Jesus is not the messiah...

[Guest]

I believe the biggest issue to address whether the Jew is observant or not is the question of who the Messiah is. We Christians have come to this conclusion that Jesus is the Messiah and we do so not on faith alone, although in the end we conclude because of faith, but also because of the historical evidence afforded us by means of both the Prophets of the old covenant and by the secular evidence of the existance and performance of this man Jesus. To us it is a fact without a doubt that Jesus is the Christ (Annointed One). Furthermore, it is an indisputable fact (relative to Christian thinking) that Jesus was born and lived during the 1st century of our calendar. We also know that there were eye-witnesses to the fact and that He has been written of in great detail concerning His life. He made claims that would either put Him as the greatest liar of all time or proves who He says He is. It is said that He was simply a good person but a good person cannot be good and a deceiver at the same time.

We Christians acknowledge that the Prophets spoke of the Man Jesus but Jews, I believe, say the Messiah has not yet come. The Jewish brother would find it increasingly difficult as time passes to find the one who could possibly fit the description based on prophecy any better then the man Jesus as Messiah.

I would be interested, Emmet, in your own take on the subject of Messiah. What one person could this possibly be? How will he be revealed and where does he come from? What will make this person be more acceptable than any other false Christ who has come along and How will His appearance truly change the hearts of your brethern who as of today do not want anything to do with orthodox judiasm?

[Guest]

Hello, Allyn,

Thank you for your posting.

I would question your stance that "the biggest issue to address whether the Jew is observant or not is the question of who the Messiah is." This seems difficult to verify, seeing as the Torah does not articulate the later dogma of "the Messiah."

I would not dispute the existence of the historical Jesus. I would, however, dispute the position that all of the canonical texts about Jesus are historically objective or entirely accurate. As such, the classic argument that Jesus must be "mad, bad, or God" is a false trichotomy. Jesus may in fact be mad, bad, God, or misrepresented. I would lean toward the last option, though I would imagine that Jesus has not been entirely misrepresented in the New Testament.

Beyond this, you have mentioned the prophets and secular evidence for Jesus as the Messiah. I would be willing to discuss any of these pieces of evidence, if you like, but I am not aware of any evidences from these quarters that prove Jesus is who/what mainstream Christianity claims for him.

Your direct question to me involved my understanding of the Anointed One. It is my perspective that the concept of Messiahship has become unduly overblown in both Jewish and Christian circles. In the most basic sense, there have been (and, I hope, are and will be again) many Messiahs -- because there have been many duly anointed persons. According to the biblical tradition, some have been kings (e.g., Saul [I Samuel 10:1], David [I Samuel 16:13], and Hazael king of Syria [I Kings 19:15]); some have been priests (Exodus 40:13-16; cf. I Chronicles 29:22); at least one has been a prophet (I Kings 19:16). As such, I have little problem with understanding the historical Jesus as an anointed one, i.e., a person legitimately anointed to a divine role and purpose. If the historical Jesus claimed to be a Messiah, I have little objection to that; he could well have been right, or he could have been innocently mistaken about his calling. But I would have grave difficulties with understanding a Jesus who claimed to be God as duly anointed.

In conclusion, then, I do not look to one person as Messiah per se. Because I am not the anointer (as far as I know!), I could only speculate as to how an anointed one will be revealed, and how he or she will turn the hearts of Jewish people -- not to "Orthodox" Judaism, but to God and his ways.

Thank you again for your posting.

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Thanks in return Emmet. As I posted, it is a matter of faith. We believe it to be the same faith father Abraham could have boasted of in that he too looked forward to the holy One of God. Its not something easily explained and it is even harder to accept. I suppose this is the reason not many come to know saving faith in Christ Jesus.

I hope for you the best, Emmet, and pray the years will be kind to you as you go through your adventure in faith. May God allow us all to see clearly.

Blessings
Allyn

[Guest]

On your first point, I would disagree that the problem of sin and separation was otherwise unsolvable except through intermediacy. I believe that God has demonstrated his ability and willingness to deal with human beings directly, despite their sinfulness. Few would argue that the prophets were sinless, but according to the text, God was able to deal with them (cf. Isaiah 6:5-7). On the other hand, I am doubtful that even the most stellar intermediary could viably represent human beings in a way that was contrary to their actual being. God knows what each of us are in our hearts, and even the most heroic attempts of an intermediary to represent us differently will not convince him otherwise.

Hi Emmet, I appreciate your responses as i'm sure you may feel outnumbered here. A couple of major differences between Judaism and Christianity are how they view sin and whether someone else can atone for our sins. As you pointed out God does deal with sinful people and in fact in Job He apparently dealt with Satan but that does'nt mean He has intimacy with them. When Christ dealt with Paul on the road to Damascus he later referred to himself as "the chief of sinners" yet God dealt with him. But i believe the OT teaches that sin does separate us from God like in Isaiah it says "God hides his face from sin" and in Isaiah 59 and many other places God goes on and on about sin. He allowed judgement to fall on Israel several times because of sin and He even did something abhorrant to Him which was to divorce Israel as in Jeremiah 3.8 "and i saw
that despite the fact that i divorced wayward Israel because of her adultery and gave her bill of divorce."
God hates divorce yet sin caused Him to divorce Israel even though He knows what is in our hearts, it does separate us from Him IMO.

In Isaiah 59.20 from Stones Tanach we can see that God did see the need for an intercessor "A redeemer will come to Zion and to those of Jacob who REPENT from willful sin."

[Guest]

Hello, Steve,

Thanks once more for your posting!

I would not quibble with the fact that sin can lead to alienation between God and people. I do believe, however, that God views sin in the context of people's overarching and evolving relationship with himself and with his creation. As such, he can be patient with people's imperfect condition, and he himself can relate to sinning people as part of his saving activity, without the need for an intermediating person.

I have not found the reference for God hiding his face from sin; rather, I have found numerous references to God hiding his face from people because of their sin. This indicates, I think, a relational crisis, but in the passages I have found no reference to an intercessor who resolves the crisis. Rather, it is God himself who relents and has mercy after withdrawal and chastisement (e.g., Isaiah 54:6-8, 59:2 & 15-21; Ezekiel 39:23-29).

In your citation from Isaiah 59:20, it is clear from the context that the redeemer has come to bring liberating justice to those who are in peril when turning from their evil. Furthermore, verse 16 makes it clear that there is no intercessor, so God has to burst into action himself. This, combined with the fact that the "redeemer" in Isaiah is always a referent to God himself, leads to the realization that there is no intercession taking place in Isaiah 59.

Thanks once again,
Emmet

[Guest]

In your citation from Isaiah 59:20, it is clear from the context that the redeemer has come to bring liberating justice to those who are in peril when turning from their evil. Furthermore, verse 16 makes it clear that there is no intercessor, so God has to burst into action himself. This, combined with the fact that the "redeemer" in Isaiah is always a referent to God himself, leads to the realization that there is no intercession taking place in Isaiah 59.


Hi Emmet, "A redemmer will come to Zion" i don't think can be Father God for several reasons. The first is like i mentioned before God gave Israel a bill of divorce in Jeremiah 3.8 indicating His intent as oppossed to the redeemer. "Will come" indicates the redeemer will come in the future wheras God has always been with Zion. In the Tanach redeemer is used with a lower case letter wheras if it were God himself i think redeemer would be capitalized. And in Isaiah 59.21 God says "And as for Me" again differntiating Himself from the redeemer and even the word Me is capitalized wheras redeemer is not.

OK i agree that God hides Himself from people because of their sin "rather your inequities have separated between you and your God and your transgressions have caused Him to hide His countanence from you ,from hearing you" Isaiah 59.2.
Yes i agree there was no intercessor previously and the result was that God divorced Israel something He hates to do despite the fact He can read their hearts.
Re whether sacrifices can be done without the temple, i know many hassidec jews and some very zealous but they look forward to Messiah coming and rebuilding the temple and then the restoration of animal sacrifices at the temple.

[Guest]

Hello, Steve,

Thank you for your ongoing conversation!

I would argue against your interpretation of Isaiah 59 for a number of reasons.

1) In Jeremiah 3:8, when the bill of divorce is given to Israel, this is clearly referring to the northern kingdom of Israel, and not to the southern kingdom of Judah. Therefore, this divorce does not indicate the intent of God in opposition to the redeemer of southern Zion in Isaiah 59. Furthermore, in Jeremiah 3 itself, God proclaims his mercy toward Israel and calls her to return in repentance -- and there is no mention of an intercessor.

2) In Isaiah 59:20, "will come" may be an allusion to the separation mentioned in 59:2. Though there has been alienation between the southerners and God, he will return to their midst as an agent of justice and a defender of repentance. This imagery does not require there having been an absolute withdrawal of God from Zion; we may imagine that to some extent he remained present with his faithful remnant at all times. In any case, the poetic imagery simply reinforces the arrival of God's presence and activity in a differentiated way.

3) As for the capitalization of "redeemer" or of "me," this is neither here nor there. There is no capitalization in the Hebrew text, and any introduction of honorific capitalization in English is solely at the discretion of the modern editor. It proves nothing about the actual text itself.

4) Although I can understand your decision in construing "As for me" as a mark of differentiation, broader acquaintance with the Hebrew bible leads to the observation that abrupt transitions appear in places that seem peculiar to modern English stylistic conventions. Hebrew style of the period is different from our own, and over time one becomes accustomed to its own rhythms and modes of communication. In this case, the interjection "As for me" is probably a marker of emphasis for the sake of the covenantal statement God is about to make. To the extent that there is differentiation, it is to emphasize the two parties to the covenantal contract: God; and the repentant ones of Jacob. Genesis 17:1-4 offers a good parallel to this; in fact, the form is deeply evocative of Genesis 17 (perhaps consciously so), as we have the same sense of generational covenant and "seed" diction.

5) It is highly important to read 59:20 in light of the broader diction of the book of Isaiah. Over and over again, Isaiah refers to the redeemer, and consistently this redeemer is God. The preferential option in 59:20, therefore, is to construe redeemer in the same pattern.


On your last point: I do not claim a mainstream opinion on the reestablishment of the sanctuary. Most who look forward to the rebuilding of a Temple probably do look to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. But I do not see this as necessary, no even the construction of a temple as necessary. The tabernacle sufficed, and it can do so again. In fact, given a nation with diaspora, the tabernacle may be a preferred, mobile option, whereby the place where God has established his name can draw nearer to all of his people. But I am thinking outside the traditional box, here.

[Guest]

Hello, Steve,

Thank you for continuing in conversation!

I would argue against your interpretation of Isaiah 59 for a number of reasons.

1) In Jeremiah 3:8, when the bill of divorce is given to Israel, this is clearly referring to the northern kingdom of Israel, and not to the southern kingdom of Judah. Therefore, this divorce does not indicate the intent of God in opposition to the redeemer of southern Zion in Isaiah 59. Furthermore, in Jeremiah 3 itself, God proclaims his mercy toward Israel and calls her to return in repentance -- and there is no mention of an intercessor.

2) In Isaiah 59:20, "will come" may be an allusion to the separation mentioned in 59:2. Though there has been alienation between the southerners and God, he will return to their midst as an agent of justice and a defender of repentance. This imagery does not require there having been an absolute withdrawal of God from Zion; we may imagine that to some extent he remained present with his faithful remnant at all times. In any case, the poetic imagery simply reinforces the arrival of God's presence and activity in a differentiated way.

3) As for the capitalization of "redeemer" or of "me," this is neither here nor there. There is no capitalization in the Hebrew text, and any introduction of honorific capitalization in English is solely at the discretion of the modern editor. It proves nothing about the actual text itself.

4) Although I can understand your decision in construing "As for me" as a mark of differentiation, broader acquaintance with the Hebrew bible leads to the observation that abrupt transitions appear in places that seem peculiar to modern English stylistic conventions. Hebrew style of the period is different from our own, and over time one becomes accustomed to its own rhythms and modes of communication. In this case, the interjection "As for me" is probably a marker of emphasis for the sake of the covenantal statement God is about to make. To the extent that there is differentiation, it is to emphasize the two parties to the covenantal contract: God; and the repentant ones of Jacob. Genesis 17:1-4 offers a good parallel to this; in fact, the form is deeply evocative of Genesis 17 (perhaps consciously so), as we have the same sense of generational covenant and "seed" diction.

5) It is highly important to read 59:20 in light of the broader diction of the book of Isaiah. Over and over again, Isaiah refers to the redeemer, and consistently this redeemer is God. The preferential option in 59:20, therefore, is to construe redeemer in the same pattern.


On your last point: I do not claim a mainstream opinion on the reestablishment of the sanctuary. Most who look forward to the rebuilding of a Temple probably do look to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. But I do not see this as necessary, nor even the construction of a temple as necessary. The tabernacle sufficed, and it can do so again. In fact, given a nation with diaspora, the tabernacle may be a preferred, mobile option, whereby the place where God has established his name can draw nearer to all of his people. But I am thinking outside the traditional box, here.

Thank you once more for your posting!

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hi Emmet, I have a question and it may be off subject but it is related, though, in many ways. I do not ask this of you to try to trip you up but in all sincereity I ask since it is an historical event. I have often wondered what the reaction would be if this same event could happen today. As you may know a passage found in Lk 23:45 and Mat 27:51 describes the fact that upon the death of Christ Jesus on the cross the curtain in front of the Holy of holies was torn from top to bottom revealing the area inside the Holy of holies. This is not only recorded as ocurring in the two Scripture references but has also been noted by a couple of historians of the day. My question to you is what explanation can you give explaining this unusual event? Do you understand the significance of this ocurrance for the Jew of that day?

I hope you don't mind these questions and I would certainly appreciate a thoughtful answer.

Blessings,
Allyn

[Guest]

Hello, Allyn,

Thank you for your posting.

Looking at the evidence for the event you are describing, I think you can add Mark 15:38 to your list. I am unaware of contemporary historians who mention the event (without simply referencing the gospels). As a scholar of the period, I would be glad for the sources if you have them.

To begin with, I would not necessarily assume the historicity of this event, any more than a Christian would be inclined to accept accounts in the Quran as necessarily historical. Incidentally, it is interesting to note that Jerome writes "In the gospel that is written in the Hebrew alphabet we read not that the curtain of the temple was torn, but that the lintel of the temple, which was huge, collapsed" [Epistle 120], and again "In the gospel that we have often mentioned we read that the lintel of the temple, which was immense, was fractured and broken up" [Commentary on Matthew 4].

I would not ascribe any reliability to this story of Jerome's; if such an event had taken place, it surely would have been mentioned in the canonical gospels. It is more likely a case example of theological creativity having its way with a gospel narrative. As for the canonical gospels' version, it may be historical, or theological embellishment, or legendary. But certainly, I expect that many Christians will not entertain my skepticism on this point.

I am familiar with the common Christian understanding that the tearing of the temple veil was a sign of Jesus providing access to God. For my part, I will point out that none of the three gospels bothers to explicate the meaning of the event; nor, for that matter, is the event discussed anywhere else in the Christian canon (so far as I am aware). The common understanding of the event may be viable, but it does not have any scriptural verification.

I would suggest that the tearing of the veil "from top to bottom" may be a cultural expression of grief at the death of Jesus. The tearing of one's clothes and the exposure of one's nakedness is a well-known sign of grave sorrow. Similarly, in the tearing of the veil, God may be rending his own garment, so to speak, and exposing his nakedness, i.e., his presence in the Holy of Holies. I have not found this explanation to be very appealing to Christians, however.

I expect that you have your own perspectives on this event. I would be happy to dialogue with you over points that I haven't already happened to address.

Thanks again for your posting, Allyn,
Emmet