๐ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ ๐ฅ๐ฎ๐ฏ๐ฏ๐ถ ๐ฆ๐ถ๐ป๐ด๐ฒ๐ฟโ๐ ๐ฝ๐ฎ๐๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป, ๐ฏ๐๐ ๐ ๐ด๐ผ๐๐๐ฎ ๐ฎ๐๐ธ ๐ถ๐ณ ๐๐ฟ๐๐๐ต ๐ถ๐ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐น๐น๐ ๐๐ต๐ฎ๐โ๐ ๐ฑ๐ฟ๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ต๐ถ๐ ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ด๐๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐๐.
I watched Rabbi Tovia Singerโs video, โ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ค๐ฌ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐๐ณ๐ถ๐ต๐ฉ: ๐๐ฉ๐ณ๐ช๐ด๐ต๐ช๐ข๐ฏ๐ช๐ต๐บ ๐๐ด ๐ข ๐๐ข๐จ๐ข๐ฏ ๐๐บ๐ด๐ต๐ฆ๐ณ๐บ ๐๐ฆ๐ญ๐ช๐จ๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ,โ and felt two things at once:
A) respect for his passion, and
B) Concern at how several claims, delivered with certainty, are, on inspection, factually wrong.
I am not someone that ever attacks ideological opponents personally, so there will be no attacks on Rabbi Singer here.
With that said, I don’t think his video was a particularly shining beacon of intellectual honesty.
First, the video insists that Paul says Scripture is the “only” source of doctrine (๐ฎ ๐ง๐ถ๐บ ๐ฏ:๐ญ๐ฒ).
But, let’s read the verse.
16 ๐๐ญ๐ญ ๐๐ค๐ณ๐ช๐ฑ๐ต๐ถ๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ช๐ด ๐ช๐ฏ๐ด๐ฑ๐ช๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ฃ๐บ ๐๐ฐ๐ฅ ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ง๐ช๐ค๐ช๐ข๐ญ ๐ง๐ฐ๐ณ ๐ต๐ฆ๐ข๐ค๐ฉ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ, ๐ง๐ฐ๐ณ ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฃ๐ถ๐ฌ๐ฆ, ๐ง๐ฐ๐ณ ๐ค๐ฐ๐ณ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ค๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ, ๐ง๐ฐ๐ณ ๐ต๐ณ๐ข๐ช๐ฏ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ณ๐ช๐จ๐ฉ๐ต๐ฆ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ด๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ด๐ด (๐ฎ ๐ง๐ถ๐บ ๐ฏ:๐ญ๐ฒ, ๐ก๐๐ฆ๐)
๐๐ ๐๐ฎ๐๐, โ๐๐น๐น ๐ฆ๐ฐ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ฝ๐๐๐ฟ๐ฒโ ๐ป๐ผ๐ โ๐ผ๐ป๐น๐.โ
That tiny imported word – “๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ญ๐บ” – does a lot of polemical work.
I feel that if we are committed to emet, to truth, we donโt add what the text doesnโt say.
Second, weโre told by Singer that Paul claims a private, secret revelation, that he alone knows the โmystery.โ
But again, is that what’s actually written?
No, no it’s not.
In ๐๐ฝ๐ต๐ฒ๐๐ถ๐ฎ๐ป๐ ๐ฏ:๐ฐ-๐ฑ (๐ก๐๐ฆ๐) Paul explicitly says:
4 ๐๐บ ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ง๐ฆ๐ณ๐ณ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ช๐ด, ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ฏ ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฅ ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ค๐ข๐ฏ ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด๐ต๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ฎ๐บ ๐ช๐ฏ๐ด๐ช๐จ๐ฉ๐ต ๐ช๐ฏ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฎ๐บ๐ด๐ต๐ฆ๐ณ๐บ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐๐ฉ๐ณ๐ช๐ด๐ต,
5 ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ช๐ค๐ฉ ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ฐ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ ๐จ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด ๐ธ๐ข๐ด ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ต ๐ฎ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฆ ๐ฌ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ธ๐ฏ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ฎ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฌ๐ช๐ฏ๐ฅ, ๐ข๐ด ๐ช๐ต ๐ฉ๐ข๐ด ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ธ ๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฏ ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ท๐ฆ๐ข๐ญ๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐๐ช๐ด ๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ญ๐บ ๐ข๐ฑ๐ฐ๐ด๐ต๐ญ๐ฆ๐ด ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฐ๐ฑ๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ต๐ด ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐ฑ๐ช๐ณ๐ช๐ต;
Nowhere does Paul say that “he alone knows the ‘mystery.'”
Instead, he says this mystery โhas now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets.โ
Sounds like a lot more people than just Paul to me.
In ๐ญ ๐๐ผ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ป๐๐ต๐ถ๐ฎ๐ป๐ ๐ฎ:๐ณ itโs โwe speak Godโs wisdomโฆ a mystery,โ not โI alone.โ
I think one may reject Paulโs theology; fair enough. But it is inaccurate to say he claims exclusive access to any “mystery.”
Third, typology is caricatured in the video as if Christians invented a bizarre game of hide-and-seek.
๐๐๐ ๐น๐ฎ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ถ๐ป๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ถ๐ ๐ป๐ผ๐ ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ถ๐ด๐ป ๐๐ผ ๐๐๐ฑ๐ฎ๐ถ๐๐บ!
Our own sages systematized it with the framework of PaRDeS: Peshat (plain meaning), Remez (hints), Derash (homiletic/midrash), and Sod (secret, mystical).
๐ง๐ฎ๐ธ๐ฒ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฆ๐ผ๐ป๐ด ๐ผ๐ณ ๐ฆ๐ผ๐ป๐ด๐.
On the level of Peshat, Rabbi Akivaโs contemporaries debated whether it was erotic poetry celebrating human love.
Others, like Rashi, read it on the level of Derash, insisting it was an allegory of Godโs covenantal love with Israel.
And in Kabbalistic tradition (Sod), it becomes a mystical dialogue between the Shekhinah and the Holy One, blessed be He.
Three radically different readings, yet all authentically Jewish.
๐ข๐ฟ ๐ฐ๐ผ๐ป๐๐ถ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐๐ฒ๐ป๐ฒ๐๐ถ๐ ๐ฎ๐ฎ, ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ธ๐ฒ๐ฑ๐ฎ๐ต.
On the surface (Peshat), Abraham is tested with Isaac. On Remez, commentators see a foreshadowing of Israelโs suffering in exile.
On Derash, the midrash draws out themes of substitutionary merit.
And in Sod, the Zohar views it as a cosmic drama of judgment and mercy. The same text, four interpretive lenses, countless insights.
So when Christians read Joseph as a โtypeโ of Messiah because he was rejected by his brothers and later exalted, are they outside the pale of interpretive method?
Certainly not in form.
The dispute is over content, not method.
๐๐น๐ฎ๐ ๐ผ๐๐, ๐๐ผ๐ ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ป’๐ ๐ฑ๐ถ๐๐บ๐ถ๐๐ ๐๐๐ฝ๐ผ๐น๐ผ๐ด๐ ๐ฎ๐ ๐ฎ ๐ฝ๐ฎ๐ด๐ฎ๐ป ๐ฐ๐ผ๐ป๐๐๐ฟ๐๐ฐ๐ ๐ฎ๐น๐น ๐๐ต๐ถ๐น๐ฒ ๐ต๐ผ๐น๐ฑ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ผ๐ป๐๐ผ ๐ฃ๐๐ฅ๐๐๐ฆ.
It’s simply hypocritical in the extreme.
Fourth, the claim that the New Testament has no early high Christology ignores substantial scholarship.
Larry Hurtado (on early devotion to Jesus) and Richard Bauckham (on Jesus within the โdivine identityโ) argue that first-century Christians offered to Jesus honors reserved for the God of Israel.
People can disagree on that, but you canโt wave it away as medieval accretion.
Finally, Singer frames Godโs salvation as either blatantly obvious (Isa 45:19) or cruelly hidden.
๐๐๐ ๐ต๐ฒ’๐ ๐ฐ๐ต๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฟ๐ ๐ฝ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ธ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ต๐ถ๐ ๐ฐ๐ผ๐ป๐ฐ๐น๐๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐.
The Tanakh gives us both: โ๐ ๐ฅ๐ช๐ฅ ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ต ๐ด๐ฑ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ด๐ฆ๐ค๐ณ๐ฆ๐ตโ (๐๐๐ฎ ๐ฐ๐ฑ:๐ญ๐ต) and โ๐ ๐ธ๐ช๐ญ๐ญ ๐ด๐ถ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ญ๐บ ๐ฉ๐ช๐ฅ๐ฆ ๐๐บ ๐ง๐ข๐ค๐ฆโ (๐๐ฒ๐๐ ๐ฏ๐ญ:๐ญ๐ณโ๐ญ๐ด).
Daniel blesses the God who reveals mysteries (๐๐ฎ๐ป ๐ฎ).
So who is Rabbi Singer kidding?
The answer is Jews and Christians who don’t read for themselves.
Sources:
1. Singer, Toviah. โThe Shocking Truth: Christianity Is a Pagan Mystery Religion.โ YouTube, YouTube, www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSIIYoGezrI&t=11s. Accessed 16 Sept. 2025.
2. Hurtado, Larry W. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
3. One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988.
