Did God Pull a Fast One on the Jews?

[chosen_people]

BTW, there is one other piece of history that we must include in the discussion. Jesus “just happened” to arrive right before the Jews made war on the Romans and lost Jerusalem and the temple. Thereafter, it became impossible for the Jews to keep the Law. No priests, no animal sacrifices, etc. Jesus and Christianity did not cause this to happen but the historical coincidence is hard to ignore.

Judaism was at a historical dead end anyway.

The law did not just concern temple rituals. Actually the great flourishing and development of the law was yet to come (see Talmud, Shulkan Aruch etc.) Jewish history was hardly and is hardly at a dead end.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The law did not just concern temple rituals. Actually the great flourishing and development of the law was yet to come (see Talmud, Shulkan Aruch etc.) Jewish history was hardly and is hardly at a dead end.

While it’s true that there is more to the Torah than Temple, the Temple (and Tabernacle) was central to the Torah and to Jewish life before the destruction.

But you hit on exactly my point: The destruction of the Temple forced Jews to innovate. I would agree that Judaism has flourished without the Temple but the fact remains that this flourishing is a deviation from the Law.

If Jews were truly concerned with the Law, they would rebuild the Temple on the Temple Mount and resume animal sacrifices. But the don’t, and not just for political reasons. Modern Jews would be horified at the thought of seeking forgiveness from God through animal sacrifices, which is what the Law demands.

So innovating away from the old view of the Law was a historical necessity. Jesus led the Christians to do this one way, Jews who did not follow Jesus did it another way (centering on the study of the Torah and the development of the Talmud).

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Jesus had predicted it beforehand and warned the Jews of the consequenses of harming him…So, the Jews of Judea were themselves in a hurry to get wrath of God Allah on them; destruction of Jerusalem.

My favorite is Luke 21:5-38 which says, in part, “the days will come when there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.”

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

There was of course no need for Jews to “change”…

Of course, after the destruction of the Temple, there was.

Having established their narrative concerning Yehoshua Bar Yosef Christians searched through the Tanach attempting to interpret
certain passages as supporting their narrative while at the same time rejecting as irrelevant the Tanach’s very essence.

This is almost certainly true.

Now it must be pointed out, however, that new facts often shed light on prior information. One could well imagine, for example, people in the time of Moses rethinking God’s relationship with Abraham in light of the Law that was given to Moses.

The essential question is: is the Christian interpretation reasonable in light of Jesus, as Chrisitians claim, or is it a rationalization, as Jews claim (or perhaps something between).

The stories of groups of Rabbi’s gathering together to change words in the Tanach to undermine Christianity is a specious conceit. It presumes that the Rabbi’s or any Jew for that matter were concerned with the interpretation of the Tanach by non Jews and that they themselves believed the interpretation of the non Jews to be the correct interpretation and that this could be somehow rectified by changing the text.

Interestingly, this is one of the first points that David concedes to Chrisitians in Why the Jews Rejected Jesus.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Many of the Jews in Jesus’ time were expecting someone like Solomon: a powerful ruler, mighty military leader, who would destroy the Roman Empire and restore the Kingdom of Israel just as it had been united under David.

Yes, exactly!

The question is this: were they unreasonable in this expectation? David argues not. There were certain, clear tests that Jesus failed to fulfill.

Now, something recently I found - recorded in a historical document, the likes of which I am having trouble finding again (I found it in the Fathers section on newadvent.org) - was an argument between two disciples of Jesus. One of them noted - and the other agreed - that the Jews had actually changed the interpretation of the Scriptures after Jesus’ Ascension so the Scriptures wouldn’t point to Him anymore. I don’t know if this charge is true or not, but if it is, it would make sense, historically, since a few other Church Fathers also noted that the Jews had changed the interpretation of the Scriptures. I don’t think they mean the Jews rewrote the Scriptures, just that they did to the Torah what Protestants have done to the Bible: reinterpretation.

Yes, this happened primarily at the Council of Jamnia in the late 1st century when the Hebrew Bible canon was decided upon.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I’m currently reading Rome and Jerusalem and on pages 185-195 (in the paperback edition) describes the variety of expectations that Jews in 1C AD had of the Messiah. So it was not so simple as Jesus did or did not fulfill the Jewish expectations as there was no concensus of expectations.

 

[KingAlfred]

“Did God Pull a Fast One on the Jews?”

The Jews were initially ‘chosen’. In that status, they did many great things. Then they were overtaken by money-worshipping leaders, who led them down the wrong path. God sent Jesus to steer them straight. While the common people loved and followed Him faithfully, the corrupt, elitist class had Him killed. Instantly, the Jews lost their chosen status, and began to undergo an endless torture-test that continues today.

 

[Valke2]

I read David Klinghoffer’s Why the Jews Rejected Jesus. It is such a fair treatment of Jesus and Christianity that I often refer my Jewish friends to it. Unlike other authors (e.g. Hyam Maccoby, The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity), David demolishes many Jewish myths about Jesus often drawing on Jewish texts to do so.

I also read the book and would recommend it to my Jewish friends.

But David also make a very strong case that the Jews were quite reasonable in their skepticism of Jesus.

He certainly does.

To me, it is clear that we were right to reject Jesus for many of the reasons set forth in Klinghoffer’s book. No surprise there. In some ways Christianity would make more sense to me if it had completely divorced itself from the TOrah and relied on the Gospels and other christian texts.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I also read the book and would recommend it to my Jewish friends.

I am hoping for a Christian response to Klinghoffer’s book, I think it deserves one. In the mean time, I would recommend two books to you:

The Gospel According to Moses, and
Rome and Jerusalem (referenced above).

To me, it is clear that we were right to reject Jesus for many of the reasons set forth in Klinghoffer’s book. No surprise there.

I can certainly appreciate that you think the Jews were right. I happen to think that they were wrong. But the distinction I want to draw here is between being right and being reasonable. I would argue that the Jews were reasonably mistaken.

In some ways Christianity would make more sense to me if it had completely divorced itself from the TOrah and relied on the Gospels and other christian texts.

Keep in mind, of course, that Christianity was founded by Jews. Also, it’s not as if the Hebrew Bible is internally consistent. There is a definite trend throughout of increasing understanding of God. And this trend carries through to modern Judaism. My impression is that modern Judaism has taken many lessons from Christianity, e.g. in its shift of focus from the Temple worship to love of neighbor. (If Jews were serious about keeping the Torah, they would have rebuilt the Temple long ago.)

I would be curious to get your thought on posts 16 and 23 in this thread.

 

[leopolis1]

Read this: Roy Schoeman, Salvation is from the Jews.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Read this: Roy Schoeman, Salvation is from the Jews.

Thanks:

salvationisfromthejews.com/

amazon.com/Salvation-Jews-Role-Judaism-History/dp/089870975X

I wish the website described more but I’ll get the book.

 

[paarsurrey]

Originally Posted by paarsurrey:
Jesus had predicted it beforehand and warned the Jews of the consequenses of harming him…So, the Jews of Judea were themselves in a hurry to get wrath of God Allah on them; destruction of Jerusalem.

My favorite is Luke 21:5-38 which says, in part, “the days will come when there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.”

Hi

To me more relevant is :**Matthew 23:35 **That upon you may come all the just blood that hath been shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel the just, even unto the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom you killed between the temple and the altar.

I love Jesus and Mary as I do love Buddha and Krishna.

Thanks

 

[Valke2]

Hi

To me more relevant is :**Matthew 23:35 **That upon you may come all the just blood that hath been shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel the just, even unto the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom you killed between the temple and the altar.

I love Jesus and Mary as I do love Buddha and Krishna.

Thanks

More relevant to what?

 

[Valke2]

Many of the Jews in Jesus’ time were expecting someone like Solomon: a powerful ruler, mighty military leader, who would destroy the Roman Empire and restore the Kingdom of Israel just as it had been united under David. What some Jews forgot, though, was that King David was a shepherd before he became king. This is what Jesus was. He even called Himself the Good Shephard.

I thought he was a carpenter.

No offense meant, and if any Jews have evidence to the contrary, feel free to present it so the charge can be proven false.

We’ve been interpeting the Torah and other scripture for a couple thousand years and we continue to do so today.

To take a scholarly view, rather than a theological view, of this issue, it seems more likely that writers and commentators of the NT would reinterpet the Jewish scriptures to support the theology of Jesus; than Jews reinterpeting their scripture to make Jesus irrelevant. Especially as what we are dealing with here is the interpetation of the prophets.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

To take a scholarly view, rather than a theological view, of this issue, it seems more likely that writers and commentators of the NT would reinterpet the Jewish scriptures to support the theology of Jesus; than Jews reinterpeting their scripture to make Jesus irrelevant. Especially as what we are dealing with here is the interpetation of the prophets.

What I have come to realize from reading Rome and Jerusalem is that, with respect to messiah expectations, there as no standard Jewish interpretation in 1C AD. Rather, there was a variety of interpretations. To state it simply, those who interpreted the prophets as prophesizing a national savior very logically rejected Jesus because he was clearly not such. On the other hand, those who were expecting a suffering servant (e.g. John the Baptist and his followers) were quite ready to follow Jesus even if they were not sure where he was leading.

Essentially, Judaism experienced a schism over Jesus with the nays remaining faithful to the old covenant and the yays (eventually) calling themselves Christians and moving away from the Jewish community mostly in the process of incorporating gentiles.

One way to look at Jesus is to ask the question: Did Jesus reveal something new about God? Christians answer “yes”, Jews answer “no”. If the answer is “yes” then reinterpretation of the OT makes sense. If the answer is “no” then it does not. Saying that Jesus could not be the messiah because he did not conform to previous expectations is a prejudicial position too take akin to saying that Moses could not have been legitimate because what he revealed about God did not conform to Abraham’s understanding.

I am pretty satisfied that this answers my original question.

Therefore, while I think it is very fair to say that the NT read and interpreted the prophecies to fit them to Jesus but it is innacurate to say that this was something that Christians invented post hoc.

The Hebrew Bible canon was certainly influenced by the desire not to provide Christians with support for their interpretation, which Klinghoffer does concede, but these are relatively minor and obscure the bigger point above. It was an effect, rather than a cause, of Jewish rejection of Jesus.

 

[chosen_people]

Yes, exactly!

The question is this: were they unreasonable in this expectation? David argues not. There were certain, clear tests that Jesus failed to fulfill.

Yes, this happened primarily at the Council of Jamnia in the late 1st century when the Hebrew Bible canon was decided upon.

Modern scholarship dismisses the notion of a conference at Yavneh in 90 c.e. in which a definitive decision was made as to the codification of the Tanach. As to the claims that at this same conference changes in texts or interpretations were made in the Tanach due to Christianity, this presumes that Jews in someway cared about Christian beliefs or were somehow threatened by them. Since Judaism cannot accept the notion of rejection of the Torah or a human as God no interpretation had to be changed nor any text. Presumably Christianity also doesn’t feel called upon to make changes in their scriptures based on the basis of other religions. Furthermore, it should be understood that at this time Christianity was a small group who unlike the Jews did not enjoy the privi lege of not participating in state religious services and were being fed by the Romans to the lions. It will be more than two centuries before Christianity will gain its position of strength and the emperor will convert.

Concerning your statements about changes in Judaism due to the destruction of the Temple, the trauma was great but the religious changes were actually quite less then those indicated in your post. Already at this time a wide Jewish diaspora existed throughout the Roman Empire (Jews making up some ten per cent of the Empire’s population). The necessary infrastructure of carrying out religious services in the synagogue as opposed around the Temple were well established as was the basis for Rabbinical Judaism. As I pointed out previously, one can hardly equate Torah with those particular laws dealing with Temple worship.

The rejection by Christianity of the Torah was a necessity due to the quest for universality by Christianity and the level of the general population of the time. The Jews covenant with God is two fold, first the ability to be able conceive of a singular omnipresent God not only as an entity separate from humanity but without the crutch of needing to be aided by giving God a tangible form. The second part of the covenant is Torah where Law is not only given Devine status but religion now deals not only with man’s relationship to God but man’s relationship to man.

Torah had to be taught from father to son, Judaism’s followers not only had to be able to conceive of God in abstract intangible form they had to be able to understand legal nuances as to why in one case they would be exempt from responsibility if the ox in their care gored a neighbour but in other cases they would be liable. Judaism was and is an intellectual religion. It required universal male literacy to pass on Torah from generation to generation and two thousand years ago Jews were almost alone in this ability.

Since the general population was not literate and since Christianity sought to be universal to all people without regard to an adherents educational or intellectual abilities it by necessity had to reject Torah. It had to become a dogmatic religion as opposed to an intellectual one where distinct clear rules of faith could be learned by rote and with an hierarchy to decide these rules. What remained of Torah in Christianity is merely a set of basic Jewish ethics such as love thy neighbour as thyself ( these ethics are referred to by Christians as Judeo-Christian ethics).

The real growth of Christianity and its achievement of universality came about with its willingness to gradually reject the other side of the covenant, from a singular intangible God the figure of Yehoshua Bar Yosef became a variation of the classic pagan story (Mithra, Hercules etc.) of the Divine father and human mother whose child comes down to earth, has a special birth with special signs(non of the stories ever describe childhood), performs wondrous acts, gives his life for mankind’s salvation and is resurrected back to his father.

In short, God did not pull a fast one on the Jews. Christianity claims a new covenant in place of the old. However, this new covenant is the antithesis of the Jewish covenant. One does not lead to the other. One may only claim, with its ramifications, that either there never was a covenant between the Jews and God or that such a covenant is still in existence. That God would make a covenant with the Jews that would require them to reject that very covenant and accept its antithesis is something that is beyond my ken to grasp.

 

[Roamin_Xian]

That is certainly the conventional wisdom among non-Jews but David makes a strong argument that the Jews were following the Law in their actions. They saw what they believed to be a false prophet and did what they are supposed to do to such. And Jews, today, like David, do not think they made a mistake.

Jesus didn’t fulfill the Jewish expectations of the Messiah.

Well, David Klinghoffer makes a valid point- they really were following the Law. The Messiah was supposed to vindicate and strengthen the Jews in their following the commandments, not to revoke the laws.

 

[Robbinson]

Since Judaism cannot accept the notion of rejection of the Torah or a human as God no interpretation had to be changed nor any text. .

Chosen People - while a human can not become God, certainly it is within God’s power to become incanate in man? I assume you believe in the soverignty of God and his omnipetence?

In terms of Jewish thinking on this, the Hebrew scriptures themselves include examples of God appearing in the form of man. One which comes to mind is Abraham’s journey to Soddom & Gomorrah when the Lord appeared in the form of a man (expressly distinguished from the angels who also appeared in the form of a man).

There are also referernce in the psalms referring to the Messiah as “mighty God” and references to the resurrection of the messiah in Isaiah 53 (now, ironically, referred to often by Lubbevuch jews in support of the hoped for resurrection of their rebbe they believe is the Messiah).

In terms of Jewish expectation of the Messiah - that is a broad topic - but there is much talmudic support around the expectation that the Messiah would be each of a suffering servant, conquering king and priest - Isaiah 53 has a pretty well developed (abeit admittedly not exclusive) messianic interpretative history among rabbis of old. It is also strikingly similar to the description of the treatment of the “righteous man” claiming to be the son of God in the book of the Wisdom of Solomon - written by Jews hundreds of years before Christ, included in the Septuigent, but omitted from the cannon established by the rabbis (after the destruction of the sanhedren) about 100 years after the birth of Christ.

Blessings,

Brian

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Modern scholarship dismisses the notion of a conference at Yavneh in 90 c.e. in which a definitive decision was made as to the codification of the Tanach.

c
Nobody really knows exactly when the Hebrew Bible was canonized but this is the traditional presumption. But the point is that it was done after the split with Christianity.

As to the claims that at this same conference changes in texts or interpretations were made in the Tanach due to Christianity, this presumes that Jews in someway cared about Christian beliefs or were somehow threatened by them.

They were concerned enough to drive Christians out of the synagogues as Klinghoffer described.

Since Judaism cannot accept the notion of rejection of the Torah or a human as God no interpretation had to be changed nor any text.

This presuposes that new knowledge entails rejection of the Torah. That is now how Christians view it then (or now).

Presumably Christianity also doesn’t feel called upon to make changes in their scriptures based on the basis of other religions.

Actualy, this is essentially what happened with Protestantism.

Concerning your statements about changes in Judaism due to the destruction of the Temple, the trauma was great but the religious changes were actually quite less then those indicated in your post. Already at this time a wide Jewish diaspora existed throughout the Roman Empire (Jews making up some ten per cent of the Empire’s population). The necessary infrastructure of carrying out religious services in the synagogue as opposed around the Temple were well established as was the basis for Rabbinical Judaism.

You are discounting the extent to which diaspora Jewish culture revolved around the Temple. There were three visits to the Temple per year for the observant and the presumption otherwise the sacrifices, which are required by Jewish Law, were being conducted.

Even after the destruction, it was presupposed by Jews that the Temple would be rebuilt (and this was in fact attempted once). Fast forward to today and Jews are entirely uninterested in rebuildinig the Temple and resuming animal sacrifices. Something dramatic changed in Judaism between those points in time.

As I pointed out previously, one can hardly equate Torah with those particular laws dealing with Temple worship.

The Torah requires sacrifices. It is that simple. Anything else is quite clearly a post-destruction reinterpretation of Torah (i.e. a “rejection” of Torah).

The rejection by Christianity of the Torah was a necessity due to the quest for universality by Christianity and the level of the general population of the time. The Jews covenant with God is two fold, first the ability to be able conceive of a singular omnipresent God not only as an entity separate from humanity but without the crutch of needing to be aided by giving God a tangible form. The second part of the covenant is Torah where Law is not only given Devine status but religion now deals not only with man’s relationship to God but man’s relationship to man.

This is mostly true, Peter and Paul were motivated to reexamine the dietary requirements, for example, in their outreach to gentiles. They understood Jesus as placing emphasis upon inter-human relations but also a new covenant with God that did not require temple sacrifice. Again, what is striking to me here is the coincidence of this change with the destruction of the Temple and the Jewish rejection of Temple sacrifice.

That God would make a covenant with the Jews that would require them to reject that very covenant and accept its antithesis is something that is beyond my ken to grasp.

Again, it is no anthithesis and there is very little that Chritians rejected that Jews were not forced eventually to reject as well due to history.

In any case, it is not the (current) Catholic position that the new Covenant replaces the old. Catholics hold that Jews still have their own covenant with God but that, through Christians, everyone else has a different covenant.

 

[chosen_people]

Chosen People - while a human can not become God, certainly it is within God’s power to become incarnate in man? I assume you believe in the sovereignty of God and his omnipotence?

In terms of Jewish thinking on this, the Hebrew scriptures themselves include examples of God appearing in the form of man. One which comes to mind is Abraham’s journey to Sodom & Gomorrah when the Lord appeared in the form of a man (expressly distinguished from the angels who also appeared in the form of a man).

There are also reference in the psalms referring to the Messiah as “mighty God” and references to the resurrection of the messiah in Isaiah 53 (now, ironically, referred to often by Lubbovitch Jews in support of the hoped for resurrection of their Rebe they believe is the Messiah).

In terms of Jewish expectation of the Messiah - that is a broad topic - but there is much Talmudic support around the expectation that the Messiah would be each of a suffering servant, conquering king and priest - Isaiah 53 has a pretty well developed (abeit admittedly not exclusive) messianic interpretative history among rabbis of old. It is also strikingly similar to the description of the treatment of the “righteous man” claiming to be the son of God in the book of the Wisdom of Solomon - written by Jews hundreds of years before Christ, included in the Septuagint, but omitted from the cannon established by the rabbis (after the destruction of the Sanhedrin) about 100 years after the birth of Christ.

Blessings,

Brian

By your logic God the Eternal could also bring Himself to not exist since He is all powerful. The place of human beings and the place of God and their relationship between them is defined by your religious beliefs and were you Jewish you could never join the two entities as one. No Jew believes that Jacob struggled with God but with an angel. Even the most fervent admirers of the Late Lubbovitch Rabbi do not believe that he was God. Judaism has also been careful to paint their human leaders as humans with all their faults. Not only is Moses not God but he is painted disobeying God and being punished by God. Even his place of burial is deliberately left unknown in the Torah. Another example is the life of King David. Again, during the entire existence of Judaism, from Egypt, Persia, Greece the basic story of Yehoshua Bar Yosef was repeated time after time with different names (perhaps this could be argued in its favour). Judaism which experienced these cultures rejected these beliefs and there is no logical reason for the Jews to accept it even it referred to a fellow Jew. No Jew would interpret the Tanach as supporting the possibility for such an occurrence. Messiah yes, Messiah as god incarnate, no.