Rabbi Michael Skobac

How misused: Consistently misinterprets the suffering servant as the nation of Israel collectively, or as suffering for persecution by other nations, rather than an individual bearing penal substitutionary atonement for sin. This is a pervasive misreading across many videos.

Scripture's answer: Isaiah 53 describes a singular individual (העֶבֶד יְהוָה, 'the servant of the LORD') who suffers vicariously for the sins of 'many' (Isa 53:11-12). The language of 'he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed' (Isa 53:5) points unmistakably to an atoning sacrifice, not merely collective national suffering. Grammatical analyses of Hebrew pronouns and verbs consistently point to a single individual, not a collective. The rabbinic interpretation applying it to Israel gained prominence post-Christianity as a polemical counter-argument, lacking significant pre-Christian rabbinic attestation.

How misused: Claims the Hebrew 'כארו' (ka'aru) means 'like a lion' and not 'pierced,' attributing the 'pierced' translation to deceptive Christian mistranslation to fit the crucifixion narrative.

Scripture's answer: While 'כארו' is ambiguous and could potentially relate to 'lion,' the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, pre-dating Christianity) translates it as 'ὤρυξαν' (oryxan), meaning 'they dug' or 'they pierced,' indicating that the 'pierced' understanding existed among Jews hundreds of years before Christ. Furthermore, textual variants in Hebrew manuscripts also support 'pierced.' The context of 'hands and feet' further strengthens the 'pierced' reading morphologically and contextually. The Masoretic Text's vowel pointing supports 'ka'aru' ('they dug/pierced'), not 'ka'ari' ('like a lion').

How misused: Asserts that the Shema's declaration 'The LORD our God, the LORD is one' (אֶחָד - echad) implies an absolute, singular numerical oneness that precludes any plurality within the Godhead, thus rejecting the Trinity.

Scripture's answer: The Hebrew word 'echad' (אֶחָד) for 'one' can denote a compound unity, as seen in Genesis 2:24 where 'the two shall become one flesh' (בָּשָׂר אֶחָד - basar echad). If 'echad' always meant absolute singularity, then a husband and wife becoming 'one' would be nonsensical. In contrast, 'yachid' (יָחִיד) signifies absolute, solitary oneness. The use of 'echad' in the Shema, especially in conjunction with the plural 'Elohim' (Gods) and the singular verb 'is', suggests a complex unity rather than a monolithic singularity that excludes a multifaceted divine nature.

How misused: Claims the plural 'us' refers to God speaking to the earth, the angels, or the majestic plural, rather than indicating a plurality within the Godhead.

Scripture's answer: While rabbinic tradition offers various interpretations (angels, majestic plural, God speaking to the earth), none of these interpretations are explicitly stated or supported by the immediate context in Genesis. The most straightforward grammatical reading within a monotheistic framework is that God is speaking within a divine council or, from a Christian perspective, implies a plurality within the Godhead, consistent with subsequent New Testament revelations of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Rejecting internal divine plurality based on this verse requires imposing a later theological constraint on the text.

How misused: Argues that the New Covenant (בְּרִית חֲדָשָׁה - brit chadasha) does not abolish the commandments but strengthens them, applying exclusively to the Jewish people in the Messianic Age and leading to their ultimate, unbreakable adherence to the Torah, denying its fulfillment in Christ or its inclusive nature for Gentiles.

Scripture's answer: Jeremiah 31 explicitly states God will make a 'new covenant' that is 'not like the covenant I made with their ancestors' (Jer 31:32), indicating a qualitative difference. The promise to 'put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts' (Jer 31:33) speaks to an internal transformation that goes beyond mere external observance, fulfilled by the indwelling Holy Spirit subsequent to Jesus's atoning work. While it originates with Israel, the New Testament extends its blessings through Christ to all believers, both Jew and Gentile, creating a new spiritual community.

How misused: Presents supposed contradictions in the New Testament regarding the number of Jacob's family entering Egypt (75 vs. 70) and Jacob's burial place (Shechem vs. Hebron) as absolute proof of NT unreliability and therefore discredits it as scripture.

Scripture's answer: The number 75 in Acts 7:14 follows the Septuagint (LXX) reading of Genesis 46:27, which includes Joseph's sons and grandsons born in Egypt, aligning with an existing ancient Jewish tradition. The Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) lists 70. This is not a contradiction but a reference to different textual traditions, both of which were available and accepted in ancient Judaism. Regarding Jacob's burial, while Jacob himself was buried in Hebron (Gen 50:13), Joseph and his brothers were indeed buried in Shechem (Josh 24:32). Stephen's speech in Acts 7:15-16, in a condensed narrative, refers collectively to 'our ancestors' being carried back to Canaan and buried 'in the tomb that Abraham bought from the sons of Hamor at Shechem.' It is a narrative abbreviation, not a direct contradiction, combining the general idea of patriarchal burials in the ancestral land with a specific detail about Jacob's sons. These are reconcilable distinctions, often found in ancient historical narratives, not evidence of factual error.

How misused: Taken out of context to claim Jesus advocates for hating one's family, equating it with cult indoctrination and a rejection of genuine family values.

Scripture's answer: This is a Semitic idiom of comparative preference, not literal hatred. It means to love God supremely, above even one's closest family ties or one's own life. The parallel passage in Matthew 10:37 clarifies, 'Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me.' It emphasizes ultimate allegiance to Christ, not disrespect or antagonism towards family. Misunderstanding this idiom is a common anti-Christian polemical tactic.

How misused: Claims this prophecy does not exist in the Jewish Bible, viewing it as a fabrication by Matthew. Distinguishes 'Nazir' (Nazerite) from 'Nazarene' to deny any connection.

Scripture's answer: Matthew 2:23 is likely a summary reference to several Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah's humble, despised origins, particularly from Nazareth. The word 'Netzer' (נֵצֶר) meaning 'branch' or 'shoot' in Isaiah 11:1 is a recognized messianic title and a play on the sound of 'Nazareth.' In Hebrew, 'Netzer' and 'Nazir' (נָזִיר - consecrated one) are distinct but phonetically related and could be used in a double-entendre by Matthew to imply both his place of origin and his consecrated status, or the prophetic 'shoot' from Jesse. It’s not a direct quote but a thematic fulfillment, common in prophetic interpretation (e.g., 'that it might be fulfilled...'). Rejecting it as a fabrication ignores the nuances of New Testament prophetic usage.