How Many Jews Will Tovia Singer Convert to Christianity?

Did Jacob Predict the Coming of Jesus When He Blessed Judah? - Rabbi Tovia Singer
Tovia Singer | 9 March 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP6Ijeoq3cg

3:39 I think you are actually wrong.

The staff of kingship means sovereignty.

While you may not count Daniel 13 as Scripture, you would count it as history. Susanna was going to be stoned, except that Daniel proved her innocense. And, here is the kicker, no one from the Babylonian side was interfering. When Stephen was stoned, Paul had to keep the cloaks as well as keeping a lookout for Romans, or the Romans would have interrupted that. But in Babylon, it was not like that.

So, from King David on, Judah always enjoyed sovereignty. Up to Herod the Great and Archelaos. THEN the Romans took that away.

So, the Messiah already came, more precisely under Herod the Great's autonomy, he was not completely sovereign, but he could send soldiers to some villages. Herod Antipas couldn't.

He had the capacity to put John the Baptist into prison, but not to make a public execution, this prophet was murdered in prison.

And he sent, and beheaded John in the prison
[Matthew 14:10]

Pilate therefore said to them: Take him you, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said to him: It is not lawful for us to put any man to death
[John 18:31]

They didn't mean according to the Torah, they meant according to the Romans. BY THEN the Messiah had already come.

4:14 I obviously disagree about the Maccabeans.

While they were not of the line of Judah, but of Levi, they were doing rule of a sovereign kind in Judah, and therefore they guaranteed the non-interruption of sovereignty or near-sovereignty from King David to ... 6 AD. Before which, Jesus had come.

David Katz

@davidkatz341

It doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree. That is not with the versus mean. Maccabees were initially a great family of kohannim. But they did which was forget and claimed the kingship. The verse doesn't mean that there will be a king always on the throne because clearly they were huge gaps when there wasn't a game. What it means is the kingship is the line of Judah.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@davidkatz341 You forget that sovereignty is a kind of kingship of the community.

As I have mentioned in another comment.

Judah was always able to punish its criminals, even during the Babylonian captivity, but this was taken away in 6 AD ... when the Messias was already born.

@ Wait, are the Maccabees you say were wrong after the ones described in 1 and 2 Maccabees?

Because, while I have a duty to honour the men described with approval there, it seems John Hyrcanus was the first king of the Hasmonaean dynasty and does not fall in that category ...

My bad, if so.

David Katz

@hglundahl The Book of Maccabees is not in the Jewish canon it's in the Christian canon. They were great leaders during the rebellion that We remember during Hanukkah. But as kohanim their members of the tribe of Levi and are forbidden to take the kingship.

@hglundahl I don't understand your point. Judah could punish criminals? You could have a governor. We had judges. But the kingship is of Judah. And by the way, I don't understand how Christians get by 2nd Kings. To be king and to be the final Messiah you have to be of Judah. Jesus is not of Judah. That's the end of the issue if Christians want to insist Jesus was miraculously born of a virgin. I mean the whole Matthew 1:23 misappropriation of Isaiah 7:14 is beyond absurd. However if we're going on the Christian claim then Jesus cannot be the Messiah because he had no earthly father. Christians make stuff up to fix this like they try to say Jesus is of Judah through Mary. Nice try but there's no documentation on that and why does the Christian Bible go out of its way to print two separate genealogies of Joseph? By the way genealogies that do not agree.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ First, I am glad you honour the men who are mentioned in the book of Maccabees, even if you don't count them as canon.

Second, the interpretation of Tovia Singer and yourself of the verse is faulty because the verse actually doesn't mention king as such. Two words are mentioned:

šê·ḇeṭ - translated sceptre or tribe in various contexts
chaqaq - translated staff or commanders

So, the idea of sovereignty stands.

"Jesus is not of Judah."

Check Matthew 1.

Not having a physical earthly father doesn't mean He had no foster father, which legally counts.

"Jesus is of Judah through Mary. Nice try but there's no documentation on that"

Yes, there is.

Luke 3 gives a genealogy where someone is foster father on Joseph's side and real father on Mary's.

I think that answers your last point too.

@davidkatz341 Relation of Isaiah 7 and Matthew:

How Jews Changed the Scripture to Erase Jesus as the Messiah
Christian Chronicles | 16 March 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTaeeOSOZRY

David Katz

@hglundahl I'm aware of the apologetics that Christians come up with. But tribal affiliation is patrilineal. You know you're talking about the Jewish people. We know our scripture better than anyone. There is no such thing as tribal affiliation through adoption. And when there is no Jewish father the child has no travel affiliation. It's as simple as that. Now you mention Luke gives a genealogy where someone is a foster father. Can you point to the verse that says that?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@davidkatz341 "There is no such thing as tribal affiliation through adoption."

So, what about levirate?

"Can you point to the verse that says that?"

No, but to a tradition. Here is a quote from the Haydock comment to Luke 3:

Remarks on the two Genealogies of Jesus Christ. To make some attempt at an elucidation of the present very difficult subject of inquiry, we must carry in our minds, 1. That in the Scripture language the word begat, applies to the remote, as well as the immediate, descendant of the ancestor; so that if Marcus were the son, Titus the grandson, and Caius the great-grandson of Sempronius, it might, in the language of Scripture, be said, that Sempronius begat Caius. This accounts for the omission of several descents in St. Matthew. 2. The word begat, applies not only to the natural offspring, but to the offspring assigned to the ancestor by law. 3. If a man married the daughter and only child of another, he became in the view of the Hebrew law the son of that person, and thus was a son assigned to him by law. The two last positions shew in what sense Zorobabel was the son both of Neri and Salathiel, and Joseph the son both of Jacob and of Heli, or Joachim. --- "St. Matthew, in descending from Abraham to Joseph, the spouse of the blessed Virgin, speaks of a son properly so called, and by way of generation, Abraham begot Isaac, &c. But St. Luke in ascending from Jesus to God himself, speaks of a son properly or improperly so called. On this account he make use of an indeterminate expression, in saying, the son of Joseph, who was of Heli. That St. Luke does not always speak of a son properly called, and by way of generation, appears from the first and last he names; for Jesus was only the putative son of Joseph, because Joseph was the spouse of Mary, the mother of Christ; and Adam was only the son of God by creation. This being observed, we must acknowledge in the genealogy in St. Luke, two sons improperly so called, that is, two sons-in-law, instead of sons. As among the Hebrews, the women entered not into the genealogy, when a house finished by a daughter, instead of naming the daughter in the genealogy, they named the son-in-law, who had for father-in-law the father of his wife. The two sons-in-law mentioned in St. Luke are Joseph, the son-in-law of Heli, and Salathiel, the son-in-law of Neri. This remarks clears up the difficulty. Joseph, the son of Jacob, in St. Matthew, was the son-in-law of Heli, in St. Luke; and Salathiel, the son of Jechonias, in St. Matthew, was the son-in-law of Neri, in St. Luke. Mary was the daughter of Heli, Eliacim, or Joacim, or Joachim. Joseph, the son of Jacob, and Mary, the daughter of Heli, had a common origin; both descending from Zorobabel, Joseph by Abiud the eldest, and Mary by Resa, the younger brother. Joseph descended from the royal branch of David, of which Solomon was the chief; and Mary from the other branch, of which Nathan was the chief. by Salathiel, the father of Zorobabel, and son of Jechonias, Joseph and Mary descended from Solomon, the son and heir of David. And by the wife of Salathiel, the mother of Zorobabel, and daughter of Neri, of which Neri Salathiel was the son-in-law, Joseph and Mary descended from Nathan, the other son of David, so that Joseph and Mary re-united in themselves all the blood of David. St. Matthew carries up the genealogy of Jesus to Abraham; this was the promise of the Messias, made to the Jews; St. Luke carries it up to Adam, the promise of the Messias, made to all men." Whatever the difficulties attending the genealogies may be, it is evident that they arise from our imperfect knowledge of the laws, usages, and idiom of the Jews, from our ignorance of the true method of reconciling the seeming inconsistencies, or from some corruptions that in process of time may possibly have crept into the text. The silence of the enemies of the gospel, both heathen and Jewish, during even the first century, is itself a sufficient proof, that neither inconsistency nor corruption could be then alleged against this part of the evangelical history. If the lineal descent of Jesus from David were not indisputable, he could not possess the character essential to the Messias, nor any right to the Jewish throne. We may confidently then assert, that his regular lineal descent from David could not be disproved, since it was not even disputed at a time when alone it could have been done so successfully; and by those persons who were so deeply interested in falsifying the first Christian authorities.

4:47 We admit there was for certain periods no Davidic King, but we do not admit there was no sovereignty.

Royal staffs in the hands of actual kings or "royal staffs held in keeping" by judges or priests or other people who could exercise an authority of sovereignty or near-sovereignty.

Like the Maccabees against Antiochus, like Daniel under Nebuchadnezzar. Unless you will say Daniel 13 is a complete fabrication, on top of excluding it from Scripture. I somehow don't think you will.

5:11 "if you have a king, it will have to be a Davidic king"

This is not grammatically possible.

The blessing said Judah was not going to lack kingship, i e for instance the right to execute criminals (publically, not by lynching or murdering someone in prison who wasn't even technically accused of a crime).

5:59 I did look it up. The next verse says:

And after this the children of Israel shall return, and shall seek the Lord their God, and David their king: and they shall fear the Lord, and his goodness in the last days
[Osee (Hosea) 3:5]

So, this doesn't mean the Messiah hasn't come yet, it means the Jews had not converted yet during the "many days" ...

Osee 3:5 ... parallels the prophecy in Apocalypse 7. In the end times, Jews will convert.

"shall return, and shall seek the Lord their God" obviously means a conversion, not just coming back physically to the Holy Land.

6:52 Osee only said so of the children of Israel.

For the children of Israel shall sit many days without king, and without prince, and without sacrifice, and without altar, and without ephod, and without theraphim
[Osee (Hosea) 3:4]

But by then the Messiah already has, for long time, had the Gentiles:

The sceptre shall not be taken away from Juda, nor a ruler from his thigh, till he come that is to be sent, and he shall be the expectation of nations
[Genesis 49:10]

So, Osee and Genesis 49 together make perfect sense if the Messiah is a Davidic King, but one who "for many days" is ruling over Gentiles rather than over children of Israel. Which is precisely what the Catholic Church claims has happened. And, by the way, I do not condone Antipope Ratzinger and his taking a distance from "replacement theology" ....

7:05 Sacrifice ... it's again only the children of Israel who are without a sacrifice.

For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts
[Malachias (Malachi) 1:11]

We have an altar, whereof they have no power to eat who serve the tabernacle
[Hebrews 13:10]

So, Jews lost the right to public sacrifice a bit later than the one to sovereignty. By then a sacrifice that was ongoing among the Gentiles for the last 2000 years and still is, was already in place.

No, Genesis 49:10 is very far from a nightmare for the Catholic Church.