Module review

Rabbinic Judaism generally does not teach original sin in the Christian sense; it speaks of an evil and a good inclination and calls people to master the evil one through Torah. Its answer to sin is teshuvah, repentance, with prayer and charity, which the High Holy Day prayer Unetaneh Tokef says avert the severity of the decree; the Mishnah teaches that Yom Kippur atones for sins against God (Yoma 8:9). The Mishnah says all Israel has a share in the world to come (Sanhedrin 10:1), and the Tosefta extends this to the righteous of the nations, who keep the Noahide laws. A Christian should honour the seriousness of repentance (Psalm 51:17), but ask how serious sin is (Jeremiah 17:9; Psalm 130:3) and how a holy God forgives. The Torah centred atonement on blood (Leviticus 17:11), and Yom Kippur depended on the altar and high priest, which have been gone since AD 70. God provided the final sacrifice, the Messiah, 'once for all' (Hebrews 10:10), as Isaiah 53:10 foresaw, just before the Temple fell. Repentance is met by God's sacrifice, not replaced by it.

• accurate account of teshuvah, Yom Kippur and the world to come with sources
• no original sin in the rabbinic sense; two inclinations
• the seriousness of sin from the Tanakh
• Leviticus 17:11 and the loss of the Temple
• Messiah as God's provided sacrifice, offered humbly

On Isaiah 53, acknowledge that the national reading is serious: Rashi popularised it, Origen records an early Jewish form of it, and Isaiah does call Israel 'my servant' (41:8; 49:3). But the Targum calls the servant 'my servant the Messiah' at 52:13, and the Talmud applies 53:4 to the Messiah (Sanhedrin 98b). Within Isaiah the servant restores Israel (49:5-6), is innocent ('neither was any deceit in his mouth', 53:9) and suffers 'for the transgression of my people' (53:8), while the nation is 'a sinful nation' (1:4); he is best seen as the ideal Israelite who does what the nation could not. On Isaiah 7:14, concede that almah means a young woman of marriageable age and that 7:16 ties part of the sign to Ahaz's day. Yet the pre-Christian Jewish Septuagint translated it parthenos, which Matthew follows, the sign is addressed to the whole house of David, and Immanuel leads into the Davidic child called 'The mighty God' (9:6), a title of the LORD in 10:21. Honest concessions make the cumulative case more credible.

• states Rashi's reading fairly with its texts
• Targum and Sanhedrin 98b
• internal evidence: 49:5-6; 53:8-9; 1:4
• concedes almah; cites Septuagint and house of David
• Immanuel and 9:6 / 10:21; humble tone

Covenant theology, the confessional Reformed view, sees one people of God and one way of salvation across the covenants: Gentile believers are grafted into Israel's olive tree (Romans 11:17-24) and given Israel's titles (1 Peter 2:9), which many Reformed writers call fulfilment rather than replacement. Covenant theologians differ on Romans 11:26: Calvin read 'all Israel' as the whole people of God, O. Palmer Robertson as the elect of ethnic Israel through history, and John Piper and others expect a large future turning of Jewish people to Christ; the Westminster Larger Catechism prays for 'the Jews called' (Q. 191). Dispensationalists, such as John MacArthur, treat Israel and the church as distinct peoples and expect a future national salvation and restoration of Israel. This is an in-house debate among brothers. All agree that God has not cast away his people (Romans 11:1-2), that Gentiles must not boast against the branches (11:18), and that Jew and Gentile alike are saved only through faith in Jesus (Acts 4:12; Romans 10:1-13). That rules out dual-covenant theology, since Paul's anguish for his kinsmen (Romans 9:1-3) assumes they need the Messiah, and it rules out contempt for the people from whom Christ came (Romans 9:5).

• covenant theology: one people, fulfilment, olive tree
• range of views on Romans 11:26 with named holders
• dispensationalism stated accurately (e.g. MacArthur)
• common ground: God not finished with Israel, salvation only in Messiah
• rejects antisemitism and dual-covenant theology from Scripture

Begin by confessing the Shema gladly (Deuteronomy 6:4; Mark 12:29): Christians believe in one God, and echad, while it simply means one, does not rule out complexity within God's unity. The Tanakh itself shows the Angel of the LORD who is sent by the LORD yet speaks as God (Exodus 3:2-6), the LORD raining fire 'from the LORD' (Genesis 19:24), and David's Lord at God's right hand (Psalm 110:1). Daniel 7:13-14 shows one like a son of man coming with the clouds to receive everlasting dominion, and the New Testament applies Yahweh texts to Jesus (Isaiah 45:23 in Philippians 2:10-11; 1 Corinthians 8:6). On Maimonides, respect his authority but note that the Talmud knows a slain Messiah son of Joseph (Sukkah 52a) and that the Tanakh is the final authority. Isaiah's servant is 'cut off out of the land of the living' yet afterwards 'shall see his seed' (53:8, 10), and Daniel 9:26 places an anointed one being cut off before the city and sanctuary are destroyed in AD 70. Sanhedrin 98a itself wrestled with a Messiah lowly on a donkey and glorious on the clouds, which Christians see as two comings of one Messiah. Only Jesus fits the whole pattern: Davidic, born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), atoning, raised, and a light to the nations (Isaiah 49:6). The incarnation is not a man becoming God but the eternal Word taking flesh (John 1:14), and he offers forgiveness to Jew and Gentile alike.

• affirms the Shema and handles echad honestly
• plurality texts in the Tanakh and Yahweh texts applied to Jesus
• answers Maimonides with Sukkah 52a and Isaiah 53 / Daniel 9
• timing argument and two comings (Sanhedrin 98a)
• incarnation rightly defined; gospel offered humbly