Pastor Says Orthodox Judaism Is False—Rabbi Singer Shuts Him Down!

The Orthodox Jews are trying to obey the Old Testament even though they can't because in the Old Testament the center was the temple. The priest would then offer the sacrifices. This is the entire Old Testament system. All right. Pastor Mark Driscoll is a pastor out in Arizona. He's very well known. Has a a very large audience. He's a he's a Protestant evangelical Christian. I'm pretty sure he's non-denominational. And the key about it is occasionally he says things about Jews or Orthodox Jews or makes claims about the faith of Israel that keeps me um scratching my head and not understanding why he says the things that he does. And just to be clear, um, Pastor Driscoll is a Christian Zionist. He ordinarily these kind of things don't come from, uh, evangelical pastors who are premillennial, but this one did. The Orthodox Jews are trying to obey the Old Testament even though they can't. Because in the Old Testament, the center was the temple. The priest would then offer the sacrifices. This is the entire Old Testament system. After the death of resurrection, ascension of Jesus in 7 AD, temple destroyed, no priest, no sacrifices. You technically cannot be an Orthodox Jew because you can't do what the Old Testament says to do. You have to ignore whole books like Leviticus that are all about going to the temple and offering your sacrifice. So there are reformed Jews and reformed Jews would say, "Well, we hold some of the cultural Judaism, but we're not really committed to the feasts and the holidays and we're not maintaining any sort of continuity with how Jews lived thousands of years ago. We're going to just reform and keep reforming." Right? So it really is very striking that a person like this as I said he's a premillennial uh evangelical Christian and typically they would be more uh mapped onto and in contact with the Hebrew Bible and what he's suggesting is that it's impossible for an orthodox Jew to be observant given that there's no temple. So if there's no temple then we can't uh carry out the laws outlined as an example in the book of Leviticus he points to which is correctly tas kohanim contains laws many laws but part of those laws are the laws of priests in the temple and he's saying well if you don't have a temple you cannot be a god-fearing loyal due to the god of Abraham Isaac and and Jacob I I really want to be charitable able here and I will be and I'll just say he's just regurgitating something he must have heard from a missionary or must have heard in seminary from his pastor or from his prof I don't know but there's almost no point of contact between what he said and the Hebrew Bible in a sense that this kind of a statement isn't just wrong u it's completely detached from the reality that comes isn't a full view in Tanakh. As it turns out, Tanakh addresses this issue quite directly and it ought to because ask yourself the following question. Let's talk about Daniel, a prophet, a great man of God. And I'm sure uh pastor Driscoll would agree that Daniel was one of the greatest men who ever lived, right? But when he lived, when he devoted his life to the God of the Almighty called him beloved and there was good reason for that. After all, Daniel, not just devoted his life to God, but was willing to lose his life, willing to die rather than worship anyone but the true God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I mean, Daniel was thrown into a pit of of ravenous lions. See Daniel chapter 6. A very moving chapter which no doubt he's heard about. Well, during this time when Daniel was preaching and stood up for the God of Israel, he was no doubt an orthodox Jew by any measure. He would not eat of any food prepared for him by Nvad's palace. He would not he would only eat raw foods. He would certainly wouldn't drink wine that wasn't kosher. We find that out. So he was as orthodox as possible. Okay. So how was Daniel considered beloved by God? He was certainly a faithful servant of the Almighty. And I'm I'm choosing Daniel because I know that that Pastor Mark Driscoll believes that Daniel was a faithful saint of God. He was loyal to God. He was the quintessential Orthodox Jew ideal. So I'm I'm steelmanning this. So how how was Daniel loyal based on pastor Driscoll's standard? After all, there was no temple during the lifetime of Daniel. Uh temple had been destroyed. Daniel thrived and preached during the Neoablonian Empire. Meaning after the temple had been destroyed by Nvadzar. Well, how did he do it? Well, the answer is the way religious Jews do it today. We're told in scripture explicitly as an example in first kings chapter 8 um the context is that king Solomon was inaugurating the first temple which had just been completed. So this would be an opportune time for King David's son to tell us about what would happen if there is no temple. And he makes that very clear. I'd encourage you to read verse 46-50 as an example. So the context is really important. He's inaugurating his temple that he built the first temple uh that would stand during the time of most of the prophets and he says that one day you're not going to have this. One day because of your sins there'll be no temple. You'll be driven into land of your enemies far and near. It was almost as if King Solomon anticipated Pastor Mike Driscoll. And this is not about him. Just a very important caveat. His claim which is vacuous is in although it's incompatible with the Hebrew Bible, it is something that you would find in the the claims of Jews for Jesus chosen people ministries. And it's the kind of claims that Augustine would have made about Judaism. the kind of claims that Sirill of Jerusalem would have made in the 4th century. It means Judaism is not possible. I mean serill of Jerusalem was someone who did not have a favorable view of Jews or Israel any of those things. Um he was a contemporary of the council of Na. That's exactly the kind of claim that the church fathers would have made. [snorts] Incidentally uh as again pastor Driscoll is a Protestant, not a Catholic. Like why would you be regurgitating I want to be very friendly here. Why would you be regurgitating the rantings of the church fathers? That's what they would argue. It's not compatible with the Bible because King Solomon says in these this very important passage that when you're exiled and lend to your enemies, you're not don't have the template of any of these things. What you do is you face this place. That means this is why religious Jews face the temple mount um and the foundation stone where we pray. So when I was in living in the United States, I prayed east and when I was in Indonesia, I prayed roughly west. Well, this is the reason um and God will hear your confessions in heaven. God will forgive you for all your sins. Well, there you go. Bingo. It's right there. So the the sacrificial system we're told by Hosea chapter 14 verse 1 2 3. I encourage you to read it for yourself. Hosea Hosea was a contemporary of Isaiah. He's a real prophet according to evangelical Protestants. It's in their Bibles. It's like one cannot claim that I I didn't read it. Right? So Hosea says explicitly, Israel, you have stumbled in your iniquity. Right? What incred words and return to the Lord say you shall forgive our iniquity and teach us the good way. And let us render for bulls the offering of our lips. Let us render for bulls. which means instead of a sacrifice, one should pray. This is Hosea. This is the Bible. This is Rabbi Hosa. This is scripture. This is the inherent word of God. And we have many passages like this. Uh we have King David in Psalm 51 who understood this well. Why would he understand this? Well, that the sacrificial system while an important mitzvah in the Torah, but when it comes to sins, God prefers other things rather than a sacrifice. Well, King David experienced this in 2 Samuel chapter 12 when Nathan confronted him with his sin, providing a jeritical parable, a famous parable, the rich man and the poor man. The rich man takes the poor man's only animal. King David when confronted with his sin with bashva. He didn't make excuses and he certainly didn't say I need the blood of Jesus or anything like that. He said two words in Hebrew which means I have sinned before the Lord. And God forgave him. Nathan said the Lord has already forgiven you. No sacrifice none of those things. So we have direct instructions from above that when you don't have a sacrificial system when you don't have any of the cushments that will be associated with the temple you must pray and God will forgive you. You have to wonder out loud the book of Jonah. Wonder about the book of Jonah for a moment which appears in the Christian Bible. So if you think about the book of Jonah, what comes to mind immediately? A wicked nation, not any people, but rather the people who lived in the capital of the Assyrian Empire, Ninve. Okay, so this wasn't any city and any people. And this is the way Tanakh does things. When it wants to teach us something, it takes the most extreme case possible. Here we have Ninve, the capital of Assyria. So these are this is an implacable enemy of God. This is a problem right there. Okay? They were in sin. A reluctant prophet comes to them and preaches to them. This is the centerpiece of the whole book of Jonah and it ends in a very moving way where the people hear his preaching, repent, turn away from the sin and God forgives them. See Jonah 3:10. The book of Jonah is striking because it appears it's quoted in the Christian Bible. But it's quoted for every reason but the sin and atonement part. Isn't that odd? I mean, Ninveet testifies against the Jews. That's in the Christian Bible. Matthew chapter 12 and other things, you know, but not that that the sign of the [snorts] three days in the belly of the whale, all that stuff is in the Christian Bible, but sin and atonement aspect, which is the core centerpiece of this numminous work that somehow doesn't make it in New Testament and doesn't make it into pastor Mark Driscoll's uh preaching. So, what he's saying is completely incorrect. is incompatible with the Jewish scriptures. I think he and other Christians are led to believe this because authors in the Christian Bible would claim that without the shedding of blood there's no atonement. And they think they're quoting Leviticus 17:11, but they're not. They're rather quoting Hebrews chapter 9:22. Leviticus 17:11 is just telling us why blood cannot be eaten, why it has to be destroyed or covered over because it can only be used for sin offering. It's not saying without the shedding of blood there's no atonement. That's a complete misquote of the book of Hebrews. So, as it turns out, Tanakh provides for an epic of time when there is no temple. And most striking is that that book of Hosea we're talking about which appears in the Christian Bible is quoted by the New Testament. Well, we're told in chapter 3 verse four and 5 about the last period of Jewish history, the last epic of Jewish history before the Messiah comes. That should be really important. So here's a man, a contemporary of Isaiah, Micah, Amos, peering into the far future, which is the way the prophets spoke and says that the children of Israel will remain for a very long time. This chapter 3 verse 1 and 5 without a sacrifice, without a king, without any decrements of a priest. How long until the end of days when they will worship the Lord God and David? They will serve David who is the Messiah. [gasps] Let's just stop that for a moment. Just think about and it's easy to remember. It's chapter 3 verse 4 and 5. So that's an easy way to remember 345. So we are told by a prophet that the last period of Jewish history will be a very long span of time. 2,000 years would qualify. What would be striking about the period of Jewish history immediately before the coming of the messiahs there is no sacrifice there's no king. The reason why this is so germanine to this topic is that this doesn't work in the Christian religion. This doesn't work in the religion of of Mark Driscoll. Why? Because in the view of the Christian religion, the Jews very much have a king and the Jews very much have a priest. We very much have a sacrifice. And the answer to all three of those is in the Christian view, Jesus king, Jesus the high priest, see the book of Hebrews, Jesus sacrifice all over the Christian Bible. Well, apparently the Jewish scriptures is incompatible with the teachings of the Christian Bible. Of course, it is. That's why we're not Christians. The reason we're not Christians is not because we have a bias against the New Testament or something other or it's not our none of those things. It's because the the fundamental claims of the church are completely at odds with the core teachings of the Hebrew Bible. So if we have to choose between Isaiah, Micah, Hosea, and Amos, they all live the same time. And Paul, we're going with Isaiah, Hosea, Micah, and Amos. Every time we're going with Moses every time. Now, while it is true that there will be a restoration of the sacrificial system in the messianic age, and please God, that's going to happen very very soon, um it seems there. It's not like it's going to happen. It's like um the uh the messianic promises are unfolding before our eyes. A topic comes up frequently in these teachings. This last period of Jewish history is marked by not having a king priest of sacrifice. So these are these ideas advanced by the church are completely incompatible with the Hebrew Bible. And that's why we reject it. God will forgive you if you repent like King David. After all, that's why he's in the Bible. Not that we should just look back at a great hear of the Jewish people, but learn from him and repeat his ways. And we're told explicitly in Hosea chapter 66 that God doesn't really need the sacrificial system and that God wants something better than that. Micah chapter 6 verse 6 through8. Please God, may we receive the restoration of the sacrificial system quickly in our time. If you enjoyed this program, please like and subscribe. [singing and music] I share my love. [music] [singing] >> [music] [singing]