gee

Dharma;

You are exactly right! Both cannot be correct. (I think you probably know which side I'm on)

Some Jews do believe; however.
It's interesting to note that one of Israel's biggest supporters in the world today is the evangelical community in America.

gee

lee_merrill

Well, yes, that's what I'm wondering too. And also, we have a prediction of the Jewish people refusing their Messiah, in the Bible, so how is this a contradiction if this happened?

Isaiah 53:4 Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.

Isaiah 53:12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors.

Daniel 9:25-26 Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.' It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing.

And Gentiles believing, also was predicted:

Isaiah 42:6-7 I, the Lord, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles, to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness.

So here we have a fundamental confirmation, not a fundamental contradiction, it would seem...

Regards,
Lee

badger3k

Unfortunately, it is only for the Evangelicals own purposes. They believe that for the Rapture to occur, there has to be an Israel and Israeli Jerusalem. After that, according to the Rapture material I have read, the Jews will either convert to Christianity or they will be condemned to Hell with everybody else. Not exactly what I would call a real "supporter" of Israel (since their support implicitly hopes for the destruction of Israel in the end).

Skeptical

It wasn't just a disagreement in terms of whether the criteria that Jesus "fulfilled" were met, it was a fundamental disagreement on what the concept of the Messiah actually was. From what I have read, there were very specific criteria in the Jewish traditions that described the Messiah. The Christians didn't argue that Jesus met these criteria, they simply substituted a lot of new criteria and then claimed that Jesus met these new criteria.

I'm aware that there were varying traditions within Judaism regarding the Messiah, and there may even potentially have been some traditions that held ideas similar to those given by the early Christians. However, that does not mean that there was not an overwhelmingly prominent view and one that fits most closely with traditional Jewish expectations for the Jewish people and the nation of Israel as the chosen people of Yahweh. (see generally "The Sceptar and the Star" by Collins and "Bandits, Prophets and Messiahs" by Horsley)

The rejection of the most prominent criteria by the early Christians was more than just a disagreement about Jesus. It was a rejection of long held traditions within Judaism in favor of, at best, a very minority position not well supported by scripture. (hence Mat's tortured attempts to "find" Jesus in the OT)

If the Christians were wrong, then the entire Christian religion is based on false assumptions and all modern Christians are simply confused Jews following an abberated, psuedo-Judaic cult. But that's not my point.

I'll try to be more clear.

My argument is that it is a contradiction, in broad terms, to on the one hand base a religion (Christianity) on the basis of an older religion (Judaism) while at the same time rejecting one of the most important, if not the most important, traditions within the older religion, i.e. what the Messiah is to be.

Again, it is not just that there was disagreement on whether Jesus was the Messiah. In order for Jesus to be the Messiah a long-standing tradition within Judaism had to be fundamentally wrong. That the Messiah would be a warrior King in the tradition of David was not cooked up over night, it was integrated into the fabric of the Jewish expectations and history. If this concept was wrong, so much of the Jewish traditions integrated with this concept would be wrong that it seems to me to make no sense to both reject those traditions, but keep others. If the Jews were wrong on this score, there seems to be no reason to rely on their traditions on any other.

The closest analogy I can think of would be another nation taking the US constitution and saying "yes, we like this very much, except for the parts about separation of powers. We think all of the powers should be incorporated under a Monarch, but we like the rest". The problem with that would be there is almost no "rest" left to take. The entire document is premised on separation of powers and the way the powers are apportioned takes that into account. Granted, the Messianic conception may not have been quite this central to the Jewish history and expectations, but it's pretty close. If you strip out the traditional Messianic expectations and everything they entail and say they are all wrong, then there is so much that gets stripped out your basically rejecting the entire Jewish religion.

If that is the case, then fine. My point is the Christians wanted to have their cake and eat it too. They wanted to almost completely repudiate Judaism and one of its most important traditions, but then pick out those parts of Judaism they "liked" and keep only those.

I see similar issues with the rejection of the dietary laws and circumcision, but I don't consider the rejection of those traditions as central as the rejection of the Messianic tradition. Again, I realize there were variations in the expectations, but I have not seen any evidence to indicate that the Davidic King expectations was not by far the primary expectation. This expectation seems also to fit much more closely to the other Jewish traditions of the Jew's place in Yahweh's plans.

Fundamentally, one could argue that Jesus changed all of this, that the Jews were wrong, that Yahweh changed his mind, etc, etc. But if you go down that road, then why try to salvage any of the older Jewish traditions? The early Christians seemed to be moving definitely in the direction of rejecting the older Jewish traditions wholsesale, but then trying to incorporate them selectively when it served their purposes. At best this seems to be nothing more than a matter of expediency not based on any theologically principled account.

On a principled level, it seems to me a contradictory approach. It's not quite the same as saying both A and not-A, but it is more like saying A,B, and C, but not-D and not-E. But the problem is that A, B, C, D and E are not individuated units of data, but are instead interrelated, so that the rejection of one or several of them casts serious doubt on the validity of the others.

That is what I meant by saying I saw this as contradictory.

Skeptical

It's quite possible I am confused, wouldn't be the first time.

However, I'm not quite sure I see how any of what you said is germane to this thread. My question/point is related to the "rejection yet acceptance" of Judaism by the early and modern Christian church. If there was something relevant to that in your post, I must say I missed it.

Skeptical

I could be wrong, but I think your interpretation that Isaiah 53 is a Messianic reference is questionable. I am _not_ an expert on Isaiah by any means, but a casual search on the web reveals there is disagreement on the context of Isaiah. Of course, the traditional Christian interpretation is that it is Messianic, but that doesn't make it so.

Since 53 is part of the 2nd phase of Isaiah I looked at the headings of the chapters before and after 53 that are part of the same writing period. It's interesting as I think it shows a pattern that doesn't support the idea that 53 is a Messianic reference. Granted, I realize the headings are not part of the writings, but my point is that the headings show a general pattern of the content of the chapters that is interesting:

(all taken from the NAB translation)

ch 49: The servant of the Lord (49:3 "You are my servant, he said to me, Israel, through whom I show my glory) i.e. The servant is Israel?

ch 50: Salvation only through the Lord's servant (50:1 "...It was for your sins that you were sold...) Jews sold into slavery?

ch 51: Exhortation to trust in the Lord (51:16 "...who say to Zion. You are my people.") Again, speaking of/to Zion/Israel?

ch 52: Let Zion rejoice (52:2 "...ascend to the throne, Jerusalem; Loose the bonds from your neck, o captive daughter Zion") Again, speaking of/to Zion?

ch 53 No heading, speaks about a "suffering servant"

ch 54 The new Zion (Jerusalem compared to a deserted wife, now finds herself with returning children)

ch 55 An invitation to grace (55:3 "..I will renew with you the everlasting covenant, the benefits assured to David") Speaking to Israel

There seems to be a definite pattern that the suffering is by the nation of Israel, that the nation needs to repent and that it will be returned to glory. All of that seems to conflict with the idea that 53 refers to a future Messiah. If it refers to a particular individual, it would seem much more likely to refer to someone during this time period of the Jewish return to Zion, not a future Messianic figure.

Even if your interpreation is plausible, what needs to be shown is that this view was prominent in the pre-Christian Jewish traditions. That it was not is my argument/point.

But, I'm sure you'll point out if I am wrong. References to contrary scholarly opinions welcome.

Perhaps I'm missing something here. According to the notes in the NAB:

"(refering to 9, 25)...either Cyrus, who was called the annointed of the Lord to end the exile (Is 45, 1), or the high priest Joshua, who presided over the rebuilding of the altar of sacrifice after the exile (Ezr 3, 2)"

How is this verse germane?

First, it seems pretty clear from the surrounding chapters and context that Is 42 is referencing Israel, not a Messianic figure. The NAB says:

"42, 1-4: Servant: there are three other "Servant-of-the-Lord" oracles: is 49, 1-7; 50, 4-11; 52, 13-53, 12. Many identifications have been proposed, e.g. historical Israel, ideal Israel, an OT historical character before or during the lifetime of the prophet, the prophet himself".

Granted, I realize that the Christian traditions hold these references are to a future Messianic figure aka Jesus, but I can see no compelling reason to view them that way.

In any case, what Christians believe about these verses is actually irrelevant for my argument. What is relevant is what the references were thought to refer to in pre-1st century Jewish traditions. What the traditional Christian interpretation of these passages is is therefore irrelevant since my argument is that the Christians were rejecting mainstream Judaic tradition and the verses in question are not sufficiently self-explanatory to show otherwise.

In order to address my point, you will have to show that the Christian interpretation was the mainstream view in pre-1st century Judaism. I have not seen anything that shows this to be the case, but I welcome any references. (scholarly ones preferred)

My point is not whether the early Christians were right or wrong, it is whether or not it was a plausible extension of Judaic thought or whether, as I see it, it was a fundamental rejection. Even if the verses you cite can somehow be reconciled to the Christian position, what is relevant for my point is how they were seen in the pre-Christian JEWISH tradition.

Skeptical

I tend to agree that the earliest church in Jerusalem was just a new sect within Judaism, probably composed of some people who actually knew Jesus. Paul's influence, I believe, radically changed the focus of this group. But that is for another thread.

My understanding was that Is 53 was not traditionally seen in the pre-Christian Jewish traditions to be Messianic, but I welcome references to the contrary.

I agree that the "synthesis" was probably done for matters of expediency instead of principle. My problem with it is that when you peel back the onion, the traditions of Christianity seem not so much extensions to Judaism as outright rejections of much of the central traditions, while still trying to maintain the "respectability" of the long Jewish historical tradition.

The early Christian church may not have intended nor realized the extent to which their ideas would eventually signal a repudiation of these traditions, but it appears to me that this is what they ultimately did.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

But there are difficulties in various places, if this must refer to Israel:

Isaiah 53:8 And who can speak of his descendants?

But Israel was promised to never die out, there will always be Jewish people (Jer. 31:35-37; 33:24-26).

Isaiah 53:9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.

This is difficult indeed to apply to Israel here, how can it be said that this nation indeed has had no violence or deceit?

Isaiah 5:7 ... and he looked for justice, but behold, bloodshed; for righteousness, but behold, an outcry!
Isaiah 59:6 Their cobwebs are useless for clothing; they cannot cover themselves with what they make. Their deeds are evil deeds, and acts of violence are in their hands.

And most importantly, we have this verse:

Isaiah 53:8 ... for the transgression of my people he was stricken.

Here most certainly "my people" must be a reference to Israel, yet this is clearly not someone bearing punishment for their own sin, but rather someone else, bearing punishment for the sins of "my people," distinctly Israel.

As far as scholarly commentaries that take this view, here are two:

"Our present passage speaks so eloquently of the work of Christ that even the inclusion of his name could add but little more to the extent of its disclosure of him." (Expositor's Bible Commentary)

"MAN’S UNBELIEF: MESSIAH’S VICARIOUS SUFFERINGS" (chapter heading, Jamieson, Fausset, Brown)

But both Cyrus and Joshua the priest accomplished the tasks predicted for them by Scripture, so this must refer to someone else, and the Messiah is most prominently "the anointed one," so I would expect the thought of most Jewish people would turn first to him, and then would take this as a prediction of not being accepted, when the Messiah came:

Mark 9:12 Jesus replied, "To be sure, Elijah does come first, and restores all things. Why then is it written that the Son of Man must suffer much and be rejected?"

Yes, that's a good point, I agree that this is not unmistakably the Messiah, but I meant only that here we have a prediction of Gentiles believing, which would be most astonishing to Jewish people.

Expectancy for the Messiah was pretty high, at the start of the first century! Witness the number of people claiming that they were the one, perhaps they had been counting years, up to 'sixty-two sevens.'

And I think arguments from the verses can be made that there are predictions about the Messiah being rejected, however people then or now may have interpreted them.

Regards,
Lee

Johnny Skeptic

We do not have any such thing. In order for you to reliably prove your claim that the Jewish people refused their Messiah, you first have to prove that he was their Messiah. There is not any evidence at all that he was their Messiah. For instance, Christians claim that Jesus fulfilled Micah 5:2, but he couldn’t possibly have fulfilled the prophecy because it predicted that someone would come who would become ruler in Israel, which of course Jesus did not do.

There is not any evidence at all that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

A good deal of scholarship disputes the Christian claim that Jesus was buried in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb.

There is no evidence that Jesus rose a donkey into Jerusalem.
Isaiah conveniently said nothing about the Resurrection, just like Ezeliel conveniently said nothing about Alexander conquering Tyre. That is God's way, to create dissent instead of disccouraging dissent.

Skeptical

I agree that it is possible to take some of the specific verses from 53 and interpret them favorably in comparison to the stories of Jesus in the NT. Without going into whether the Gospels were intentionally written to draw this, my point was that if you look at the context of the surrounding passages, if 53 is interpreted the way Christians traditionally interpret it, it seems textually out of place. Multiple interpretations are possible, and the Christians interpretation is certainly not required by the text, especially in context of the surrounding passages.

The Christian interpretation might be plausible, but again back to my point the question really isn't what the early Christian community thought, it is how these passages were interpreted in pre-Christian Jewish traditions since my argument is not about correctness, it is about consistency.

Thanks for the reference. I would prefer online references if possible since I already have a dozen books in my reading list, but I didn't make that clear so thanks for the reference anyway.

But again, this is the interpretation of the early Christians, not pre-Christian Judaism. In order to show the Christians were not rejecting long standing traditions about the Messiah we need to know if this was a mainstream Messianic view. My argument is that it was not, not whether it was right or wrong. Again, consistency with tradition is my argument, not correctness.

I'm not sure I agree with that. A lot of the OT mentions things about Yahweh being the one true God and how the Jews are to show an example to the rest of the world. I don't think it is far fetched at all to imagine that having Gentiles convert to Judaims was on the traditional Jewish menu of "to do's". In fact, my understanding is that there are modern Jewish missionaries, although I do not know to what extent this was practiced in pre-Christian times.

I understand there were Messianic expectations. My point is not whether there were expectations, my point is what the substantive content of those expectations was. Realizing that there were various expectations, my argument is that by far the predominant expectation was for a warrior King in the tradition of David AND that this expectation fits very closely with the other traditions within Judaism of a return of Israel to its glory days as evidence of Yahweh's greatness.

There were other themes within Judaism of Messianic expectation to be sure, but nothing I have seen in any references indicates these other expectations were widely believed and supported. Certainly nothing approaching the expectations for a Davidic return.

Perhaps, but I believe the more likely explanation is that BECAUSE the vast majority of Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah, the early Christians took pains to find verses that could be interpreted to fit the reality. There is much in the OT that is sufficiently ambiguous to be plausibly interpreted this way on its face, Is 53 being one of the more obvious choices. That's why a lot of these references are good for "finding" prophecies, they are sufficiently ambiguous to mold individual verses based on personal ideological preferences.

A related point to this is that one of the surest pieces of evidence that Jesus did not fit the widely held Messianic expectations is that the vast majority of Jews then and now did not accept him because he simply did not fit the criteria most of them expected. If they were wrong on this, as the Christians argued, they were wrong in a systematic way and serous doubt is cast on a wide range of traditional Jewish traditions. Which fits perfectly into my argument.

Again, my main point is not whether the early Christians were right or wrong about their particular interpretations but whether or not they were rejecting long standing Jewish traditions regarding Messianic expectations. Simply put, my argument is:

1) The Messianic interpretations of the early Christians were fundamentally different than the vastly predominant Messianic expectation within Judaism.

2) By rejecting this tradition, the Christians were rejecting many related traditions within Judaism since the Jewish Messianic expectations were predicated on fundamental views of the Jews place in the world as the chosen of Yahweh, much of their laws and traditions were focused around these concepts and the predominant Messianic expectation was built on this foundation. If it is wrong, there is no reason to accept many of the foundational traditions. One cannot plausibly reject ONLY the traditional Messianic expectations without rejecting far more of the Jewish traditions.

3) By rejecting all of these traditions, they were essentially rejecting Judaism and starting a new religion whose only relationship to Judaism was that Jesus and some (most?) of his early followers were Jewish by birth.

4) Given this, it is logically inconsistent and contradictory to try to "tie" Christianity to Judaism in any way, the only theologically consistent approach would have been to break with Judaism in name as it had already done so in fact.

5) To the extent that the early Christian church realized this, they were acting in bad faith by claiming to base Christianity on Judaism, probably for matters of expediency. Seen today with the benefit of 2,000 years of hindsight and historical information, it looks like a foundation built on contradictory ideas.