" – which turns out to be exactly backwards because the Hebrew term for "stranger," זר, is the correct term they should have rendered "gentile"! In Hebrew, gentile worship (i.e. idolatry) is עבוגה זרה. Christians will find it shocking that an explicit reference to αλλογενης is found only once in the entire NT; and there it speaks of an almost-Jew (a Samaritan)! All other references in the NT are either to Ελλην or εθνος. (Interestingly, just making these 3 corrections from a Greek concordance consistently throughout the NT causes it to read radically different.)

Thus, the Christian argument that Avrâhâm (et al.) "became gentiles" demonstrates comical ignorance of Hebrew. To build on this false premise (ex falso quodlibet) that, therefore, all of the blessings to Avrâhâm are redirected from "physical Israel" to "gentiles" – i.e., the Church as the "real, spiritual Israel" (Displacement Theology) – begs pity for its proponents. Yet, this is the basis for reasoning that "since the Church is the real Israel, 'physical Israel,' being against the Church, has to be the enemy of G*od." This inherent antinomian, Displacement Theology, Church doctrine is the "seed" of misojudaism. From this gentilizing, Displacement Theology, "seed," the earliest extant Church historian (Eusebius) documents, the Church persecuted Jews as "lost, rejected by G*od, enemies of the Church and, therefore, servants of Satan."

Thus, those who subscribe to this misojudaic gentilizing "seed" are guilty of the Displacement Theology and misojudaic tree grown from it.

Some Christians and many Muslims argue that זרעך in this passage, being singular, similarly (see commentary on b^ә-Reishit 3.15) has to refer to Yesh"u and gentilization of the "promises." (Without gentilization, of course, there is no "salvation" apart from doing one's utmost to keep Torâh in order to avail oneself of kipur.) Therefore, they argue, the land of Yisrâ·eil will ultimately belong to Christians ("spiritual Israel" in contrast to "physical Israel" which, the Church argued, is rejected and lost, enemies of the Church and, therefore, servants of Satan).

Other Christians argue, also based on זרעך being singular, that this promise of the land to the זרעך was fulfilled in the time of Y^әhoshua Bin-Nun and, therefore, no longer is promised to "physical Israel." Thus, these Christians and Muslims argue, the land now belongs to Muslims, Christians or whomever.

(See commentary on b^ә-Reishit 12.1-3,7 for why "seed" cannot refer to gentiles and b^ә-Reishit 17.8 for why eternal promises cannot be temporal or contradictory.)

^י"ח ומלכי- צדק מלך שלם, הוציא לחם ויין; והוא כהן לאל עליון‮:
^כ' …ויתן- לו מעשר מכל‮:

Christians argue that, since מלכי-צדק was a gentile כהן, and Avrâm paid ma·asrot to him, Scripture here confirms the legitimacy of gentile Kohanim.

Contary to the "primary view," however, Scripture does not say that Avrâm paid ma·asrot to מלכי-צדק; rather, exactly the reverse! It is מלכי-צדק who brings out bread and wine, blesses Avrâm and אל עליון, then "ויתן- לו מעשר מכל." There is no change of subject.

Further, the king of שלם could only offer Avrâm the spoils, which had originally belonged to the king of שלם, if both men recognized that the the king of שלם was the rightful owner – which means that Avrâm could not have paid ma·asrot from these possessions of the king of שלם. Furthermore, Avrâm refused to take even the "thead to a shoestrap" (pâsuq 23)! It is thoroughly impossible that this passage means that Avrâm paid ma·asrot to the king of שלם!!! Rather, it is crystal clear that the king of שלם was submitting to, and rewarding, his victorious savior – Avrâm – who had retaken, and returned to him, his possessions and his people that their mutual enemies had taken from him.

Rather than legitimizing gentile priests, Scripture reinforces that gentile priests who recognize אל עליון submit and subjugate themselves to Avrâm and his b^әrit.

This is clear and unmistakable evidence that מלכי-צדק recognized, embraced and submitted himself to the b^әrit of Avrâm – which constituted conversion! מלכי-צדק and his followers, converting en masse, doubtless comprised a sizable contingent of the band who followed Avrâm, contributing in no small measure to making Avrâm influential, powerful and wealthy.

Thus, Christians argue, all that's needed in the "New Covenant" of Yirm^әyâhu 31.31 (see commentary there) is "faith" in Christ.

The Scripture reads:

והאמן בי--ה; ויחשבה לו צדקה‮;

"So [Avrâm] trusted in ha-Sheim; and He counted it to him a tz^әdâqâh."

Of course trusting in ha-Sheim is an act of tz^әdâqâh! There's no surprise, nor great revelation, in that!

Notice that Avrâm trusted in ha-Sheim, not a Hellenist substitute for ha-Sheim – which is idolatry, violating D^әvârim 13.1-6. This, by itself, exposes the falseness in, and absolutely disproves, the Christian claim.

This wouldn't even be a valid argument for Ribi Y^әhoshua, much less the misojudaic post-135 C.E. Christian (i.e., Hellenist) J*esus. As a teacher of Torâh, Ribi Y^әhoshua instructed his followers to trust in ha-Sheim – like Avrâm!!!

Further, tz^әdâqâh doesn't mean "an overall state of righteousness" as portrayed by Christianity. This Hellenist corruption occurred in the Hellenist (Greek) translation of the LXX, in which this Hebrew term is rendered with the Greek concept of δικαιοσυνη (dikaiosunæ).

The Hellenist rendering allowed for Hellenizing the concept, extending the meaning to "rightwiseness" and "right" – "the context of which shews that 'the righteousness of G*od' means essentially the same as His faithfulness… that which is consistent with His own nature and promises" (Vine's Expository Dictionary) – which Vine's then goes on to remold and evolve the meaning of dikaiosunæ to fit Christian doctrines by citing the assumed authority of the NT.

Since the NT isn't admissible as authority until someone can logically demonstrate from Torâh the validity of the NT, subsequent arguments based on assuming the validity of the NT are logically non-admissible and, therefore, irrelevant.

Thus, the whole assumption that this pâsuq is the basis of "salvation" being by "faith" alone in J*esus is predicated entirely on post-135 C.E. idolatrous Hellenism.

Nor is there even any basis outside of post-135 C.E. idolatrous Hellenism for the Hellenist concept of personal spiritual "salvation." In Torâh, ישועה never refers to a personal spiritual 'salvation' as espoused in Christianity.

An act of tz^әdâqâh does not equate to any overall state of "righteousness," nor "atonement," nor personal spiritual "salvation." The Torâh requirement for eternal life is kipur (see commentary at b^ә-Midbar 29.7), which is conditional on doing one's utmost to keep Torâh.

Furthermore, nothing is more sanctimonious and hypocritical than claiming that "faith" implies that one may freely violate the Torâh that Ribi Y^әhoshua taught and live the exact opposite of how Ribi Y^әhoshua and his N^әtzârim followers lived and what they taught. In their willful choice to routinely transgress Torâh, every Christian continually testifies that J*esus is their instrument of sin (viz., transgression of Torâh), their minister of sin – and, as the agent advocating transgression of Torâh, the servant of Sâtân.

The Christian claim, based on following a 4^th century Hellenist counterfeit, is not only false; it is blasphemous and idolatrous.

In this passage, the Artscroll Stone Edition translates the meaning of זרעך as "descendents," rather than the literal "seed"; thus providing Christian and Muslim polemicists with ammunition to argue "See! The Jews have to distort their translations to avoid 'the seed.'," which, Christians argue contrary to Torâh (D^әvârim 13.1-6), refers to J*esus. But, see commentary on b^ә-Reishit 12.1-3,7.

Christians also argue that נהר מצרים refers to the "Brook of Arish" in the northeast Sinai, near Azâh rather than the Nile as explicitly named in the Targum Y^әrushalmi (pseudo-Jonathan). The older, and authoritative, Targum Onkelos (ca. 110 C.E.), however, reads מנהר מצרים and LXX reads ποταμου Αιγυπτου.

Since this promise was made to אברם and the land is inhabited by descendents of אברם even beyond the Nile, except for Arab-Israeli political implications it's a moot point. (Egyptians weren't Arabs in Biblical times.)

That still doesn't support Christian claims, however. Since the land remains the possession of the descendents of אברם it doesn't really matter which river or brook was meant. Thus, this passage is no basis for claiming that any promise of Land, whether to אברם or Yisrâ·eil, is "over and done." Even beyond that, Torâh precludes displacement by Christianity or Islam (D^әvârim 13.1-6).

Christians argue from this passage that Avrâhâm was prophesied to be the "father of many gentile kings," arguing that this implies gentile kings and priests – "spiritual Israel" Christians – sharing in these promises with (or outright displacing) "physical Israel." They conveniently ignore the preface to this b^әrit (pâsuq 1):

אני- אל שדי, התהלך לפני והיה תמים‮:

The promises apply only to those who adhere to the conditions of the b^әrit (pâsuq 2):

ואתנה בריתי ביני ובינך

In other words, the promises of the b^әrit was conditional upon adhering to the terms of the b^әrit – to which no gentiles have ever adhered. While many gentiles would accrue from among his "seed" [note that this argument is also a contradiction of their claim that 'seed' means Yësh"u] no gentile can claim any promises deriving from this b^әrit.

This is confirmed in pâsuq 7:

והקמתי את- בריתי ביני ובינך, ובין זרעך אחריך, לדרתם לברית עולם‮:

This b^әrit defines his legitimate offspring – as those who adhere to this b^әrit. It is those, exclusively, who inherit the promise of pâsuq 8. Those who don't adhere to the b^әrit are like Yishmâeil and Eisâu, neither of whom inherited with Yitzkhâq and Ya·aqov-Yisrâ·eil.

In p^әsuqim 9-13, circumcision according to Halâkhâh is required on the 8^th day after birth. No gentiles follow this practice. Pâsuq then makes it explicit:

ונכרתה, הנפש ההוא מעמיה את- בריתי הפר‮:

Thus, it is explicit and clear that those descendents who breach His b^әrit are excised from among those descendents, removing them from the b^әrit and, accordingly, removing their rights to any inheritance of promises contained in that b^әrit. Notice that gentiles outside of these descendents were never party to the b^әrit in the first place!

Thus, the Christian argument that Avrâhâm fathered many gentile kings and priests to displace "physical Israel," the argument upon which their "salvation" and "eternal life" depends, fails on numerous logical fallacies. Contrary to Christian arguments that "salvation" and "eternal life" are "not through the law," this passage explicitly requires doing one's utmost to adhere to the b^әrit, which was refined at Har Sinai into Torâh. Further, the b^әrit is explicitly defined as "to the end of the world." Moreover, assuming the promises were bequeathed to all descendents contradicts the Christian claim of "spiritual Jews." (If all descendents of Avrâhâm inherit the promises then there are no promises unique to Christian "spiritual Jews" or "spiritual Israel" in contrast to physical Arab-descendent kings or priests.)

Some Christians argue that the promise of this Scripture was satisfied during the lifetime of Y^әhoshua Bin-Nun and, therefore no longer applies.

ונתתי לך, ולזרעך אחריך את ארץ מגריך, את כל- ארץ כנען, לאחזת עולם

After this עולם, conditions in the next world may be different story. But as long as this עולם continues then, explicitly, Scripture informs that Israel has the exclusive right to her land of עולם; i.e., throughout or until the end of the עולם.

This is another passage that explicitly names the land of K^әna·an as the inheritance of the descendents of Avrâhâm who adhere to His b^әrit "לאחזת עולם."

Christians argue that only circumcision of the heart is essential to inherit the promises of the b^әrit. In fact, Christianity has, from its inception, loathed "the law of sin and death" which the Church considers the opposite of spiritual circumcision of the heart. Although it's baffling how anyone could argue that one should be the exact opposite of what one aspires to be and admires, this pâsuq dispels and disproves the canard that adherence to the b^әrit, Torâh and physical circumcision isn't required.

ונמלתם את בשר ערלתכם; והיה לאות ברית, ביני וביניכם‮:

The b^әrit requires that the physical person and the spiritual person be mutually compatible, not mutually contradictory opposites as Christian doctrine preaches. Pâsuq 14 (see earlier commentary) then makes it clear: any descendent who fails to adhere to physical circumcision according to Halâkhâh is excised!

Christians contradict their own arguments when they claim that they are "heirs according to promise," supplanting (displacing) "physical Jews" as inheritors of Scriptural promises. If any "gentile king" and "gentile priest" can claim inheritance (see, inter alia commentary on b^ә-Reishit 17.1-14), then what need is there for any inheritance by "promise"?

Moreover, the Christian argument of "inheritance according to promise" fails from the start by perverting the Scripture on which it is supposedly based. All of the passages refer to a ברית, which is a contract obligating all participating parties to its obligations – obligations that Christians persistently ignore in their tunnel-visioned focus on "promise." There is no "promise" without doing one's utmost to keep the b^әrit.

Pâsuq 19, referring specifically to Yitzkhâq (pâsuq 18), declares:

והקמתי את- בריתי אתו, לברית עולם לזרעו אחריו‮:"‬"

ואת- בריתי אקים את- יצחק ‬ ‭ – 17.21

These p^әsuqim inextricably specify Yitzkhâq, not Yishmâeil, as the sole inheritor of the b^әrit (not an unconditional promise), which culminated in Torâh at Har Sinai.

Christians then argue that Yësh"u kept the b^әrit so that they don't have to. However, if that were the case, then, it not being necessary to keep the b^әrit according to the Christian argument, Yishmâeil would have been as much an inheritor as Yitzkhâq. While Christians argue that "they didn't have Yësh"u then," the fact is that there is no basis in Torâh for this vicarious dispensation from doing one's utmost to keep the b^әrit and ha-Sheim doesn't change (Malâkhi 3.6; T^әhilim 89.35).

Overriding all Christian argumentation are these two axioms:

• If it is incompatible with Torâh it is false.
  
  
• Even if it is compatible with Torâh, if it cannot be demonstrated (i.e. reasoned according to mathematical logic) from Torâh (not merely conjectured or from a translation – especially not from the NT), then – D^әvârim 13.1-6 proves – it cannot be a valid religious requirement.
  
  

Pâsuq 25 specifies that Yishmâeil was circumcised at age 13, which is the age that Arabs are still circumcised today. This is clearly in violation of the b^әrit specified in pâsuq 12. Medical circumcision doesn't qualify as Halakhic circumcision because medical circumcision doesn't enter anyone into the b^әrit, which can only be accomplished in accordance with Halâkhâh. Therefore, according to Halâkhâh, gentiles, including those who are medically circumcised, are halakhically uncircumcised. (Accordingly, even male converts who were medically circumcised must be circumcised in accordance with Halâkhâh.)

שני גוים בבטנך, ושני לאמים, ממעיך יפרדו; ולאם מלאם יאמץ, ורב יעבד צעיר‮:

Christians argue that this prophecy ("promise" in Christian vernacular) of power transferring from "nation to nation" means from "gentile to gentile," meaning, they argue, "Jew to gentile." Yet, they get it exactly backward when they argue that the direction is from "Jew to gentile" since the direction given here was from Yishmâeil, the older sibling who became patriarch of the Arabs – gentiles – to his junior sibling, Ya·aqov, who became Yisrâ·eil!

Consistently, Scripture confirms inheritance of heirs according to the b^әrit; not heirs according to the kind of unconditional "promise" proclaimed by Christians.

The direction of the transfer of inheritance is unmistakably prophesied above, the older would serve the younger, making b^ә-Reishit 25.26 particularly fascinating:

וידו אחזת בעקב עשו, ויקרא שמו יעקב‮;

This pâsuq is exactly the reverse of b^ә-Reishit 3.15b in which ha-Sheim tells the נחש:

ואיבה אשית, בינך ובין האישה, ובין זרעך ובין זרעהּ; הוא ישופך ראש, ואתה תשופנו עקב‮:

b^ә-Reishit 3.15b prophesies:

{Serpent's seed = Eisâu} shall scrape heel of {woman's seed = Yisrâ·eil} while
{woman's seed = Yisrâ·eil} shall scrape head of {Serpent's seed = Eisâu}.

But b^ә-Reishit 25.26 reverses the first part of b^ә-Reishit 3.15b:

a. {woman's seed = Yisrâ·eil} holds onto heel of {Serpent's seed = Eisâu}

Suggesting the latter part will similarly be reversed:

b. {Serpent's seed = Eisâu} will hold onto head of {woman's seed = Yisrâ·eil}.

Part a would then portend Yisrâ·eil struggling to hold onto the heel of Eisâu (centuries under the domination of Arab rule) for an era to be followed, ultimately, by Eisâu holding onto the head of Yisrâ·eil.

Citing this passage, inter alia, Christians argue that the promise to make Yisrâ·eil a great nation ended with its fulfillment in Egypt since this passage states: " מצרימה, because for a great goy אשימך there."

How does the sentence "You're breathing" imply death because the subject, having taken a breath, "fulfilled" the implications of that sentence? How does "You're healthy" imply death because the subject, having been healthy at the time the sentence was uttered, "fulfilled" the implications of that sentence? These are all examples of the logical fallacy called non sequitur. Such reasoning begs for the absolute opposite of logic and rationality (= sanity).

Suppose a man goes to a b^әrit and remarks that the boy looks like he will grow up to be a fine athlete. 15 years later, the same man sees the boy win a championship in the 100 meter sprint and remarks to the parent, "Your son has become a fine athlete." That's marks the end of the boy's athletic career because the prophecy has been "fulfilled"?!? What kind of irrational imbecile suggests such thinking???

Christians claim that the Mâshiakh had to come before the scepter was removed from Y^әhudâh, which Christians claim occurred in 70 C.E. However, if the Mâshiakh was required to come before "the scepter was removed from Y^әhudâh," then the cut-off date was B.C.E. 1045 when Sh^әmueil ha-Nâvi anointed Sha·ul ha-Mëlëkh – of the tribe of at Givah, 5 km north of Y^әrushâlayim (Sh^әmueil Âlëph 10.1)!!! By Christian reckoning, even Dâwid ha-Mëlëkh came along too late to be Mâshiakh. (In fact, the Khashmonâim weren't from the tribe of Y^әhudâh either.)

Since the Christian approach is self-contradicting, the table is cleared to analyze the passage as it should have been in the first place – according to how the Jewish Sages have interpreted it.

According to the Teimâni Këtër Torâh Taj and Aleppo Codex (Klein's Etymological Dictionary):

לא-יסור שבט מיהודה, ומחקק מבין רגליו; עד כי-יבא שילה, ולו יקהת עמים‮:

("May the tribal-staff not deviate from Y^әhudâh, nor the khoq-engraving from between his legs; until Shiloh comes, and it is for him [that] he shall blunt the kindreds.")

The Onkelos, as translated by a child in Beit ha-K^әnësët every Shabât wa-Y^әkhi, reads (Jastrow Dictionary of the Targumim):

לא יעדי עביד שולטן מדבית יהודה, וספרא מבני בנוהי עד עלמא, עד דייתי משיחא דדיליהּ היא מלכותא, וליהּ ישתמעון עממיא‮:

("May the one who works rulership not pass by from the house of Y^әhudâh, or a sopheir from his children's children until the olâm, until the M^әshikhâ [Mâshiakh] comes, whose is the kingdom, and to whom the kindreds shall hearken.")

LXX reads:

Ουκ εκλειψει αρχων εξ Ιουδα, και ηγουμενος εκ των μηρων αυτου, εως εαν ελθη τα αποκειμενα αυτω και αυτος προσδοκια εθνων.

("May a ruler not be left out from Y^әhudâh, nor a governor from his thighs, until even what is laid up for him comes; and [he] is the expectation of the peoples.")

Essential to any analysis of this pâsuq is the context introduced in pâsuq 1: "Collect yourselves and I will relate to you what shall happen with you באחרית הימים." Anyone having even a passing acquaintance with eschatology realizes this begins with "Jacob's Trouble" (the Shoâh) and the regathering of Israel from the four corners of the earth, which commenced in 1948. (For details, see The 1993 Covenant.) Therefore, Ramb"m and most commentators are correct that this is a prophecy relative to Y^әkhëzqeil 38.16 (cf. Artscroll Bereshis II.2131) that, subsequent to the reemergence of Israel as a nation, i.e., 1948, anyone not from the tribe of Y^әhudâh who presumes to lead Israel usurps the משיחה of ha-Sheim.

Having realized this essential context, it's then straightforward to interpret the prophecy as stipulating that, from 1948, the משיחות of M^әlâkhim over Israel must be a descendent of Y^әhudâh. Since the Romans destroyed the yukhasin, the only possibility remaining is the only Mâshiakh candidate having a genealogy, dating back to the official public yukhasin, proving his descendency from both the tribe of Y^әhudâh and Dâwid ha-Mëlëkh. However, this cannot be the Christian Yësh"u, which advocates supersession of the NT and Christian doctrines to displace Torâh in contravention of D^әvârim 13.1-6.

Interestingly, שילה was destined to be the seat of the Mishkân after the establishment of Israel. The parallel following the (re)establishment of Israel, prior to which local במות were accepted, is consistent. באחרית הימים, however, the Beit ha-Miqdâsh is in שילה (the name of the Mâshiakh according to Masëkët Sunedrion 98b) in the non-physical Domain.

Most of the world is awaiting the Mâshiakh. It shouldn't take much insight to recognize that "until" – באחרית הימים – began in 1948, initiating the immediate revealing of the M^әshikhâ [Mâshiakh] coming, "whose is the kingdom, and to whom the kindreds shall hearken" and "and it is for him [that] he shall blunt the kindreds." It can already be seen that presenting the goyim with the historical facts (Parkes' The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue, Who Are the Netzarim? (WAN), Atonement In the Biblical 'New Covenant' (ABNC), NHM, this website, et al. – all the product of the resurgence in the authentic teachings and spirit of Ribi Y^әhoshua) is "blunting" their teeth (arguments) – thoroughly.