The Disputation at Barcelona

Recently I was reading The Disputation at Barcelona (BN Publishing 2012), Charles Chavel, ed. This is Nachmanides' account of his celebrated public debate with medieval Catholics. The official topics were whether Messiah had already come, whether the Messiah is God Incarnate, and whether Christians fulfill the Torah. 

I'm not sure how accurate this is. Unless he had a stenographer, this represents the gist of what was said, to the best of his recollection–unless he made some improvements after the fact. But in any case it reflects the viewpoint of a major medieval thinker. 

It isn't clear to me if statements in brackets are editorial glosses or variations from other editions. For the sake of argument, I'll assume Nachmanides said those things rather than the editor. 

1. He says:

Fray Pul commenced by asserting that he would prove from our Talmud that the Messiah, whom the prophets foretold, had already come….He should tell me [now] whether he intends to state that the Sages of the Talmud believed that the Nazarene was the Messiah and that they further believed that he was [both] an actual [mortal] man and a true deity… (4-5).

I think that misses the point, whether intentionally or unintentionally. I'm guessing what his opponent had in mind is that in the Talmud, the rabbis sometimes make admissions that unwittingly bolster the Christian case. That's not their intention, of course, but hostile testimony can be especially useful precisely because the source is conceding things despite his bias to the contrary. I'm not saying the Talmud does in fact do that. I'm not qualified to comment on that. 

2. He says:

It is true that in the books of Hagadoth (homilies), our Rabbis of blessed memory interpret [Isa 52-53] in connection with the Messiah, but they have never said that he will be killed by his enemies. You will never find in any book of Jewish tradition–neither theTalmud nor the Hagadoth–that the Messiah son of David will be killed, that he will be handed over into the hands of his enemies, or that he will be buried with the wicked. Your alleged deliverer was not even buried (12-13).

i) Unlike OT Judaism or Second Temple Judaism, Rabbinic Judaism evolved in conscious opposition to Christianity. So the rabbis will naturally avoid interpretations that play into the hands of Christian theology. 

ii) I assume he's alluding to Isa 53:9 ("assigned a grave"). If so, that's pedantic. The language in Isa 52-53 is somewhat poetic. The point is not that Jesus was buried in the ground, but entombed.  

3. He says:

All of these [punishments] are still in effect today. Thus, all [punishments] that are observable and perceivable have not been atoned for in the era of your deliverer… (18).

There's a difference between the timing of the atonement and the application of the atonement. 

4. Regarding the virgin birth/Incarnation, he says:

Nature does not work that way, and the prophets never said so, Furthermore, a miracle cannot disseminate itself in that way…The mind of any Jew or any man will not permit him to believe that the Creator of heaven and earth would pass through the womb of a Jewish womb, to develop there for nine months, [at which point] an infant was born, [who supposedly is God], and who afterwards grew up and later was turned over into the hands of his enemies, who judged him, condemned him to death, and killed him. You then claim, finally, that he became alive and returned to his former state [of divinity] (19).

i) If he's alluding to the virgin birth, it's unclear why Nachmanides says nature doesn't work that way. The OT contains many nature miracles. Indeed, some miracles are naturally impossible by definition. That's what makes them miraculous. They require God to bypass natural processes. 

ii) He doesn't bother to explain why an divine incarnation is unacceptable. Is it because he deems it unfitting for God to "lower" himself in that way? 

iii) Does he think it's impossible because it that's incompatible with divine omniscience, omnipotence, immutability, incorporeality, &c? If so, he fails to grasp the doctrine of the Incarnation. God doesn't undergo change or relinquish his attributes. Rather, the Incarnation produces a relation or union between the divine nature of the Son and a human nature. The result is a composite agent.

iv) The Son allowed himself to be arrested and crucified. That's part of the atonement. It's not due to weakness. It's clear from the Gospels that Jesus had the ability to defend himself if he wanted to. 

5. After quoting Ps 72:8, he says:

The Nazarene though, had no dominion. During his life, he was persecuted by his enemies and was in hiding from them. In the end, he fell into their hands and was not [even] able to help himself. How [then] could he help Israel? Even after his death, he had no dominion, for the might of Rome was not due to him. On the contrary, before [the Romans] believed in him, the city of Rome ruled over the greatest part of the world, but after they adopted his religion, they lost many kingdoms. At present, the worshippers of Mohammad have more [dominion and] power than [the Christians] (20). 

The assumption is that messiah does everything at once. But why can't the messianic age be phased in segmentally? 

6. After quoting Jer 31:33, Isa 2:4 & 11:9, he says:

From the days of the Nazarene until now, the entire world has been full of violence and robbery. [Indeed], the Christians spill more blood that the rest of the nations, and they also lead immoral lives (20-21). 

That's a problem when Christianity is equated with Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. However, it's dubious to say Catholics and Eastern Orthodox shed more blood than Muslims. 

7. They then discuss Dan 9:24-25. Nachmanides identifies Zerubbabel as the anointed one and prince (25). 

i) But I don't see how that postexilic setting fulfills the seventy-weeks oracle (Dan 9:24-27). And what's the relationship between Dan 7:9-14 And Dan 9:24-27? Isn't the Son of Man a better candidate than Zerubbabel for the princely anointed one in the seventy-weeks oracle? 

ii) Doesn't messiah have to come prior the destruction of the Second Temple? Doesn't Mal 3:1 have reference to the Second Temple? So Yahweh will visit the Second Temple. We have the same prediction in Haggai 2:7-9. "Glory" alludes to the Shekinah, which filled and consecrated the Solomonic temple. Yet having departed from the Solomonic temple, the Shekinah never returned to the Second Temple. So how are those oracles fulfilled?

If Jesus is Yahweh Incarnate, if Jesus is the coming of Yahweh, then his presence in Jerusalem generally and the temple complex in particular checks that messianic box. Indeed, Jesus is the type of which the temple is the token.

iii) This also means that some messianic prophecy has a 1C terminus ad quem. If messiah didn't come before the Romans razed the Temple, then the Jews are out of luck. It's too late to wait for Messiah. Messianic candidates passed the last exit about 2000 years ago. 

8. He indexes Dan 12:11 to the Roman sack of Jerusalem (25-26). So he seems to put Daniel 9:24-27 in a postexilic timeframe but Dan 12:11 in a 1C timeframe. I don't see how they can be pried apart. 

9. He says:

Upon the Messiah will fall the task of gathering the banished of Israel and the dispersed ones of Judah–twelve tribes–but the Nazarene gathered no one. He did not live during the time of the exile (and had no occasion to redeem them]. The Messiah will have to build the Temple in Jerusalem, but the Nazarene neither built [the Temple] nor destroyed it. The Messiah will rule over all peoples, but [the Nazarene] did not even rule over himself." [That is, he had not sufficient dominion to prevent his persecution and execution.] (31).

i) Although Jesus wasn't alive at the time of the Exile, the Son always existed.

ii) I don't think the temple will be rebuilt. 

iii) Once again, this goes to the issue of whether messiah must do everything at once. In fact, it's not possible for messiah to do everything at once. Messiah has objectives that are simultaneously incompossible. One objective is to save the lost. Another objective is to judge the wicked. It's not just about saving one generation in one place, but saving people down through the ages, in different places. That takes time. In rabbinic Judaism, messiah saves one people-group: the Jews. But in OT messianism, salvation encompasses the gentiles. It's far-reaching. If the aim is to maximize the number of people who go to heaven, then it's necessary to subdivide messiah's work into two different stages: a period of salvation followed by the judgment. It takes longer to fill a passenger ship than a lifeboat.  

10. He says:

The Messiah who will come will really be man, a son born out of the union of a man and a woman, even as I am. He will be of the lineage of David and his descendants [Isa 11:1]. It is further stated, "Until Shiloh cometh". [Shiloh] means "his son"…If he were the Spirit of God, as you assure, he would not be "of the stock of Jesse, and even if he did tarry in the womb of a woman who is of [Jesse's stock], he would not inherit the kingdom, for by law of the Torah, daughters and their seed to not inherit when there is a male [descendent], and David always had male descendants" (33).

i) I think his etymology of Shiloh is semantically fallacious. For instance, Sarna, in his commentary on Genesis, doesn't offer that option.

ii) My take on how Jesus can be the Davidic messiah:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2018/08/is-jesus-davids-heir.html

iii) The Son is not the Spirit of God. Nachmanides doesn't understand the Trinity. 

iv) Gen 49:10 has some obscurities. It's best to combine several related passages: Gen 49:8-10; Num 25:5-9; Deut 33:4-7; Ezk 21:27, viz. J. Sailhamer, The Meaning of the Pentateuch (IVP 2009), 469-81; M. Rydelnik, The Messianic Hope: Is the Hebrew Bible Really Messianic? (B&H 2010), chap. 4.

11. Regarding Ps 110:1, he says:

[David] composed them for the purpose of having them sung before the altar of God. He himself did not sing them, nor was he permitted to do so, for that [function] was forbidden him by law of the Torah. Instead, he gave the Psalms to the Levites [1 Chron 16:7]. Therefore, [King David] perforce expressed the psalm in the language appropriate for utterance by the Levite (34).

That's ingenious. However, there are many David psalms which are highly autobiographical (as well as typological). So it's unworkable to say David changed the person of the speaker to be a Levite chorister rather than himself. 

12. He says:

Messiah's sitting to the right [of God] is like Abraham's sitting to the left, both being real men (36).

i) The Incarnation doesn't deny the true humanity of the messiah.

ii) The imagery is anthropomorphic. Jesus doesn't literally side alongside the Father. 

13. He says:

Fray Pul asked me in Gerona if I believe in the trinity. I asked him, "What is the trinity? [Does it mean] that God is [composed of] three coarse bodies like [the bodies] of men? He answered, "No." [I asked], "are they three ethereal substances like souls or three angels?" He said "No." [I inquired further], "is it one thing composed of three [elements] as [physical] bodies consistent of the four elements?" He said "No." If so [I challenged him], "what is the trinity?" He answered, [It is] the wisdom, will, and power…However, the expression trinity is a fundamental error…He and His Wisdom are One, He and His will are One, He and his Power are One.

Should we mistakenly [count the Divine Wisdom, Will, and Power as three separate entities], then perforce we should be [properly] speaking of a unit of four [components, for the Being who is God and His Wisdom, Will, and Power should [all] be counted, which make four. Moreover, you should be speaking of five, for he is living, and life in Him is (as essential) as wisdom, and He would be them defined as living, wise, willing, powerful, and the essence of Godliness, [all of]which are five! However, all this is a clear mistake." (42-43). 

Nachmanides handily wins that exchange. But that's because his opponent used a flawed model. The Trinity isn't reducible to three divine attributes. 

14. He says:

Fray Pul then arose and declared that he believes in the real unity and that nevertheless they are three. [He said] further that it is a very profound matter which [even] the angels and ministers on high do not understand.

I arose and said, "It is clear that man does not believe what he does not know. If so, the angels [too] cannot believe in the trinity (42). 

We can have a positive concept of something that's still mysterious to some degree. For instance, that's often true in physics and mathematics.