Question : why don't Jews believe Jesus as the Messiah?

"Why don't Jews believe in Jesus?" Let's understand why – not to disparage other religions, but rather to clarify the Jewish position.

Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah because:

1. Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.
2. Jesus did not embody the personal qualifications of the Messiah.
3. Biblical verses "referring" to Jesus are mistranslations.
4. Jewish belief is based on national revelation.

But first, some background: What exactly is the Messiah?

The word "Messiah" is an English rendering of the Hebrew word Mashiach, which means "anointed." It usually refers to a person initiated into God's service by being anointed with oil. (Exodus 29:7, 1-Kings 1:39, 2-Kings 9:3)

(1) Jesus Did Not Fulfill the Messianic Prophecies

What is the Messiah supposed to accomplish? One of the central themes of biblical prophecy is the promise of a future age of perfection characterized by universal peace and recognition of God. (Isaiah 2:1-4, 32:15-18, 60:15-18; Zephaniah 3:9; Hosea 2:20-22; Amos 9:13-15; Micah 4:1-4; Zechariah 8:23, 14:9; Jeremiah 31:33-34)

Specifically, the Bible says he will:

1. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
2. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
3. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)
4. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world – on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).

If an individual fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, then he cannot be the Messiah.

Because no one has ever fulfilled the Bible's description of this future King, Jews still await the coming of the Messiah. All past Messianic claimants, including Jesus of Nazareth, Bar Cochba and Shabbtai Tzvi have been rejected.

Christians counter that Jesus will fulfill these in the Second Coming. Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright; in the Bible no concept of a second coming exists.

---

(2) Jesus Did Not Embody the Personal Qualifications of Messiah

A. Messiah as Prophet

The Messiah will become the greatest prophet in history, second only to Moses. (Targum – Isaiah 11:2; Maimonides – Teshuva 9:2)

Prophecy can only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry, a situation which has not existed since 300 BCE. During the time of Ezra, when the majority of Jews remained in Babylon, prophecy ended upon the death of the last prophets – Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.

Jesus appeared on the scene approximately 350 years after prophecy had ended, and thus could not be a prophet.

B. Descendant of David

Many prophetic passages speak of a descendant of King David who will rule Israel during the age of perfection. (Isaiah 11:1-9; Jeremiah 23:5-6, 30:7-10, 33:14-16; Ezekiel 34:11-31, 37:21-28; Hosea 3:4-5)

The Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David (see Genesis 49:10, Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24). According to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father – and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father's side from King David. (1)

According to Jewish sources, the Messiah will be born of human parents and possess normal physical attributes like other people. He will not be a demi-god, (2) nor will he possess supernatural qualities.

C. Torah Observance

The Messiah will lead the Jewish people to full Torah observance. The Torah states that all mitzvot remain binding forever, and anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet. (Deut. 13:1-4)

Throughout the Christian "New Testament," Jesus contradicts the Torah and states that its commandments are no longer applicable. For example, John 9:14 records that Jesus made a paste in violation of Shabbat, which caused the Pharisees to say (verse 16), "He does not observe Shabbat!"

---

(3) Mistranslated Verses "Referring" to Jesus

Biblical verses can only be understood by studying the original Hebrew text – which reveals many discrepancies in the Christian translation.

A. Virgin Birth

The Christian idea of a virgin birth is derived from the verse in Isaiah 7:14 describing an "alma" as giving birth. The word "alma" has always meant a young woman, but Christian theologians came centuries later and translated it as "virgin." This accords Jesus' birth with the first century pagan idea of mortals being impregnated by gods.

B. Suffering Servant

Christianity claims that Isaiah chapter 53 refers to Jesus, as the "suffering servant."

In actuality, Isaiah 53 directly follows the theme of chapter 52, describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people. The prophecies are written in the singular form because the Jews ("Israel") are regarded as one unit. Throughout Jewish scripture, Israel is repeatedly called, in the singular, the "Servant of God" (see Isaiah 43:8). In fact, Isaiah states no less than 11 times in the chapters prior to 53 that the Servant of God is Israel.

When read correctly, Isaiah 53 clearly [and ironically] refers to the Jewish people being "bruised, crushed and as sheep brought to slaughter" at the hands of the nations of the world. These descriptions are used throughout Jewish scripture to graphically describe the suffering of the Jewish people (see Psalm 44).

Isaiah 53 concludes that when the Jewish people are redeemed, the nations will recognize and accept responsibility for the inordinate suffering and death of the Jews.

---

(4) Jewish Belief is Based Solely on National Revelation

Throughout history, thousands of religions have been started by individuals, attempting to convince people that he or she is God's true prophet. But personal revelation is an extremely weak basis for a religion because one can never know if it is indeed true. Since others did not hear God speak to this person, they have to take his word for it. Even if the individual claiming personal revelation performs miracles, they do not prove  he is a genuine prophet. All the miracles show – assuming they are genuine – is that he has certain powers. It has nothing to do with his claim of prophecy.

Judaism, unique among all of the world's major religions, does not rely on "claims of miracles" as the basis for its religion. In fact, the Bible says that God sometimes grants the power of "miracles" to charlatans, in order to test Jewish loyalty to the Torah (Deut. 13:4).

Of the thousands of religions in human history, only Judaism bases its belief on national revelation – i.e. God speaking to the entire nation. If God is going to start a religion, it makes sense He'll tell everyone, not just one person.

Maimonides states (Foundations of Torah, ch. 8):

The Jews did not believe in Moses, our teacher, because of the miracles he performed. Whenever anyone's belief is based on seeing miracles, he has lingering doubts, because it is possible the miracles were performed through magic or sorcery. All of the miracles performed by Moses in the desert were because they were necessary, and not as proof of his prophecy.

What then was the basis of [Jewish] belief? The Revelation at Mount Sinai, which we saw with our own eyes and heard with our own ears, not dependent on the testimony of others... as it says, "Face to face, God spoke with you..." The Torah also states: "God did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us – who are all here alive today." (Deut. 5:3)

Judaism is not miracles. It is the personal eyewitness experience of every man, woman and child, standing at Mount Sinai 3,300 years ago.

Further reading: "Did God Speak at Mount Sinai?"

Waiting for the Messiah

The world is in desperate need of Messianic redemption. To the extent that we are aware of the problems of society, is the extent we will yearn for redemption. As the Talmud says, one of the first questions asked of a Jew on Judgment Day is: "Did you yearn for the arrival of the Messiah?"

How can we hasten the coming of the Messiah? The best way is to love all humanity generously, to keep the mitzvot of the Torah (as best we can), and to encourage others to do so as well.

Despite the gloom, the world does seem headed toward redemption. One apparent sign is that the Jewish people have returned to the Land of Israel and made it bloom again. Additionally, a major movement is afoot of young Jews returning to Torah tradition.

The Messiah can come any day, and it all depends on our actions. God is ready when we are. For as King David says: "Redemption will come today – if you hearken to His voice."

For further study:

• Jews for Judaism
• "The Real Messiah" by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan
• "Let's Get Biblical! Why Doesn't Judaism Accept the Christian Messiah?" by Rabbi Tovia Singer
• "Path of the Righteous Gentile" by Chaim Clorfene and Yakov Rogalsky

FOOTNOTES

(1) In response, it is claimed that Joseph adopted Jesus, and passed on his genealogy via adoption. There are two problems with this claim:

a) There is no biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption. A priest who adopts a son from another tribe cannot make him a priest by adoption.

b) Joseph could never pass on by adoption that which he doesn't have. Because Joseph descended from Jeconiah (Matthew 1:11) he fell under the curse of that king that none of his descendants could ever sit as king upon the throne of David (Jeremiah 22:30; 36:30). (Although Jeconiah repented as discussed in Talmud Sanhedrin 37a and elsewhere, it's not at all clear from the early sources that his repentance was accepted to the degree that the royal line continued through him. See e.g. Bereishit Rabbah 98:7 that the line continued through Zedekiah.)

To answer this difficult problem, apologists claim that Jesus traces himself back to King David through his mother Mary, who allegedly descends from David, as shown in the third chapter of Luke. There are four basic problems with this claim:

a) There is no evidence that Mary descends from David. The third chapter of Luke traces Joseph's genealogy, not Mary's. 

b) Even if Mary can trace herself back to David, that doesn't help Jesus, since tribal affiliation goes only through the father, not mother. cf. Numbers 1:18; Ezra 2:59. 

c) Even if family line could go through the mother, Mary was not from a legitimate messianic family. According to the Bible, the Messiah must be a descendent of David through his son Solomon (2-Samuel 7:14; 1-Chronicles 17:11-14, 22:9-10, 28:4-6). The third chapter of Luke is irrelevant to this discussion because it describes lineage of David's son Nathan, not Solomon. (Luke 3:31) 

d) Luke 3:27 lists Shealtiel and Zerubbabel in his genealogy. These two also appear in Matthew 1:12 as descendants of the cursed Jeconiah. If Mary descends from them, it would also disqualify her from being a messianic progenitor.

(2) Maimonides devotes much of his "Guide for the Perplexed" to the fundamental idea that God is incorporeal, meaning that He assumes no physical form. God is eternal, above time. He is infinite, beyond space. He cannot be born, and cannot die. Saying that God assumes human form makes God small, diminishing both His unity and His divinity. As the Torah says: "God is not mortal" (Numbers 23:19).

with thanks to Rabbi Michael Skobac - Jews for Judaism

 

The Messiah (המשיח- Ha-Mashiac) is mentioned 4 times in the "Torah" all refer to the Leviticus priests. Here's the problem, Jesus said Moses wrote about him (John 5:46) if this is true, why don't we find any reference where Moses wrote המשיח pointing to Jesus? where is this text?

 

According to Luke 13:33, Jesus is not a Prophet hence, Deut 18 does not apply to him. Furthermore, we find that according to the Talmud "that Prophet" in Deut 18 will have the authority to change the law, Tal Yavamot 90b. Jesus said he did not come to break the law Matt 5:17.

Allah Swt Revealed the previous Scriptures

by Muhammad Rasheed (Socio-Political Commentator)

As Allah Swt explained in the selected verses listed below, the People of the Book received many prophets over millennia, but did not accept all of them in their arrogant audacity. It’s clear that the elitist disbelievers among them concocted their own criteria as to whether God’s message was true or not, and whether His messengers really had been anointed by their Creator. In great blasphemy they rejected/hid/twisted the revelations, persecuted, and even killed some of the messengers.

These hidden scriptures Allah Swt mentioned are peppered throughout the greater body of biblical literature, found in the collections of so-called Jewish ‘folk tales,’ the so-called Apocrypha of the Christians, and the like. When learned doctors of the Law would recognized such works in the Qur’an, they would of course be shocked — this being the source of the false accusations that Muhammad Pbuh had kidnapped a rogue rabbi who couldn’t keep his mouth shut, or studied such works himself proving he wasn’t really illiterate, etc. Verily, the truth was revealed by Allah, and the believer recognizes truth over falsehood. A great wrong they commit by playing loose & free with the Word of the Lord thy God, and harsh indeed will be His penalty should they not repent. Glory be to Allah, Lord of the worlds!

---

3:187
And remember Allah took a covenant from the People of the Book, to make it
known and clear to mankind, and not to hide it; but they threw it away behind
their backs, and purchased with it some miserable gain! And vile was the bargain they made!

16:101
When We substitute one revelation for another – and Allah knows best what
He reveals in stages – they say, "Thou art but a forger," but most of them
understand not.

2:87-91
87. We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of messengers; We gave Jesus the son of Mary Clear Signs and strengthened him with the holy spirit. Is it that whenever there comes to you a messenger with what ye yourselves desire not, ye are puffed up with pride?- Some ye called impostors, and others ye slay! 88. They say, "Our hearts are the wrappings which preserve Allah's Word: we need no more." Nay, Allah's curse is on them for their blasphemy: Little is it they believe. 89. And when there comes to them a Book from Allah, confirming what is with them,- although from of old they had prayed for victory against those without Faith,- when there comes to them that which they should have recognized, they refuse to believe in it but the curse of Allah is on those without Faith. 90. Miserable is the price for which they have sold their souls, in that they deny the revelation which Allah has sent down, in insolent envy that Allah of His Grace should send it to any of His servants He pleases: Thus have they drawn on themselves Wrath upon Wrath. And humiliating is the punishment of those who reject Faith. 91. When it is said to them, "Believe in what Allah Hath sent down, "they say, "We believe in what was sent down to us:" yet they reject all besides, even if it be Truth confirming what is with them. Say: "Why then have ye slain the prophets of Allah in times gone by, if ye did indeed believe?"

How the Graeco- Roman would understand this

Written by Ijaz Ahmad

On Qur'an 5:116 - The verse in part reads: "And [beware the Day] when Allah will say, "O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, 'Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah ?'" He will say, "Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right." This verse is pretty stunning on multiple levels if you understand Graeco-Roman literary devices and early Christian heresiology. Allow me to explain. 1. This is the only place in the Qur'an where we have the construct "did you say" (a-anta qulta), it's a very strange question. Why is God asking 'Isa peace be upon him if he said this? Well, in Graeco-Roman literature, there is the concept of ipsissima verba and ipsissima vox. The very words, meaning the actual words used by a person and the very voice meaning the words attributed to a person even if they did not say them. Attributing a quote to someone who had not said it was not seen as a form of fabrication, because it was then believed that if you thought the person would have said it, then it's the same as them saying it. In essence, this is a rhetorical question on multiple levels that effectively demonstrates that no, this is a lie and this can't be said to be my words (verba) or even in my voice (vox) and that nothing to this effect was taught to the people by 'Isa (peace be upon him) himself. 2. The follow up to the initial answer is where we have an emphasis logically following from the above, that even if the possibility of ipsissima vox (very voice) was taken into consideration, 'Isa peace be upon him rejects that idea outright as he explicitly and emphatically denies having any right himself to such a claim, thus anyone implying he would say such a thing was being grossly dishonest. 3. Many uneducated Christian apologists take this verse as an example to mean that the author of the Qur'an thought that the Trinity contains Mary (may Allah be pleased with her), but this is due to a general ignorance of church history. The Eastern Church refers to Mary as theotokos, or the Mother of God. Today's many Christians will tell you that to use such a term for Mary is to impart divinity upon her and they point to John Calvin's quote where he says that not only is it wrong, but ignorant and superstitious! The Bible does not attest to such a title for her though in Luke 1:43 she is greeted as the mother of "my master". There is also the case of the sect of the Collyridians that indeed directly worshipped Mary. Conclusion: The Qur'an displays an in-depth understanding of the misguidance of the Christian faith and the arguments normally used to defend them at a sophisticated level.

146 miles by foot?

Now his brothers went to pasture their father's flock at Shechem.13 And Israel said to Joseph, “Are not your brothers pasturing the flock at Shechem? Come, I will send you to them.” And he said to him, “Here I am.” 14 So he said to him, “Go now, see if it is well with your brothers and with the flock, and bring me word.” So he sent him from the Valley of Hebron, and he came to Shechem. 15 And a man found him wandering in the fields. And the man asked him, “What are you seeking?” 16 “I am seeking my brothers,” he said. “Tell me, please, where they are pasturing the flock.” 17 And the man said, “They have gone away, for I heard them say, ‘Let us go to Dothan.’” So Joseph went after his brothers and found them at Dothan. (Genesis 37:12-17)

----------------

Serious problem with the above passage. Israel sends his son Jacob to Shechem to check on his brothers and bring back on what they were doing. Verse 14 explicitly states Israel sent Jacob from the "Valley of Hebron" here's where the problem comes in.

The distance from Hebron to Sachem is  60 miles. It is not possible for a young lad in the desert heat during the day to travel 60 miles just to check on his brothers and travel back 60 miles. It's absurd for the bible to according to Alex Kremlin the inspired word for God to claim Joseph made a 146 miles round trip on foot. It's gets worse, verse 17 tells us Joseph did not find his brothers in Shechem rather was told by a man his brothers went to Dothan. Dothan is 13 miles away from Shechem, which makes Joseph's journey 73 miles from Hebron? How did he even know how to travel such distance? 73 miles is no joke especially when you have no map or sat nav, travelling by foot amongst unknown people and animals. how could the father of Joseph allow his young child to travel in the mist of hyenas and desert bandits and tribes of people who can hurt him. 

the idea Joseph being a young lad knowing the route to Sachem is unbelievable. did he not get lost and what about Dothan, how did he even know how to get to Dothan? this goes to show he was either familiar with the routes and would travel such distance regularly, how plausible is that?

verse 12 says "Now his brothers went to pasture their father's flock at Shechem" we know Jacob had a large amount of sheep 30:25-43. please explain how did his sons manage to travel with such a large group of animals a distance which would be unbearable? the animals would also slow them down.

The chapter ends by Joseph being taken Egypt, so he doesn't manage to travel back. However, this doesn't negate the fact, Joseph was meant to travel back 73 miles to his father, that was the initial place in the first place. How is one to accept such absurdity form this story? Did Israel really think his young son was able to travel 146 miles on foot in the blazing desert heat on his own?

Seven unclean spirits (demons)

"When an evil spirit leaves a person, it goes into the desert, seeking rest but finding none. Then it says, 'I will return to the person I came from.' So it returns and finds its former home empty, swept, and in order. Then the spirit finds seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they all enter the person and live there. And so that person is worse off than before. That will be the experience of this evil generation." (Matthew 12:43-45)

----------------------

According to Jesus of the Bible, seven unclean spirits (demons) lived inside a person? Now as a Muslim we don’t have an issue with demons, Jinn's, devils whatever you want to call them living in a person, i.e. residing in them. Why then do Christians make a mockery when the Hadith say's "Satan has stayed in the upper part of his nose all the night." if seven demons can live inside a person what makes you say they can't stay on the upper part of the nose also. To make matters worse one may ask, how do these devils live inside a person? Do they lie on top of each other or do they become small, so they can find a designated place for themselves?

What becomes of the size of these demons once they enter this person? Do they reduce themselves scaling down to a miniature size or do they remain the same size, but first one has to confirm what size they originally we're before they entered that person? If you say Jesus or the author never made mention of the sizes of these seven demons, then what makes you say they can't scale down to a miniature size and stay in the upper part of the nose where its naturally an unpleasant area i.e. not hygiene? The more rational answer would be they become miniature in size and find designated place to live. Bible tells us Mary Magdalene was also possessed by seven demons

And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils, (Luke 8:2)

One wonder what part of her body were they residing in?

Now without side tracking there is one point I would like to make on the Hadith from my own opinion. This is not a scholarly explanation or understanding rather my own opinion.

The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "If anyone of you rouses from sleep and performs the ablution, he should wash his nose by putting water in it and then blowing it out thrice, because Satan has stayed in the upper part of his nose all the night." (Sahih Bukhari Vol. 4, Book 54, Hadith 516)

The Hadith is telling us during ablution for morning prayers, once should wash his nose three times because Satan stayed in the upper part of the nose. Now Christians who mock this Hadith should lower their heads in shame, since their Bible makes it clear demons, devils, Jinn’s, Satan has access to man no matter what state he’s in. the fact Judas has the devil enter him in from of Jesus say’s a lot. However, notice the Hadith saying one should wash his nose thrice. This is a practice Muslims perform during our 5 times obligatory Prayer. we make ablution and washing our nose thrice is part of the practice.  Just for the record once your fast asleep you have no conscience of what is happening to your body. Whether a person of animal stands in front of you when you in a deep sleep you have no way of telling what happening in front or around you. If Satan decides to enter through your nose whilst your sleeping how do you stop him? Whether Satan mentioned in the Hadith is literal or metaphorical the fact Satan exist shows how this could be true.

Now it’s interesting how the Bible makes mention on how sprinkling holy water cleanses impurities.

I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. (Ezekiel 36:25)

If clean water can clean impurities away, why is it difficult for Christians to accept performing ablution with water cleans away the impurities i.e. Satan, devils, demon, Jinn’s away? It makes no sense Christians can accept seven demons’ or 2000 legions according to Mark entering one mans body, but Satan entering the upper part of the nose is impossible? Such double standards are unacceptable.

--------------------------------

Shaitan staying in the nose

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, “If anyone of you rouses from sleep and performs the ablution, he should wash his nose by putting water in it and then blowing it out thrice, because Satan has stayed in the upper part of his nose all the night.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 516)

Shaitan is Jinn made of smoke,or some sort of gases.It’s invisibility also suggests it.

During sleep,the intake of air and its excretion (inhalation and exhalation) are disturbed in some pathological cases and these processes are also even moderated in normal cases such as the nasal cycle.Some of the cases are mentioned below.

First of all,there are many sleep disorders caused due to abnormal breathing known asSleep disordered breathing.Some of them are listed below.

1.Snoring:

Snoring is a result of the changes in the configuration and properties of the upper airway (from the nasopharynx to the laryngopharynx) that occurs during sleep.

Snoring is a sign of abnormal breathing. It occurs when physical obstruction causes fluttering of the soft palate and the adjacent soft tissues between the mouth, external orifices of the nose (nares), the upper part of the windpipe (trachea), and the passage extending from the pharynx to the stomach (esophagus).

2.Obstructive sleep apnea hypopnea syndrome:

OSAHS is characterized by recurrent episodes of partial or complete airway obstruction during sleep due to repetitive obstruction of the upper airway, necessitating recurrent awakenings or arousals to re-establish airway patency, often with oxygen desaturation

Secondly,the nasal cycle is prolonged during sleep,and it is actually the physiological /normal type of congestion.Wudu or ablution actually helps in decongestion.This is a list of home remedies for pathological congestion which includes passing water into the nose at the first place.

So again,whatever Our Holy Prophet Muhammad s.a.w.w. has told,is absolutely correct.He s.a.w.w. was truly guided by Allah and What ever Our Allah has taught us is 100% correct and it is only for our own Benefit.THANKS TO ALLAH.

God slowly killed David's baby boy to punish David for adultery

You've probably heard the story about David and Bathsheba. You know, the one where David sees Bathsheba taking a bath, and since he likes what he sees, he has sex with her. 

In an eveningtide, that David arose from off his bed, and walked upon the roof of the king's house: and from the roof he saw a woman washing herself; and the woman was very beautiful to look upon. And David sent and enquired after the woman. And one said, Is not this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite? And David sent messengers, and took her; and she came in unto him, and he lay with her. 2 Samuel 11.2-4

She becomes pregnant with David's child and David sends her husband (Uriah) into the front lines to be killed. 

The woman conceived, and sent and told David, and said, I am with child. 11.5

In the morning … David wrote a letter to Joab, and sent it by the hand of Uriah … saying, Set ye Uriah in the forefront of the hottest battle, and retire ye from him, that he may be smitten, and die … And Uriah the Hittite died. 11.14-17

Well, that's not what this story is about. In fact, the killing of Uriah is the only one of David's many killings that God disapproved of. David had Uriah killed and God had nothing to do with it. 

The thing that David had done displeased the LORD. 11.27

God was displeased with David for killing Uriah and taking his wife, but he forgave him for it. 

The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. 12.13

Still, God had to do something to show his displeasure. Here's what he decided to do: he'd have David's wives raped by his neighbor while everyone else watches. 

Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. 12.11

It turns out that the "neighbor" that God sends to do his dirty work is David's own son, Absalom. 

Ahithophel said unto Absalom, Go in unto thy father's concubines, which he hath left to keep the house … So they spread Absalom a tent upon the top of the house; and Absalom went in unto his father's concubines in the sight of all Israel. 2 Samuel 16.21-22

But that didn't quite do it. David had caused God's enemies to blaspheme, so God had to give them something else to blaspheme about. But what? 

Kill the baby, that's what. 

Because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. 12.14

And that's what God did, but not all at once. He let the baby suffer for a while. 

The LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick. 12.15

When God made the baby sick, David pleaded with God to stop tormenting him. But God wouldn't listen. 

David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon the earth. 12.16

Finally, after the baby suffered for seven days, God killed him. 

On the seventh day, that the child died. 12.18

After the baby died, David washed, got dressed, had a nice meal, and worshiped the God who killed his son. 

David arose from the earth, and washed, and anointed himself, and changed his apparel, and came into the house of the LORD, and worshipped: then he ... did eat. 12.20

The story has a happy ending, though. After Bathsheba's baby boy is killed by God, David comforts her by going "in unto her." (He's such a nice guy!) 

David comforted Bathsheba his wife, and went in unto her. 12.24a

And Bathsheba conceives and bears another son (Solomon). 

And she bare a son, and he called his name Solomon. 12.24b

And God loved Solomon. 

And the LORD loved him. 12.24c

(He probably said to himself, as the Brick Testament suggests, “I don’t think I’ll kill this one.”)

When is a Man Allowed to Divorce his Wife in Judaism?

Deuteronomy’s description of the circumstances of divorce is ambiguous. Thus, the Mishnah (m. Gittin 9:10) records three different opinions on when a man is allowed to divorce his wife. What can we infer from the biblical text?

Dr. Eve Levavi Feinstein

Descriptions of Divorce in Deuteronomy 24:1–4

Most of what we know about divorce in biblical Israel comes from Deuteronomy 24:1–4, which prohibits a man from remarrying his ex-wife after she has been married to another man.^[1] Although this passage does not legislate how divorce is to be enacted, the descriptions of divorce embedded in it shed light on the norms in Israel at the time when it was written:

דברים כד:א כִּי יִקַּח אִישׁ אִשָּׁה וּבְעָלָהּ וְהָיָה אִם לֹא תִמְצָא חֵן בְּעֵינָיו כִּי מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר וְכָתַב לָהּ סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻת וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ וְשִׁלְּחָהּ מִבֵּיתוֹ.כד:‎ב וְיָצְאָה מִבֵּיתוֹ וְהָלְכָה וְהָיְתָה לְאִישׁ אַחֵר. כד:ג וּשְׂנֵאָהּ הָאִישׁ הָאַחֲרוֹן וְכָתַב לָהּ סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻת וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ וְשִׁלְּחָהּ מִבֵּיתוֹ…[2]

Deut 24:1 If a man takes a wife and possesses her, and she fails to please him because he finds something obnoxious about her, and he writes her a bill of divorcement, hands it to her, and sends her away from his house;  2 she leaves his household and becomes the wife of another man;  3 then this latter man rejects her, writes her a bill of divorcement, hands it to her, and sends her away from his house…

Several features of divorce stand out from this passage:

1. The divorce is initiated by the man; the woman is not depicted as having a say in the matter. (This seems to have been the norm throughout the ancient Near East.)^[3]

2. The man enacts the divorce by giving the woman a “bill of divorcement”^[4] (סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻת).

3. The law also informs us of the motivations for the two divorces, which are described in two different ways:
   1. The first man divorces his wife because “she fails to please him because he finds something obnoxious (עֶרְוַת דָּבָר, literally “the nakedness of something” or “a matter of nakedness”^[5]) about her.”
   2. The second man divorces her because he “rejects” or “dislikes” her (וּשְׂנֵאָהּ).

In describing the motivations for the divorces, the text offers some insight into the circumstances under which a man could divorce his wife. But the descriptions are not entirely clear and have been subject to different interpretations.

Philo and Josephus: Divorce for Any Reason

Philo of Alexandria (25 BCE–60 CE) and Josephus (37–100 CE) summarize this law in their writings, both suggesting that a man could divorce his wife for any reason.

Philo’s summary begins: “If … a woman having been divorced from her husband under any pretense whatever…” (Special Laws 3.30–31, Yonge trans.). Similarly, Josephus writes: “He that desires to be divorced from his wife, for any cause whatsoever; and many such causes happen among men…” (Antiquities of the Jews, Whiston trans. 4.253).

The New Testament: Restricting the Grounds for Divorce

The Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:31–32) refers to the law in Deuteronomy.  Jesus says:

It was also said, “Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.” But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (NRSV translation)

As elsewhere in this portion of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus cites a law from the Torah and then offers a more stringent teaching,^[6] namely that a man may divorce his wife only on the ground of unchastity. Implicitly, Jesus seems to understand the verse in Deuteronomy much as Philo and Josephus understand it: as allowing for divorce on any grounds. It is only Jesus’s new teaching that restricts divorce to this specific circumstance.

The Mishnah: Debating the Grounds for Divorce

While these earlier sources all understand Deuteronomy 24 as allowing a man to divorce his wife for any reason, the Mishnah (m. Gittin 9:10) records a dispute on this point, based on the motivation given in verse 1: אִם־לֹא תִמְצָא־חֵן בְּעֵינָיו כִּי־מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר, “She fails to please him because he finds something obnoxious (ervat davar) about her.”

Beit Shammai (ערוה)

Beit Shammai suggest that a man may divorce his wife only if she has committed a sexual transgression, apparently adultery:

בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: לֹא יְגָרֵשׁ אָדָם אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן מָצָא בָהּ דְּבַר עֶרְוָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר, כִּי מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר.

Beit Shammai say: A man must not divorce his wife unless he finds that she has done a matter of ervah, as it says: “Because he finds ervat davar about her.”[7]

Shammai focuses on the term ervah, which literally means “nakedness.” In rabbinic parlance, ervah refers to a forbidden sexual relationship, a usage that derives from the biblical expression ‏לְגַלּוֹת עֶרְוָה, “to uncover nakedness,” which describes sexual transgressions in Leviticus 18 and 20. This is the same position taken by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, except whereas Jesus presents it as more stringent than the Torah law, Beit Shammai is presenting as reflecting the Torah law.

Beit Hillel (דבר)

Beit Hillel also derive their interpretation from the phrase “because he finds ervat davar about her.” However, they focus on the term davar, “thing” or “something”:

וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, אֲפִלּוּ הִקְדִּיחָה תַבְשִׁילוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר, כִּי מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר.

Beit Hillel say: Even if she burns his food, as it says: “Because he finds ervat davar about her.”

The term davar suggests to Beit Hillel that a man must have some grounds to divorce his wife, but they can presumably be any grounds at all—even something as minor as burning the food.^[8]

Rabbi Akiva (לא תמצא חן בעיניו)

Rabbi Akiva takes the most “lenient” position—from the husband’s perspective—declaring that a man may divorce his wife for essentially no reason at all:

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: אֲפִלּוּ מָצָא אַחֶרֶת נָאָה הֵימֶנָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר, וְהָיָה אִם לֹא תִמְצָא חֵן בְּעֵינָיו:

Rabbi Akiva says: Even if he finds another more beautiful than she, as it says: “She fails to please him.”

In other words, the husband does not need to have any specific complaint about his wife, even the most trifling one, but can divorce her merely because he is no longer interested in her or because he finds someone more attractive.

R. Akiva bases his interpretation on the first part of the verse, the phrase אִם לֹא תִמְצָא חֵן בְּעֵינָיו, “she fails to please him,” literally, “she does not find favor/beauty in his eyes,” a purely subjective criterion.

Akiva ignores the second phrase, “because he finds something obnoxious about her.” Most likely, he assumes that this phrase is simply meant as one illustrative example of why a man might divorce his wife, not a prescriptive rule limiting when divorce is permitted.

Modern Scholarship

Many modern scholars understand ervat davar much like Beit Shammai, as indicating some sort of sexual impropriety, if not outright adultery. Samuel Rolles Driver, for example, writes that the woman is guilty of “immodest or indecent behaviour” that is “short of actual unchastity.”^[9] Others, including Jacob Rabinowitz, Arie Toeg, and Ekhert Otto, maintain that it refers to adultery.^[10]

Scholars who take this position frequently cite Beit Shammai as precedent for their understanding.^[11] In addition, many Christian scholars read this verse in light of the related passage in Matthew.^[12] Driver exemplifies both of these tendencies. He draws on the Mishnah to support his understanding of the law as limiting divorce to cases of sexual impropriety, while also viewing the law as laying the groundwork for Jesus’s more expansive teaching.

Ervat Davar in Deuteronomy 23:15

Many commentators from Beit Shammai onward have understood ervat davar in light of the expression “to uncover nakedness” in Leviticus 18 and 20. However, this is problematic, not only because the two expressions are different but also because the term ervah may have different connotations in the Holiness Collection and the Deuteronomic Law Collection.

In fact, the term ervat davar also appears elsewhere in Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy 23 explains that when making a war camp, it is important to protect the camp from any offensive thing (כל דבר רע), and specifically lists nocturnal emissions and feces.

Thus, any soldier with a nocturnal emission must leave the camp until he has washed himself the next day and can then return around sunset the next evening (when he will be pure again). Also, anyone who needs to defecate must leave the camp with a shovel and bury his feces outside the camp. The text concludes these regulations as follows:

דברים ‎ כג:טו‏ כִּי יְ-הוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ מִתְהַלֵּךְ בְּקֶרֶב מַחֲנֶךָ לְהַצִּילְךָ וְלָתֵת אֹיְבֶיךָ לְפָנֶיךָ וְהָיָה מַחֲנֶיךָ קָדוֹשׁ וְלֹא־יִרְאֶה בְךָ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר וְשָׁב מֵאַחֲרֶיךָ׃

Deut 23:15 Since YHWH your God moves about in your camp to protect you and to deliver your enemies to you, let your camp be holy; let Him not find anything unseemly (ervat davar) among you and turn away from you.

According to this passage, because God traveled in the Israelite camp, it was important for it to be kept free of impurity or uncleanliness.

Connecting the Two Uses of Ervat Davar

The connection between semen and excrement and the grounds for divorce in Deuteronomy 24:1 is unclear. Toeg, noting the connection to “private parts,” sees this verse as supporting his understanding of ervat davar as connoting adultery. Driver, on the other hand, observes that what is described in Deuteronomy 23 is not “immoral” but only “unbecoming” and sees that as consistent with his view that the woman is guilty of immodest behavior that is not legally prohibited. John Walton, noting the connection to ritual impurity, suggests that the woman suffers from a long-term menstrual irregularity that renders her ritually impure.^[13]

Driver’s observation is salient: ervat davar here does not seem to connote sinfulness. It does not necessarily even refer to behavior. Walton’s suggestion may be in the right category, but it seems too specific. Semen is ritually polluting, but excrement is not. Most likely, ervat davar is a general term for something subjectively repellent.^[14] The man has simply discovered something about his wife that he does not like.

The Second Divorce

While the meaning of ervat davar remains somewhat ambiguous, the motivation for the second divorce is described quite straightforwardly: וּשְׂנֵאָהּ הָאִישׁ הָאַחֲרוֹן, “then this latter man dislikes/rejects her.” The root ש.נ.א, which means “hate” in modern Hebrew, is sometimes used in the Bible to describe a man’s rejection of his wife or his preference for another, not necessarily for any specific reason.

Genesis 29:31, 33 state that Leah was “rejected” or “disliked” (‏שְׂנוּאָה) by Jacob. Similarly, Deuteronomy 21:15-17 states that if a man loves one of his wives and rejects or dislikes another, and the disfavored wife bears his firstborn son, he cannot give the preferred wife’s son the greater portion of his inheritance; it must go to the firstborn.^[15] Finally, Deut 22:13–19 describes a case in which a man marries a woman and decides that he dislikes her and falsely accuses her of not being a virgin.  All of these cases reflect subjective dislike.

Westbrook: Two Reasons for Divorce

Raymond Westbrook, the late scholar of ancient Near Eastern law, suggests that the two cases in Deuteronomy 24 present two different scenarios: the first divorce in Deuteronomy 24 has objective grounds—though not necessarily sexual impropriety—while the second divorce has no objective or legal grounds. He connects the first case to the Laws of Hammurabi 141:

If the wife of a man… accumulates a private hoard, scatters her household, slanders her husband… he may divorce her without giving her anything, not her journey-money, not her divorce-money.

But even if Westbrook is correct in understanding ervat davar as referring to this type of substantive misbehavior, the fact remains that the text also describes as its second case a divorce without grounds. This indicates that in Israelite society, a man could divorce his wife simply because he disliked her.

Unilateral Divorce Left Women Very Vulnerable

Deuteronomy does not actually legislate that a man may divorce his wife for any reason. That is simply an assumption made by this passage, presumably on the basis of prevailing practice. Nevertheless, whether it is being legislated or assumed, the implication of the verse is that unilateral divorce of a wife by a husband without cause was a possibility.

If so, this would have been a serious problem for women in antiquity, who, without husbands to provide for them, could be in a very precarious economic position. Deuteronomy repeatedly lists widows among the economically disadvantaged members of society whom Israelites are instructed to care and provide for; it may have been worse for divorcées.^[16]

^#

Deuteronomy does list limited cases in which a man is prohibited from divorcing his wife: if he falsely accuses her of not being a virgin (Deut 22:13–19), or if he rapes her when she is still a virgin (Deut 22:28–29).^[17] Although today such an arrangement would be considered far from ideal, in biblical times it would have at least offered the woman some financial protection. But the Torah offers no such protection for women in the vast majority of marriages.

Postscript: Later Halakhah Protects Women
but Still Enables Men

The rabbis instituted regulations in halakhah (Jewish Law) to protect women from the precarious position in which divorce placed them. Perhaps the most notable is the requirement of a marriage contract (ketubah) allowing a divorcée to keep her dowry and any property she brought into the marriage as well as providing her with continued financial support. And in the eleventh century, the Ashkenazi community prohibited divorce without the woman’s consent, as part of what is called “the decree of Rabbeinu Gershom.”

Nevertheless, halakhah ultimately supported the most lenient interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1, allowing a man to divorce his wife on virtually any grounds. More important, it still left men with greater power, since only they could initiate divorce. In modern times, with the advent of civil divorce in Western countries, this has left religious Jewish women vulnerable to becoming agunot, “chained” to husbands who refuse them a religious divorce after the couple is civilly divorced.

Particularly in the Orthodox world, this has become the contemporary ethical challenge regarding divorce, with various solutions such as halakhic prenuptials and conditional marriages as just two of many creative attempts to rectify this millennia-old inequity.^[18]

^footnotes

[1] I discuss possible reasons for this law in my essay “Remarrying Your Ex-Wife,”TheTorah.com (2017).

[2] The text continues:

דברים כד:ג…אוֹ כִי יָמוּת הָאִישׁ הָאַחֲרוֹן אֲשֶׁר־לְקָחָהּ לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה׃ כד:ד לֹא־יוּכַל בַּעְלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן אֲשֶׁר־שִׁלְּחָהּ לָשׁוּב לְקַחְתָּהּ לִהְיוֹת לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה אַחֲרֵי אֲשֶׁר הֻטַּמָּאָה כִּי־תוֹעֵבָה הִוא לִפְנֵי יְ-הוָה וְלֹא תַחֲטִיא אֶת־הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר יְ-הוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לְךָ נַחֲלָה׃

Deut 24:3 …or the man who married her last dies.  4Then the first husband who divorced her shall not take her to wife again, since she has been defiled — for that would be abhorrent to YHWH. You must not bring sin upon the land that YHWH your God is giving you as a heritage.

[3] Several ancient Near Eastern law codes discuss instances of men divorcing their wives, with no hint that the woman plays an active role. See, e.g., Laws of Hammurabi 138–40; Code of Ur-Nammu 6–7. See also these Sumerian and Old Assyrian divorce documents: http://jewishchristianlit.com/Topics/Contracts/. 

[4] There are some extant divorce documents from the ancient Near East (see n. 3), but there is not, to my knowledge, any external evidence of the practice described here, in which the man gives a divorce document directly to his wife.

[5] This latter would be translating the term as a “reversed construct state” (סמיכות הפוכה), also called “genitive of genus,” which is when the subordinate element of the clause comes before the superordinate element. This is a very unusual form in biblical Hebrew. Some other possible examples would be Prov 14:1 (חכמות נשים as “women of wisdom” instead of “wisest of women”) and Prov 15:20 (כסיל אדם as “a foolish man” instead of “a fool of a man”). See discussion in Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Conner, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax(Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 153-154 [9.5.3i]. The form became more common among medieval paytanim/poets (see discussion here.)

[6] See the preceding vv. 27–28: ““You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Aaron M. Gale, in his commentary on Matthew in the Jewish Annotated New Testament compares this entire section of the Sermon on the Mount, called “the Antitheses” to the rabbinic principle of “making a fence around the Torah” (m. Avot 1:1). Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler, eds. The Jewish Annotated New Testament: New Revised Standard Version Bible Translation, 2^nd Edition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017), 20.

[7] In paraphrasing ervat davar as devar ervah (“a matter of ervah”), Beit Shammai seem to be understanding the phrase as a reversed construct (see n. 5).

[8] That Beit Hillel derive this interpretation from the term davar is explicit in a baraita in b. Gittin 90a. According to the baraita, Beit Hillel understands ervah in the same way as Beit Shammai—as referring to adultery—but maintain that it functions in this verse not to limit divorce to cases of adultery but rather to teach that even in cases of adultery, a woman may remarry.

[9] Samuel Rolles Driver, Deuteronomy (Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1909), p. 271.

[10] Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 269–70, n. 4; Ekhert Otto, Das Verbot der Wiederherstellung einer geschiedenen Ehe: Deuteronomium 24, 1–4 im Kontext des israelitischen und judäischen Eherechts,” Ugarit-Forschungen 24 (1992): 301–10. Other advocates of this view are Jacob A. Rabinowitz, “The ‘Great Sin’ in Ancient Egyptian Marriage Contracts,” JNES 18 (1959): 73; and Arie Toeg, “Does Deuteronomy XXIV, 1–4 Incorporate a General Law on Divorce?” Dine Israel 2 (1970): vi–ix [Hebrew].

[11] See Driver, Rabinowitz, and Toeg, cited above.

[12] E.g., C. F. Keil and F. Delitzch, The Pentateuch (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1967), 416–19; Anthony Phillips, Ancient Israel’s Criminal Law: A New Approach to the Decalogue (Oxford: Blackwell, 197), 111–12; Richard M. Davidson, “Divorce and Remarriage in Deuteronomy 24:1–4,” JATS 10 (1999): 2–22; and Driver, cited above.

[13] John H. Walton, “The Place of the Hutqattal Within the D-Stem Group and Its Implications in Deuteronomy 24:4,” Hebrew Studies 32 (1991): 7–17.

[14] On this passage, see Alan Cooper’s essay “Keeping Excrement Out of God’s Presence”(TheTorah.com [2015]). Cooper observes that “the first [law] addresses what looks like a straightforward matter of ritual impurity … The second seems to address the more amorphous concept of excrement being disgusting.”

[15] Editor’s note: For more on this law, see Kristine Garroway, “Does the Birthright Law Apply to Reuben? What About Ishmael?” TheTorah.com (2018).

[16] See especially Deut 24:19, 20; 26:12–17. The vulnerable position of the widow is also presumed by Exod 22:21; Deut 14:29; 16:11, 14; 24:17; 27:19; Isa 1:17, 23; Jer 7:6; 22:3; Ezek 22:7; Zech 7:10; Mal 3:5; Ps 68:6; 94:6; 146:9.

[17] On this law, see Zev Farber’s essay “Marrying Your Daughter to Her Rapist”(TheTorah.com [2014]) and my essay “The Rape of the Unbetrothed Virgin in Torah and Assyrian Law: A Comparative Analysis” (TheTorah.com [2013]).

[18] On various approaches to this problem by Orthodox and Conservative rabbis, see Soriya Daniels, “Potential Solutions to the Agunah Problem,” My Jewish Learning.

------------------------

Divorce

Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ ? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” (Matthew 19:3-9)

---------------

The above Passage which abrogates a law from the Old Testament has more to it than you may think. Interestingly, Jesus of the New Testament clearly tells the Pharisees that one of the Mizvot which Jews thought was part of the “613 laws” was actually a command by Moses.

In verse 8 we read Jesus saying “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning."

MOSES PERMITTED YOU TO DIVORCE YOUR WIVES? How could this be when this command is part of the 613 laws commanded by Yahweh himself?

If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, (Deuteronomy 24:1)

According to Jesus, Moses himself permitted this law, which somehow became part of the 613 laws that was spoken by Yahweh. This seems to create a problem when it comes to the law of God as he states all his statues and laws must be obeyed. Jesus goes one to say it’s because of their hard hearts Moses commanded such a ruling.  One wonders what other laws of Moses has blended in with the 613 laws? This shows the Torah laws are from Man and God mixed

See, I have taught you decrees and laws as the LORD my God commanded me, so that you may follow them in the land you are entering to take possession of it. [Deuteronomy 4:5]