This blog is kind of tricky, because I want to show you how the rabbis desecrate the Bible in their RABBINIC INTERPRETATIONS. I also want to show you WHY the NT has statements that appear to be false compared to the OT. When I was in Bible college, my friends and I always wondered about that. But now I think I have the answer. This answer will show you how they DERIVE their LAWS and LEGAL THEORIES from the Bible. It’s pretty crazy, almost insane! But anything’s possible in “legal land” (a term borrowed from Marc Steven’s book, “Adventures in Legal Land”). The reason this is a tricky subject is because UNRAVELING the tricky nonsense of lawyers (law-makers) and bureaucrats is a TRICKY MATTER. They’re all CON-MEN after all, so please bear with me. I’m going to try to make this as simple and plain as possible. But be warned: This is not light reading!
The example I’m using comes from Lightfoot’s commentaries. This is one of the best examples I’ve seen. Over the years I’ve seen countless bits and pieces of how these rabbis ‘use and abuse’ the Bible to justify their ‘authority’ and to create their ‘laws’. But this statement is a more complete example that will, hopefully, show you WHAT they do, HOW they do it, and (most importantly) WHY they do it. Unfortunately, I should have cataloged all the occurrences of rabbinic Bible abuse over the years which I found while studying their ‘laws’, so today I could have been able to just list them all for you to see for yourself. But not taking into account the inevitable ‘growing old’ (I memorized all that stuff in my youth!), and my recall powers waning behind my ‘gray bonnet’, I didn’t do that. Like they say, “hind sight is 20/20”!
Since I’m NOT going to post in here some of the Lightfoot texts (due to the copyright), it would suit you well to get your hands on a copy of Volume 4, Hendrickson’s edition. That texts comes out of the NT book of Acts. The other text (quoted below) comes out of Luke, which I got off the Internet.
Here’s my thesis statement, in summary form:
THE RABBIS LEGISLATE FANTASY LAW FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES.
How does the Apostle Paul say it?
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (Romans 1:21)
Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ … (2 Corinthians 10:5)
Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. (Ephesians 5:6)
But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. (2 Timothy 3:13)
For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision … (Titus 1:10)
And Jesus:
You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. (Matthew 7:5)
7 You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you:
8 ‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
9 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’”
(Matthew 15)
But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. (Matthew 23:13)
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves. (Matthew 23:15)
OK, OK, that’s enough. I’m getting depressed already! LOL … yeah, sounds like today’s lawyers, bureaucrats and judges. Ever have a run-in with them? If not, then maybe you should. LOL! Like they say, “it’s not your pain until you feel it.” Anyways, I’m sure you get my point. And there’s plenty more condemnation like that by Jesus in the gospels. But don’t take my word for it, read it for yourself!
Now before I quote Lightfoot, let’s pause and take a quick ‘inventory’ about God’s law. This is important because it sets-up the necessary contrast between “GOD’S WILL” vs. RABBINIC WILL. In the NT, the Apostle Paul is adamant about YOU YOURSELF applying God’s law to your own life. He is also adamant about NOT FOLLOWING MAN-MADE LAWS that tell you how to apply God’s law to your life. We talked about that a bit in other blogs. Now take a moment and ask yourself: When the Bible says (as a “negative commandment”), “You shall not murder”, is that difficult to understand? Does that need INTERPRETATION? Really, think about the various scenarios in which people commit MURDER. Then see if there’s any need for anybody to INTERPRET and APPLY that commandment to you. I say, NO NEED. Why? Because it’s SELF-EXPLANATORY. Anybody with common sense can see that! Anybody with any kind of healthy emotions can see that. Note: Sociopaths can’t.
Now apply that same reasoning to the rest of the EXPLICIT commandments (both positive and negative commandments) found in the Bible. See if that SAME PRINCIPLE applies. I think you will find that it does. Now ask yourself, “Why do I need SOMEONE ELSE telling me what these specific commands mean, if they already make sense to me WHEN TAKEN AT FACE VALUE?” And then ask yourself, “Who knows better than ME, how to APPLY these commands to MY OWN personal life and circumstances?” Starting to get the picture? See why Paul is adamant about DOING IT YOURSELF? It’s like following someone else’s recipe and then not liking how the food tastes because it has too much spice. Well duh! You COULD HAVE reduced the spice, or eliminated it altogether. But you didn’t. YOUR CHOICE!
Another reason (I believe it’s the paramount reason) why God wants you to apply His law to yourself is because God wants MATURE PEOPLE in His kingdom who VOLUNTARILY LEARN and VOLUNTARILY OBEY His law. That’s called SELF-GOVERNMENT, and it happens through SELF-MOTIVATION by DELIBERATE CHOICE. People like that don’t ‘use and abuse’ God’s law. Instead, they FEAR not knowing and not obeying God’s law, until they are fairly certain that they’re obeying all of it as best they can. And self-motivation comes from VOLUNTARY COMMITMENT. And your voluntary commitment is TO GOD, as your ONLY Sovereign, based on your COVENANT RELATIONSHIP (agreement, commitment) with Him. That kind of person has always been God’s intention for people’s character since day-1. We discussed this in a previous blog, briefly.
Having said all that, and thinking about SOMEONE ELSE CONTROLLING YOU WITH VIOLENCE (that’s essentially what ‘the law’ is) instead of YOU controlling yourself, you should begin to understand the MOTIVE underlying rabbinic ‘law’ (it’s no different from any government law). Now if you take issue with my statement that GOVERNMENT = VIOLENCE, I recommend you read Frederick Bastiat’s, The Law. That will set you straight (unless you’re unreasonable or a sociopath). Anyways, CONTROL THROUGH VIOLENCE BY LAW is the MOTIVE that underlies rabbinic INTERPRETATIONS of the Bible. They ‘use’ God’s DIVINE AUTHORITY to give legitimacy to their laws. Who better to ‘use’ to justify your POWER-SCHEME, except GOD?? But, as you will see below, nothing can be further from the truth! It’s obvious to me that ALL government officials and bureaucrats think like this, today as well as since time immemorial. Why? It’s part of their job. Duh! And when the rich men of this world get control of government, ‘it’s hell to pay’! And, when DON’T rich men control government?
Now let’s consider Lightfoot’s tale of rabbinic interpretation. We started in Acts 7 (Vol 4, pp 74ff, ¶ 3; & p 84, ¶ 4, § I.), and then jumped to Luke 3 (Vol. 3, pp 56-65, which Lightfoot refers to in his Acts 7 commentary).
First we have to consider the rabbinic METHOD of interpretation, because that’s what’s behind everything they think and say:
Nothing was more usual in the schools and pulpits of the Jews than for the reader or preacher to vary and invert the text of Scripture, to adapt and accommodate it to his own sense. Hundreds of times we meet with this phrase in the Talmudic writers and Jewish expositors, Do not read this or that word so, but so, or so: where forsaking the proper and genuine reading they put another in the stead, that may better fall in with the matter they are upon. Not that they reject or vilify the original text, but to bring what they allege more ingeniously to their own purpose. I have known this done in some words wherein they keep indeed to the same letters, but make the variation by the change of vowels. Which shews, in the mean time, that this was neither any strange thing amongst them, nor accounted any crime; but received rather with applause, to alienate the words of the Hebrew text from their native and original reading, to deduce something either true in itself, or at least smooth and ingenious. (Vol 4, p 84, P 4, S I.) (bold emphasis added)
Today’s science of interpretation would consider the above to consist of HERMENEUTICAL FALLACIES. Specifically, two of the above fallacies are called Eisagesis and Isagesis. People who are HONEST with the Biblical text would NEVER do such things when trying to interpret and apply the text. Christian ministers are taught these things in the seminary course called EXEGESIS. Christians don’t use the rabbinic interpretation method! We don’t do it today because it would destroy the historical meaning of the text. Besides, we have no ‘authority’ from God to do it, considering the ‘inspiration of the scriptures’. And, our cultural and political setting is FAR REMOVED from the NT text, so we really don’t have any corroborating TRADITIONS to use that way when we interpret the Biblical text. Moreover, the ONLY reason I’ve seen ‘moderns’ pervert the Bible like this, is to accomplish the same things the rabbis sought: To promote their own POLITICAL AGENDAS, which always results in ROBBING the working-class people in society. We call this THE BUSINESS OF RELIGION.
So above, you can see some ways the rabbis change the OT text to suit their political agendas, which I’ve seen many times in their literature. It’s very subtle and MIND-NUMBING, and you need to know Hebrew to see it for yourself because it’s all based on MANIPULATING WORDS (which makes this a secret game for them!).
At one time I believed there were examples in the NT of the rabbinic method of butchering the Bible, but I was wrong. Considering the fact that the rabbis didn’t exist until well after the NT era, and considering the historical-political changes that totally destroyed 2nd Temple Israel after 70 AD, post NT history didn’t have any existing LEGAL and SOCIAL TRADITION serving as the basis for how the NT writers interpreted the OT, even though the NT writers’ interpretations sometimes APPEAR to to use the rabbinic method of interpretation.
For example: Paul uses Psalm 68:18 in Ephesians 4:9, and in the OT quotation he substitutes “gave” for “received”. Now I admit that I don’t have any DIRECT EVIDENCE for this change in wording of the OT text, but I do have CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE for my explanation of why Paul did it. I found the evidence in Daniel Gruber’s excellent booklet, God, the Rabbis, and the Virgin Birth, on page 32. Incidentally, if you want to see how the modern Jewish anti-missionaries butcher the Bible and their own long-standing TRADITION, read that excellent booklet. Here’s Gruber relevant statement on page 32:
The subject of the Isaiah text is a DIVINE SIGN. The prophetic context is a Messianic message to the 1st Temple King Ahaz (of the southern kingdom, Judah). Isaiah asked the king to tell him what SIGN he wanted YHWH to give him so he would recognize WHEN the prophecy was beginning to be fulfilled. I figured the king didn’t have a clue, due to the circumstances involved (they were in dire straits). Gruber summarizes all this very nicely in the preceding pages. The key words are, “deep as Sheol or high as Heaven”. What in the world does THAT mean? As stated SHEOL is the grave, that is, the place where dead people lay (all rotted and gone!). And HEAVEN is where God lives, which is WAY out of reach of mortal man. So YHWH was asking the king to tell him to show him a SIGN at the time WHEN He would bring his DELIVERANCE to Israel, and that the king should make sure his SIGN was SO OUTRAGEOUS that NOBODY would NOT recognize it!
Let’s see how Paul says essentially the same thing in Ephesians 4:
7 But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift. 8 Therefore it says,
“When He ascended on high,
He led captive a host of captives,
And He gave gifts to men.”
9 (Now this expression, “He ascended,” what does it mean except that He also had descended into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, so that He might fill all things.)
Paul uses nearly the same words as Isaiah! That tells me Paul was thinking about Isaiah’s words, and the 2nd Temple TRADITION related to it, at the time of his writing that letter. The context of that Pauline text is POLITICAL OFFICES in Christ’s kingdom ON EARTH. Paul is telling us that Jesus is the EMMANUEL-MESSIAH of Isaiah 7, and he has SET UP HIS KINGDOM ON EARTH, fully equipped with OFFICES to administrate it. Those offices are listed in verse 11, and you’ll notice that they correlate to the 4 offices found in the 1st Temple kingdom read about in the OT. This SIGN of the appearance of this EMMANUEL-MESSIAH was the VIRGIN BIRTH. I believe that is the point Paul was making in the MESSIANIC text of Ephesians 4. Like I said, I have no direct evidence to prove a tradition Paul may have been thinking about for quoting Psalm 68 and conflating it with Isaiah 7, but the circumstantial evidence is quite compelling for my view, don’t you think?
To see this for yourself more of this sort of thing in the NT, all you have to do is look up all the “OT in the NT” quotes, and compare each NT text with both the Hebrew and LXX texts, so you can see which text they adhere to, or if they change the text as not found in either. To see it in the rabbis, you can get a Mishnah or Talmud and start reading anywhere! If you know the Bible well enough, it will ‘stick out like a sore thumb’ (that is, if it doesn’t NUMB YOUR BRAIN first)! That is THE main reason why it’s impossible to duplicate ancient rabbinic pesher (interpretation method) today. You can also see how DIFFERENT the NT interpretation of the OT is compared to the rabbis!
Now, according to Lightfoot, this is precisely why Steven MISQUOTES the OT text in Acts 7. It’s not because Luke is wrongly reporting Steven’s words, making the NT text ERRANT (like the liberal scholars would say), nor that Steven is misquoting the Bible or is some kind of fraud. That’s why Lightfoot gets into all this in Acts (referring back to his Luke commentary for his full view on it). It all has to do with (to quote Tevye) “TRADITION!” … rabbinic tradition, mind you. But back during Jesus’ time, it wasn’t known as rabbinic tradition, because the rabbis didn’t exist yet as we know them today. Instead, it was their LEGAL tradition, that is, SOCIAL CUSTOM based on LAW and social convention (the way they did things in society, like getting land, building houses, marrying, doing business, etc.). We’re talking about REAL LIFE here, not some religious myth, mental fantasy, emotional feeling or tricky imagination. This tradition is what these people believed based on how they lived … or at least it’s how they expressed themselves in their discussions about their lives.
And make sure you get this: MODERN SCIENCE HAS NO PLACE IN NT INTERPRETATION. That’s why it’s foolish and stupid to allow ‘modern scholars’ to discredit the NT text based on ‘scientific’ investigations that uncover ‘discrepancies’ with the OT text, when they know NOTHING about 2nd Temple LAW and CUSTOM (or feign such ignorance). Redaction criticism, literary criticism, all those CRITICISMS are just diversions to keep you from taking the Bible seriously! That’s right, they’re DIVERSIONS (instituted by the rich men of this world) to keep you enslaved to your LUSTS and disobeying God. In the 50’s American men called this ‘mass mind control’ and BRAINWASHING. If you read Sun Tsu’s, Art of War, you’ll see HOW. The reason WHY? So you won’t learn GOD’S LAW, which keeps you STUPID so you’ll subserviently follow man’s law (COMMERCE). That’s HOW the rich of this world control the masses. But if you know the Bible, you can see their evil schemes a mile away, just like Paul says in the above quotes (taken in context). So learn this stuff, and DO NOT BE DECEIVED by ‘them’!
Lightfoot’s Lucian text discusses the differences between the Hebrew OT text and the LXX/Greek OT text. It has to do with the “interpreter”. In this case, the interpreter is the TRANSLATOR. The fact is, when you TRANSLATE the Bible from its original languages into ANY OTHER LANGUAGE, you must necessarily INTERPRET it, because of the differences in the language expressions and in customs between the different peoples/tongues. Burn this fact into your consciousness: INTERPRETATION DURING TRANSLATION IS INESCAPABLE. When you realize that, you will know another reason why people discredit the Bible text. But that’s another foolish argument not worth discussing here. Anyways, let’s depart from here and jump right over to Luke 3. I’ll quote Lightfoot’s text in this blog even though it’s long, because I found it already digitized online here. That way, I’m not violating any copyrights. The text is Luke 3:36 and concerns the boring subject of GENEALOGIES:
36. Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
[The son of Cainan.] I will not launch widely out into a controversy that hath been sufficiently bandied already. I shall despatch, as briefly as I may, what may seem most satisfactory in this matter:
I. There is no doubt, and indeed there are none but will grant that St. Luke hath herein followed the Greek version. This, in Genesis 11:12,13, relates it in this manner: “Arphaxad lived a hundred and five and thirty years, and begat Cainan; and Cainan lived a hundred and thirty years, and begat Salah: and Cainan lived after he had begot Salah three hundred and thirty years.”
Consulting Theophilus about this matter, I cannot but observe of this author, that he partly follows the Greek version, in adding to Arphaxad a hundred years, and partly not, when he omits Cainan: for so he; Arphaxad, when he was a hundred and thirty-five years of age, begat Salah. Nor can I but wonder at him that translates him, that he should of his own head insert, “Arphaxad was a hundred and thirty-five years old, and begat a son named Cainan. Cainan was a hundred and thirty years old, and begat Salah”: when there is not one syllable of Cainan in Theophilus. A very faithful interpreter indeed!
1. I cannot be persuaded by any arguments that this passage concerning Cainan was in Moses’ text, or indeed in any Hebrew copies which the Seventy used; but that it was certainly added by the interpreters themselves, partly because no reason can be given how it should ever come to be left out of the Hebrew text, and partly because there may be a probable reason given why it should be added in the Greek; especially when nothing was more usual with them than to add of their own, according to their own will and pleasure.
I might, perhaps, acknowledge this one slip, and be apt to believe that Cainan had once a place in the original, but, by I know not what fate or misfortune, left now out; but that I find a hundred such kind of additions in the Greek version, which the Hebrew text will by no means own, nor any probable reason given to bear with it. Let us take our instances only from proper names, because our business at present is with a proper name.
Genesis 10:2: Elisa is added among the sons of Japhet: and, verse 22, another Cainan among the sons of Shem.
Genesis 46:20: Five grandchildren added to the sons of Joseph; Malachi 4:5, the Tishbite.
Exodus 1:11: the city On, is added to Pithom and Raamses.
2 Samuel 20:18: the city Dan is added to Abel. Not to mention several other names of places in the Book of Joshua.
Now can I believe that these names ever were in the Hebrew copy, since some of them are put there withoutany reason, some of the against all reason (particularly Dan being joined with Abel, and the grandchildren of Joseph), and all of them with no foundation at all?
II. I question not but the interpreters, whoever they were, engaged themselves in this undertaking with something of a partial mind; and as they made no great conscience of imposing upon the Gentiles, so they made it their religion to favour their own side. And according to this ill temperament and disposition of mind, so did they manage their version; either adding or curtailing at pleasure, blindly, lazily, and audaciously enough: sometimes giving a very foreign sense, sometimes a contrary, oftentimes none: and this frequently to patronise their own traditions, or to avoid some offence they think might be in the original, or for the credit and safety of their own nation. The tokens of all which it would not be difficult to instance in very great numbers, would I apply myself to it, but it is the last only that is my business at this time.
III. It is a known story of the thirteen places which the Talmudists tell us were altered by the LXXII elders when they wrote out the law (I would suppose in Hebrew) for Ptolemy. They are reckoned up, and we have the mention of them sprinkled up and down; as also, where it is intimated as if eighteen places had been altered.
Now if we will consult the Glossers upon those places, they will tell us that these alterations were made, some of them, lest the sacred text should be cavilled at; others that the honour and peace of the nation might be secured. It is easy, therefore, to imagine that the same things were done by those that turned the whole Bible. The thing itself speaks it.
Let us add, for example’s sake, those five souls which they add to the family of Jacob; numbering up five grandchildren of Joseph, who, as yet, were not in being,–nay, seven, according to their account, Genesis 46:27. Children that were born to Joseph in the land of Egypt, even nine souls.
Now, which copy do we think it most reasonable to believe, the Greek or the Hebrew? and as to the question, whether these five added in the Greek were anciently in Moses’ text, but either since lost by the carelessness of the transcribers or rased out by the bold hand of the Jews, let reason and the nature of the thing judge. For if Machir, Gilead, Shuthelah, Tahan, and Eran, were with Joseph when Jacob with his family went down into Egypt, (and if they were not, why are they numbered amongst those that went down?) then must Manasseh at the age of nine years, or ten at most, be a grandfather; and Ephraim at eight or nine. Can I believe that Moses would relate such things as these? I rather wonder with what kind of forehead the interpreters could impose such incredible stories upon the Gentiles, as if it were possible they should be believed.
IV. It is plain enough to any one that diligently considers the Greek version throughout, that it was composed by different hands, who greatly varied from one another, both in style and wit. So that this book was more learnedly rendered than that, the Greek reading more elegant in this book than in that, and the version in this book comes nearer the Hebrew than in that; and yet in the whole there is something of the Jewish craft, favouring and patronising the affairs of that nation. There is something of this nature in the matters now in hand, the addition of Cainan, and the five souls to the seventy that went down into Egypt.
How mighty the Jewish nation valued themselves beyond all the rest of mankind, esteeming those seventy souls that went down with Jacob into Egypt beyond the seventy nations of the world; he that is so great a stranger in the Jewish affairs and writings, that he is yet to learn, let him take these few instances; for it would be needless to add more:
“Seventy souls went down with Jacob into Egypt, that they might restore the seventy families dispersed by the confusion of tongues. For those seventy souls were equal to all the families of the whole world. And he that would be ruling over them, is as if he would usurp a tyranny over the whole world.”
“How good is thy love towards me, O thou congregation of Israel! It is more than that of the seventy nations.”
“The holy blessed God created seventy nations; but he found no pleasure in any of them, save Israel only.”
“Saith Abraham to God, ‘Didst thou not raise up seventy nations unto Noah?’ God saith unto him, ‘I will raise up that nation unto thee of whom it is written, How great a nation is it!'” The Gloss is: “That peculiar people, excelling all the seventy nations, that holy nation, as the holy language excels all the seventy languages.”
There are numberless passages of that kind. Now when this arrogant doctrine and vainglorying, if familiarly known amongst the Gentiles, could not but stir up a great deal of hatred, and consequently danger to the Jews, I should rather think the interpreters might make such additions as these, through the caution and cunning of avoiding the danger they apprehend, than that ever they were originally in the text of Moses. To wit, by adding another Cainan, and five souls to those seventy in Jacob’s retinue, they took care that the Gentiles should not, in the Greek Bibles, find exactly the seventy nations in Genesis 10, but seventy-two (or seventy-three if we reckon Elisa also;) as also not seventy, but seventy-five souls that went down into Egypt.
It was the same kind of craft they used in that version, Deuteronomy 32:8; whence that comparison between the seventy souls and the seventy nations took its rise. Moses hath it thus; “When the Most High divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.” But they render it thus; He set the bounds of the nations, according to the number of the angels of God. A sense indeed most foreign from that of Moses, yet which served to obscure his meaning, so far as might avoid any danger that might arise from the knowledge of it. Making the passage itself so unintelligible, that it needs an Oedipus to unriddle it; unless they should allude to the Jewish tradition (which I do a little suspect) concerning the seventy angels, set over the seventy nations of the world.
V. But now if this version be so uncertain, and differs so much from the original, how comes it to pass that the evangelists and apostles should follow it so exactly, and that even in some places where it does so widely differ from the Hebrew fountain?
Ans. I. It pleased God to allot the censers of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram to sacred use, because they were so ordained and designed by the first owners: so doth it please the Holy Ghost to determine that version to his own use, being so primarily ordained by the first authors. The minds, indeed, of the interpreters were not perhaps very sincere in the version they made, as who designed the defence and support of some odd things: so neither were the hearts of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram sincere at all, but very perverse in offering their incense: but so long as their incense had been dedicated to sacred use, it pleased God to make their censers holy. So the Greek version designed for sacred use, as designed for the Holy Bible, so it was keept and made use of by the Holy Ghost.
II. Whereas the New Testament was to be wrote in Greek, and come into the hands chiefly of the Gentiles, it was most agreeable, I may say most necessary for them, to follow the Greek copies, as being what the Gentiles were only capable of consulting; that so they, examining the histories and quotations that were brought out of the Old Testament, might find them agreeing with, and not contradicting them. For instance; they, consulting their Greek Bibles for the names from David backward to Adam, there find “Cainan, the son of Arphaxad.” If St. Luke should not also have inserted it, how readily they might have called his veracity in question, as to the other part of the genealogy, which had been extracted out of tables and registers not so familiarly known!
III. If there be any credit to be given to that story of the Greek version, which we meet with in Aristeas and Josephus, then we may also believe that passage in it which we may find in Aristeas. “When the volumes of the law had been read through, the priests, and interpreters, and elders, and governors of the city, and all the princes of the people standing by, said ‘Forasmuch as this interpretation is rightly, religiously, and in every thing so very accurately finished, it is fit that all things should continue as they are, and no alteration should be made.’ When all had by acclamations given their approbation to these things, Demetrius commanded that, according to their custom, they should imprecate curses upon any that should, by addition, or alteration, or diminution, ever make any change in it. This they did well in, that all things might be kept entire and inviolate for ever.”
If this passage be true, it might be no light matter to the Jew, when quoting any thing in Greek out of the Old Testament, to depart in the least from the Greek version; and indeed it is something a wonder, that after this they should ever dare to undertake any other. But supposing there were any credit to be had to this passage, were the sacred penmen any way concerned in these curses and imprecations? Who saith they were? But, however, who will not say that this was enough for them to stop the mouths of the cavilling Jews, that they, following the Greek version, had often departed from the truth of the original to avoid that anathema; at least, if there were any truth in it.
Object. But the clause that is before us (to omit many others) is absolutely false: for there was neither any Cainan the son of Arphaxad; nor was Jesus the son of any Cainan that was born after the flood.
Ans. I. There could be nothing more false as to the thing itself than that of the apostle, when he calleth the preaching of the gospel foolishness, 1 Corinthians 1:21; and yet, according to the common conceptions of foolish men, nothing more true. So neither was this true in itself that is asserted here; but only so in the opinion of those for whose sake the evangelist writes. Nor yet is it the design of the Holy Ghost to indulge them in any thing that was not true; but only would not lay a stumblingblock at present before them: “I am made all things to all men, that I might gain some.”
II. There is some parallel with this of St. Luke and that in the Old Testament, 1 Chronicles 1:36: “The sons of Eliphaz, Teman, and Omar, and Zephi, and Gatam, and Timnah, and Amalek.” Where it is equally false, that Timnah was the son of Eliphaz, as it is that Cainan was the son of Arphaxad. But far, far be it from me to say, that the Holy Ghost was either deceived himself, or would deceive others. Timnah was not a man, but a woman; not the son of Eliphaz, but his concubine; not Amalek’s brother, but his mother, Genesis 36:12. Only the Holy Ghost teacheth us by this shortness of speech, to recur to the original story from whence these things are taken, and there consult the determinate explication of the whole matter: which is frequently done by the same Holy Spirit, speaking very briefly in stories well known before.
The Gentiles have no reason to cavil with the evangelist in this mater; for he agrees well enough with their Bibles. And if the Jews, or we ourselves, should find fault, he may defend himself from the common usage of the Holy Ghost, in whom it is no rare and unusual thing, in the recital of stories and passages well enough known before, to vary from the original and yet without any design of deceiving, or suspicion of being himself deceived; but, according to that majesty and authority that belongs to him, dictating and referring the reader to the primitive story, from whence he may settle and determine the state of the matter, and inquire into the reasons of the variation. St. Stephen imitates this very custom, while he is speaking about the burial of the patriarchs, Acts 7:15,16; being well enough understood by his Jewish auditory, though giving but short hints in a story so well known.
III. It is one thing to dictate from himself, and another thing to quote what is dictated from others, as our evangelist in this place doth. And since he did, without all question, write in behalf of the Gentiles, being the companion of him who was the great apostle of the Gentiles, what should hinder his alleging according to what had been dictated in their Bibles?
When the apostle names the magicians of Egypt, Jannes and Jambres, 2 Timothy 3:9, he doth not deliver it for a certain thing, or upon his credit assure them that these were their very names, but allegeth only what had been delivered by others, what had been the common tradition amongst them, well enough known to Timothy, a thing about which neither he nor any other would start any controversy.
So when the apostle Jude speaks of “Michael contending with the devil about the body of Moses,” he doth not deliver it for a certain and authentic thing; and yet is not to be charged with any falsehood, because he doth not dictate of his own, but only appeals to something that had been told by others, using an argument with the Jews fetched from their own books and traditions.
IV. As it is very proper and even necessary towards the understanding some sentences and schemes of speech in the New Testament, to inquire in what manner they were understood by those that heard them from the mouth of him that spoke them, or those to whom they were written; so let us make a little search here as to the matter now in hand. When this Gospel first appeared in public amongst the Jews and Gentiles, the Gentiles could not complain that the evangelist had followed their copies: and if the Jews found fault, they had wherewithal to answer and satisfy themselves. And that particularly as to this name of ‘Cainan’ being inserted, as also the five souls being added to the retinue of Jacob; the learned amongst them knew from whence he had it; for what reason this addition had been made in the Greek version, and that St. Luke had faithfully transcribed it thence: so that if there were any fault, let them lay the blame upon the first authors, and not upon the transcriber.
V. To conclude: Before the bible had been translated for Ptolemy (as it is supposed) into the Greek tongue, there were an infinite number of copies in the Hebrew in Palestine, Babylon, Egypt, even everywhere, in every synagogue: and it is a marvellous thing, that in all antiquity there should not be the least hint or mention of so much as one Hebrew copy amongst all these that agrees with the Greek version. We have various editions of that version which they call the Septuagint, and those pretty much disagreeing among themselves: but who hath ever heard or seen one Hebrew copy that hath in every thing agreed with any one of them? The interpreters have still abounded in their own sense, not very strictly obliging themselves to the Hebrew text.
Without having to re-hash Lightfoot’s statement, let’s just say THAT is PROOF POSITIVE of changing the Bible text to promote a POLITICAL AGENDA! If you disagree, then I’d like to know why. But notice the reason? To confuse the non-Jews so they won’t see Israel as a threat, so they won’t go to war or otherwise try to exterminate the nation Israel. I’d call that self-preservation through INTRIGUE. Now let’s think about that whole scenario for a moment. What’s actually happening here? Simple: The Jewish AUTHORITIES decided to launch an initiative to MISINTERPRET the Greek version of the OT, which would be read by the rest of the NON-Hebrew speaking world, in order to preserve the Jewish nation from destruction by the very non-Jewish people who would read it. Does that seem honest to you? Does it seem right? Does it ‘break any laws’? Let’s have a look.
First question I have to ask is, “What does GOD say about that?”:
4 “Now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the judgments which I am teaching you to perform … 2 You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of YHWH your God which I command you. (Deuteronomy 4)
Just hold on a minute! Did, or did not, the rabbis CHANGE the Bible in the LXX Greek text? Uhh … yeah, they did. But don’t they know what Deuteronomy 4 says in God’s LAW? So how can these rabbis justify CHANGING the OT text? THEY CAN’T! But they do it anyway, right? So how can they get away with it? Uhh … good question! I guess we’ll have to ask God ON JUDGMENT DAY, right? Realistically speaking, they can get away with it the same way EVERY OTHER PUBLIC OFFICIAL GETS AWAY WITH MURDER AND THEFT. They just do it, because they have the POLICE to back them up. Who’s going to challenge THAT? Paul has something to say about that too (it’s in metaphor):
6 … the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. … 7 the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones … 9 the ministry of condemnation … 13 the sons of Israel … 14 their minds were hardened; for until this very day … 15 to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; 16 but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now … where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. (2 Corinthians 3)
What’s Paul talking about? FEAR! He’s saying, PEOPLE DON’T BUCK THE SYSTEM BECAUSE THEY’RE AFRAID OF GETTING HURT BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT PEOPLE. And Paul was talking about ISRAEL … Jews, obeying the ‘rabbis’ (public officials). How is THAT any different from what goes on TODAY? Use your common sense, and figure it out. And Notice the counter ideology: LIBERTY. What’s he talking about? He’s telling the JEWS who abandoned their nation and became political dissidents by obeying Jesus’ law that they don’t have to tolerate their government officials APPLYING the laws to them any longer. They have the LIBERTY to do it themselves. Besides, it’s their OBLIGATION, always was, and always will be. It’s just that the 2nd Temple government had become so totally corrupt that ‘the law’ no longer accomplished what God desired for it. Instead, it did the OPPOSITE!
So we can see HOW the rabbis ‘get away with’ changing God’s law: Instill in the populace a FEAR OF VIOLENCE. We also see WHY they do it: Fear of EXTERMINATION. And we can see that the rabbis are NO DIFFERENT from today’s public officials. But what does that have to do with RABBINIC INTERPRETATION? Simple: It’s what I talked about in a previous blog (the one on Hermeneutics). I talked at length about THE LEGAL WORD GAME. To summarize: Everything the government does and has is built on WORDS. It’s YOUR belief in THEIR words … rather, their LIES, that causes you to COOPERATE with them … that is, until you figure out they’ve been scamming you! Then you just obey them out of FEAR for the rest of your life!
Eventually, when you figure out you’ve been CONNED, they GOT YOU one way or the other! And they GOT YOU because you COOPERATED with them to begin with. And, since everybody around you COOPERATES with them, you’ve got one gigantic SOCIAL FORCE moving against you! It’s a ‘catch 22’ scenario. You give them their power first by being deceived, and then by living in fear of them. And THAT is what RABBINIC INTERPRETATION has to do with all of this. It’s their WORDS that kept the 2nd Temple Jews COOPERATING with them (through DECEIT and FEAR, but mostly the latter). It’s HOW they got everybody to cooperate with them to CONDEMN and EXECUTE Jesus.
So there you have it: Rabbinic Interpretation = FANTASY used to CONTROL you so you COOPERATE with them so they can accomplish their POLITICAL agendas. Let me rephrase: ‘They’ use the LEGAL PROCESS to procure their POLITICAL AGENDAS. Same PRINCIPLE holds true today with GENTILE public officials with their LEGAL and POLITICAL process. It’s all the same broad-based, milti-tiered authority SCAM.
And just so you don’t think I’m scamming you with ‘selective’ readings, let me show you one more PROOF that the rabbinnic laws are built on MENTAL FANTASY. I got this one from one of their own experts on the subject, Ephraim E. Urbach’s book, The Halakhah, p 31:
Takkanot and gezerot often presume the existence of earlier laws the dating and crystallization of which are unknown, but there are sources which indicate the conditions which brought about change as is demonstrated in the following text …
So there you see, they themselves admit the rabbis operate on PRESUMPTIONS, the factual existence of which are UNKNOWN. Now ask yourself this: Is that legitimate law-making authority?
And just to rub salt into the wound, let’s take a quick look at Sabbath observance, based on rabbinic law. You find this little ditty in the Babylonian Talmud, b Shabat 75a:
We learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: One who traps a deer or any other living creature. The Sages taught in a Tosefta: One who traps a ḥilazon [a type of clam or mullosk] and breaks its shell to remove its blood for the dye is liable to bring only one sin-offering. He is not liable for breaking the shell. Rabbi Yehuda says: He is liable to bring two, for performing the prohibited labors of trapping and for threshing, as Rabbi Yehuda would say: The breaking of a ḥilazon is included in the primary category of threshing, as its objective is to extract the matter that he desires from the shell that he does not. The Rabbis said to him: Breaking the shell is not included in the primary category of threshing. Rava said: What is the rationale for the opinion of the Rabbis? They hold: Threshing applies only to produce that grows from the ground. One who extracts other materials from their covering is exempt. The Gemara asks: Even if extracting blood is not considered threshing, let him be liable for taking a life as well. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This is referring to a case where he broke its shell after it was dead.
Rava said: Even if you say that he broke it when it was alive, he is exempt. Since he had no intention of killing the ḥilazon, he is considered as one who is acting unawares with regard to taking a life. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Didn’t Abaye and Rava both say that Rabbi Shimon, who rules that an unintentional act is permitted, agrees that in a case of: Cut off its head and will it not die, one is liable? One who performs an action that will inevitably result in a prohibited labor cannot claim that he did not intend for his action to lead to that result. Lack of intention is only a valid claim when the result is merely possible, not inevitable. Since one who extracts blood from a ḥilazon inevitably takes its life, how can Rava claim that his action is unintentional? The Gemara answers: Here it is different, as the longer the ḥilazon lives, the better it is for the trapper, so that its dye will become clear. Dye extracted from a live ḥilazon is a higher quality than that which is extracted from a dead one. Rabbi Shimon agrees that one who performs an action with inevitable consequences is liable only in a case where the consequences are not contrary to his interests. Since he prefers that the ḥilazon remain alive as long as possible, he is not liable for the inevitable consequences.
Does that sound like a THREE STOOGES skit, or what?! First off, we see they’re ‘making law’ based on the MISHNAH, not the MOSAIC LAW in the OT. So right there they’re 1 step removed from the Bible, and using MAN’S LAW to create MORE man’s law. Then they bandy about the object of the subject: a type of SHELLFISH that’s used to CREATE DYES for coloring things that people make (a fuller’s raw materials). Now we’re 2 steps removed into MAN’S LAW. What do they conclude? BEATS ME! It looks like they’re bragging to one another about how much they’ve memorized of ancient legal traditions, more than anything else! And their conclusion? What’s it founded on? Beats me!
How’s all that stack up against MOSES in the OT? Let’s see … we looked very briefly at the 10 commandments in an earlier blog (and I must confess I neglected to delve more deeply into each of the 10, which I’ll get to it in some future blog, I promise!). One thing we did learn about Sabbath observance IN MOSES is, the primary COMMANDMENT for Sabbath observance is CEASE WORKING, aka: RESTING. In other words, you’re not permitted to WORK FOR A LIVING on Sabbath. That is an express command in the OT that’s repeated many times. Actually, it’s a capital crime to violate it. And part of earning a living is DOING BUSINESS. You find that in the OT, based on their ‘legal tradition’ (it’s in the book of Nehemiah). It should be OBVIOUS that someone who is gathering up shellfish on the Sabbath has got to be WORKING FOR A LIVING, right? Do I need a RABBI to tell me that? Hell no!
Moreover, we find in the OT that Moses says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about MANUFACTURING DYES (or collecting shellfish) on Sabbath. He DOES talk about collecting up wood for building fires to cook on, which, IF I was a rabbi, I would use THAT text as a basis for “gathering up” things on Sabbath (instead of what the rabbis use “trapping deer”!). After all, this rabbinic law text concerns FORBIDDEN ACTIVITIES based on VERBS (there’s those WORDS again!). But no, they don’t use COMMON SENSE in the matter, which is obvious to anybody who knows what the Bible says. Anybody with 1/2 an ounce of common sense would know the SIMPLE FACT that, if you’re down at the beach gathering up live shellfish on the Sabbath, it’s more than likely YOU ARE WORKING FOR A LIVING. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that! Besides, everybody else would be AT HOME and IN THE SYNAGOGUE on the Sabbath, doing what the Bible commands to be done on the Sabbath, which is REST and MEET WITH fellow Sabbath observers to learn God’s law. This is NOT rocket science. Just use your common sense, for cryin’ out loud!
Now compare the COMMON SENSE approach to the RABBINIC approach, and see how that stacks up against what the NT say about Sabbath observance. Paul nails it with this commandment, “Therefore no one is to act as your judge … in respect to a Sabbath day” (Colossians 2:16). Do we need the rabbis to ‘make law’ for us? Hell no! CASE CLOSED!
And let me add one little tidbit that has come up in our studies from time to time, which the Apostle James NAILS in his letter: The PRIMARY REASON why the rabbis have so many WORK-AROUNDS in their legislation is to ACCOMMODATE THE RICH MAN who constantly violates God’s law while making his profits.
Boy was this blog a DOWNER! Not really. Once you see what’s going on, you can teach you kids to not fall-for the scam. I’m not sure how to fix this fiasco, but at least you’re informed. Here in America, if you sit on a jury, you can exercise your power of JURY NULLIFICATION to nullify the law, the facts, and/or the judge’s determination … that is, IF YOU SEE IT’S WRONG, based on what you know God requires of you. But you have to know God’s law first (and obey it as a lifestyle), plus you have to know America’s founding principles. Otherwise, you’ll ‘go off half-cocked’. So, technically, although this info may not be directly related to your daily life, it may come in handy in the future if you have reason to participate in the political process, even here in America.
That’s all I want to say on this. See you in the next blog!
Reality Bible 