Jews and the Divinity of Christ

[BartholomewB]

Based upon the influence He has had in the world along with the fulfillment of the Messianic promises and descriptions of God in the OT, (for those familiar with the NT).

Yes, I was addressing the second half of that statement, not the first. My point is that it’s by no means clear that Jesus was, in fact, fulfilling OT prophecies.

As for the first half, the influence that Christ and his Church have had upon two thousand years of history, I agree with you that that impact is, in itself, a very cogent argument. But you and I seem to be in a minority these days. More and more people from a Western, Christian background are drifting away into irreligion. You and I may find it convincing, but millions upon millions of our fellow-Westerners clearly don’t.

 

[BenYosef]

I would query what seems to be the OP’s underlying assumption, namely that it ought to have been obvious to everyone in Judea that Jesus was fulfilling the OT prophecies about the Messiah.

The Catholic Church does not agree.

Christian faith recognises the fulfilment, in Christ, of the Scriptures and the hopes of Israel, but it does not understand this fulfilment as a literal one. Such a conception would be reductionist…Jesus is not confined to playing an already fixed role — that of Messiah — but he confers, on the notions of Messiah and salvation, a fullness which could not have been imagined in advance; he fills them with a new reality; one can even speak in this connection of a “new creation”. It would be wrong to consider the prophecies of the Old Testament as some kind of photographic anticipations of future events. All the texts, including those which later were read as messianic prophecies, already had an immediate import and meaning for their contemporaries before attaining a fuller meaning for future hearers. The messiahship of Jesus has a meaning that is new and original.–The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible, www.libreriaeditricevaticana.com

“it ought to have been obvious to everyone in Judea that Jesus was fulfilling the OT prophecies about the Messiah.”–The Pontifical Biblical Commission doesn’t agree with you and neither do the Jews.

The Jewish concept of the Messiah did not come from the Old Testament.

While it is true that Jews use texts from the Jewish Bible and apply it to the Messiah, the concept came not from these texts themselves but from the situation that developed after the Hasmonean dynasty had begun ruling. The Hasmoneans are the kings that ruled after the events that sparked the first historical Chanukah.

The Hasmoneans were not descendants of David and thus not a continuation of the Davidic dynasty. Eventually the Hasmonean dynasty became corrupt and itself became infiltrated with what would eventually become the foundation of the Herodian empire, the puppet-kings of the Romans.

The oppression and suffering that developed during this period of political intrigue created a yearning for the up-rise of the original Davidic dynasty. The sages of Judaism pointed to the Jewish Bible texts that spoke of how this dynasty was to continue indefinitely.

This created an expectation of a future king or “anointed” one in the line of David that would restore these promises in the Scriptures. The timing, however, was very late in Jewry, several hundred years before Christ. It was still developing during the time Jesus of Nazareth was engaged in his ministry and to some degree has yet to stop in its development today.

It should be noted that there are no Old Testament/Jewish Bible texts that mention a figure called “the Messiah.” None of the Hebrew texts state that the individual spoken of, even when the person is identified as a son of David, as the Messiah that Judaism hopes for. The reason? The concept did not exist until after the age of the prophets.

 

[BartholomewB]

Let me just make it clear, in case there has been a misunderstanding, that when I wrote those words,

“it ought to have been obvious to everyone in Judea that Jesus was fulfilling the OT prophecies about the Messiah.”

I was paraphrasing the OP as a preliminary to disagreeing with him.

 

[meltzerboy2]

This is, of course, quite fascinating. Is this why some Jews do not believe in the Messiah but only, perhaps, in a Messianic Age? And if there is little to no indication in the Hebrew Bible of a single figure of a Messiah, then what is Christianity based on? I know that Judaism is not based on a Messiah (even though it is one of the 13 principles of the religion according to Maimonides), but what about Christianity as the proposed fulfillment of Judaism?

 

[BenYosef]

I was paraphrasing the OP as a preliminary to disagreeing with him.

Understood.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Is the meaning of the Christ the equivalent to the Messiah or does it equate to Gd, or someone else?

 

[BartholomewB]

“Christos” is the Greek word meaning “anointed,” the translation of Messiah. In the Septuagint it’s the standard term, occurring sixty or seventy times, including the verse I quoted from 1 Chronicles. In Hebrew the plural form is “meshiachei”:
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_chronicles/16-22.htm

 

[BenYosef]

…but what about Christianity as the proposed fulfillment of Judaism?

That is a cherished belief of many Christians, and I am not here to debate it.

But the Catholic Church is clear that “Jesus is not confined to playing an already fixed role — that of Messiah — but he confers, on the notions of Messiah and salvation, a fullness which could not have been imagined in advance; he fills them with a new reality; one can even speak in this connection of a ‘new creation’. It would be wrong to consider the prophecies of the Old Testament as some kind of photographic anticipations of future events.”–ibid.

The implications of this should not be immediately read as if the Catholic Church is rewriting or disconnecting its ties with Judaism. On the contrary, the document is one of several in which she is strengthening them.

Perhaps it best to leave the interpretation to Christians. Even if it cannot be said to be immediate through messianic ties, Jesus Christ is still the binding factor between our two people.

In many ways, through various types and antitypes, Christians see fulfillments in themselves and between us and them. While I may not agree in the details, I do very much welcome the fellowship. The world is quite filled with antiSemitism these days. How wonderful to know that there is a grand Church of brethren with wide arms willing to call me family and, despite wanting to debate once in a while (and what family doesn’t have its debates), is today on my side.

All families have wrinkles we can iron out.

Now if you will all forgive me, I have Passover to ready for. God bless you all this Good Friday.

Happy Passover and Blessed Easter.

 

[BartholomewB]

Happy Passover and Blessed Easter.

Amen and Amen.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Yes, I have heard this before. My question is who pulled the veil: Gd, Satan, or the Jewish people itself? And for what purpose, to what end is there a veil over their hearts?

 

[Kaninchen]

I get that. But, I assume, you’ve heard of Jesus. And you’ve seen how much influence He has had all over the world. And perhaps you noticed that He came at the time the prophecied Messiah was expected. So, none of this matters to you?

No more than Mohammed or Joseph Smith means to you.

(I’m one of the more orthodox Jewish members who is going to disappear for a few days, btw.)

Yes, of course, we can do “Oh, yes it is/Oh no it isn’t” as long as anybody might like (we’ve being doing it for a couple of millennia) but nobody will convince anybody.

So, perhaps, understanding might be more interesting than mutual annoyance?

 

[Wesrock]

It is thought by Jews that Gd cannot assume human nature since doing that is contrary to Gd’s nature. Why is it contrary? One of the reasons is that assuming human nature means that Gd is capable of sin. This is why, I presume, that Christian theology must make the point that Jesus is not capable of sin.

I an not replying to challenge anything, but what you say here is an opportunity for me to elaborate on some christology (if it has not been done already).

Catholics believe that Jesus had a human soul and will in addition to believing that he was also, in his personhood, God, due to his union with the Divine Natue. On the one hand, we must admit that God cannot sin. On the other, it must be that a human being have the capacity to disobey God. This is a tricky point for some Catholics.

What we believe is that in his humanity Jesus had the capacity to disobey. However, we also believe that God in his foreknowledge assumed a human nature he knew would freely cooperate and who would freely submit his human will to the will of God in all things. Christians believe that Jesus, in the fullest possible sense for man, was truly a man after God’s own heart.

 

[Isearch]

It is thought by Jews that Gd cannot assume human nature since doing that is contrary to Gd’s nature. Why is it contrary? One of the reasons is that assuming human nature means that Gd is capable of sin. This is why, I presume, that Christian theology must make the point that Jesus is not capable of sin. (And neither is His mother, Mary, for that matter, according to Catholics, I believe.)

Disclaimer: This is my fallible understanding of the Christology espoused by the Church Fathers and the some of the first seven ecumenical councils.

Explanation: When human nature was united to Christ’s Person, it added to Him these human characteristics: to have the ability to physically and mentally suffer, to be ignorant of some things not revealed by His Divine Mind, to think in a chronological and logical sequence, to experience time chronologically, to have emotions, and to truly have bodily sensations.

As for Christ possibly sinning because of His Human Nature, I recall that this notion is part of an ancient heretical teaching known as Nestorianism. The human will in Christ was already in the same state as those wills in the angels and saints in heaven because that human will is united to a Divine Person. Hence, sinning is impossible.

Now, you might be wondering how can Christ be tempted if that’s the case. This may be explained by defining what I believe temptation truly is: a “tug” one experiences in the intellect (and, sometimes, in one’s emotions) when he or she is presented with an evil choice whose attributes are humanly enticing. Hence, Christ could be tempted, but cannot sin.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Thank you for the explanation. One point you made that perhaps you can clarify: when you say the angels…in heaven, do you mean the angels that did not disobey Gd and gravitate toward Satan? I suppose you do. However, since some angels were, according to Christian teaching, in rebellion against Gd, could they not be so again, at least potentially sin because they were once capable of doing so? And if the angels have the potential to sin, are the saints thought of as above them in their devotion to Gd? If not, might they not also have the potential to sin? (I am defining potential in a different way from temptation.)

 

[meltzerboy2]

Thank you for the clarification. I wonder how long it took the Church to work this out? Further, would it be impossible to believe in the Divinity of Jesus if one were also to believe in His potential to sin in His human nature according to Protestant teaching, as it is impossible, I take it, according to Church teaching? In other words, do some Protestants disagree with Catholicism on this point, or are they on the same page, at least in this matter?

 

[Mary888]

@meltzerboy May I ask you something? You once said in a post that one proof that Jesus was not God is that he worshipped himself. I thought a lot on what you said not wanting to tilt one way or the other. At that time I did not know what to answer, now I think of these two events:

• Jesus rips the red cloth of the altar, if he worshipped himself he wouldn’t have done it but the altar was dedicated to him and he respected being worshipped right?
• Jesus faces doubt in the garden of Ghetsenami while his Father shows him the sour cup to drink. If he worshipped himself he would be filled with self-will that I am sure everyone notices most people have whether they’d be Christians or Jews or neither category and say no, he would do the other thing than the Father’s will.
  May I know how you argue against these testimonies that show Jesus did not worship himself?

 

[Isearch]

However, since some angels were, according to Christian teaching, in rebellion against Gd, could they not be so again, at least potentially sin because they were once capable of doing so? And if the angels have the potential to sin, are the saints thought of as above them in their devotion to Gd? If not, might they not also have the potential to sin? (I am defining potential in a different way from temptation.)

Not anymore, angels after their choices are “stuck” to them. Those who chose God can’t sin anymore and those who didn’t choose Him will continue to sin for eternity. Angels who chose to be faithful were, like the saints who died, immediately rewarded with the vision of the Uncreated (one of the points of contention between the Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox is the very object of this vision: will we see God’s Essence or see some of His uncreated attributes & activities?).

This vision (the Roman Catholics call this the Beatific Vision) causes both angels and saints to unite their very persons and wills with the Divine Will without any possibility of future separation or rebellion. But this doesn’t obliterate their free will (at least not the definition of free will I personally adhere to).

Free will is an ability to choose between goods; and there are infinite goods to choose from in our Creator who is infinite when we get to heaven. Free will doesn’t have to include a choice to do evil.

 

[Wesrock]

Thank you for the clarification. I wonder how long it took the Church to work this out? Further, would it be impossible to believe in the Divinity of Jesus if one were also to believe in His potential to sin in His human nature according to Protestant teaching, as it is impossible, I take it, according to Church teaching? In other words, do some Protestants disagree with Catholicism on this point, or are they on the same page, at least in this matter?

I would of course say that certain theological truths have been known since Christ’s apostles first began spreading Christianity:

• God cannot sin
• Jesus is man
• Jesus is God
• Jesus submitted to the Father
• Man dies as a consequence of Adam and Eve’s sin
• Man can be brought to everlasting life through Jesus
• etc…

The formal articulation of Jesus’ natures/personhood in the hypostatic union and his human will in relation to God’s will follow, but were formally developed in the fifth century. First, the heterodox opinion of Nestorianism was that Jesus was two persons, human and divine. The orthodox counterpoint is that he is one person of two, unmixed natures. This then led to deeper discussion and dissent over what this meant for the economy between his humanity and divinity with some teaching monophytism (Jesus had one will: God’s will; heterodox), others miaphytism (Jesus had a divine will and human will but the human will was subsumed by the divine will like one drop in an infinite ocean; heterodox), and diophytism, which is the orthodox opinion I explained above. I could go on, but some brief questions at issue were – as difficult to grasp the union of two natures and wills is – (1) could Jesus redeem man if he did not participate in humanity? (2) how could he submit to the Father without a human will? (3) can we participate in Jesus if he were not man?

I’m rushing now, as something I was waiting on is ready. And I rambled about the point you were probably less interested in.

I’m not familiar enough with the Protestant teaching you’re referring to really respond. Do you have a source I could look into for it?

 

[Wesrock]

I’m not sure I agree 100% with Isearch’s opinion on Jesus’ will being “locked” like an angels, but I’m also fallible. I think there is something different at work in why Jesus could not have sinned. It’s not because there was no capacity in his human nature to sin, but because God cannot sin and so in his foreknowledge assumed a human nature that would freely cooperate without coercion. Our teaching on the angelic will is different than what’s going on here.

 

[Isearch]

I’m not sure I agree 100% with Isearch’s opinion on Jesus’ will being “locked” like an angels, but I’m also fallible.

ohh you could replace the angels here with the saints in heaven. Now that I think about it, angelic wills are different from human wills in their very operations. So comparing them to Christ’s human will may be an error on my part.

I would just state that Christ’s human will, since the incarnation, has been in the same state as the human wills of the saints in heaven because it is the human will of a Divine Person.