Vatican Says Jews' Wait For Messiah Is Validated by Old Testament

International New York Times ^

[1 spark]

VATICAN CITY, Jan. 17 — The Vatican has issued what some Jewish scholars are calling an important document that explicitly says, "The Jewish wait for the Messiah is not in vain."

The scholarly work, effectively a rejection of and apology for the way some Christians have viewed the Old Testament, was signed by the pope's theologian, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

The document says Jews and Christians in fact share the wait for the Messiah, though Jews are waiting for the first coming, and Christians for the second.

"The difference consists in the fact that for us, he who will come will have the same traits of that Jesus who has already come," wrote Cardinal Ratzinger, the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

At least one Jewish scholar said the new document is a marked departure from "Dominus Iesus," a study of the redemptive role of Jesus that was released last year in Cardinal Ratzinger's name and that fanned disputes between Catholic and Jewish scholars.

The new document also says Catholics must regard the Old Testament as "retaining all of its value, not just as literature, but its moral value," said Joaquín Navarro-Valls, the pope's spokesman. "You cannot say, `Now that Jesus has come, it becomes a second-rate document.' "

"The expectancy of the Messiah was in the Old Testament," he went on, "and if the Old Testament keeps its value, then it keeps that as a value, too. It says you cannot just say all the Jews are wrong and we are right."

Asked whether that could be taken to mean that the Messiah may or may not have come, Dr. Navarro- Valls said no. "It means it would be wrong for a Catholic to wait for the Messiah, but not for a Jew," he said.

The document, the result of years of work by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, goes on to apologize for the fact that certain New Testament passages that criticize the Pharisees, for example, had been used to justify anti-Semitism.

Everything in the report is now considered part of official church doctrine, Dr. Navarro-Valls said.

The Rev. Albert Vanhoye, a Jesuit scholar who worked on the commission, said the project sees Scripture as a link between Christians and Jews, and the New Testament as a continuation of the Old, though divergent in obvious ways.

A number of Jewish scholars and leaders said they were pleased but stunned and would have to take some time to digest fully the complicated, 210-page study, published in French and Italian.

"This is something altogether new, especially compared with the earlier document from Ratzinger that was so controversial," said Rabbi Alberto Piattelli, a professor and leader of the Jewish community in Rome.

"This latest declaration is a step forward" in closing the wounds opened by that earlier document, Rabbi Piattelli said. "It recognizes the value of the Jewish position regarding the wait for the Messiah, changes the whole exegesis of biblical studies and restores our biblical passages to their original meaning. I was surprised."

Prof. Michael R. Marrus, dean of graduate studies at the University of Toronto, who specializes in the history of the Holocaust, was also complimentary. Professor Marrus was among the Jewish members of a panel studying the Vatican's role in the Holocaust, but the group was disbanded after disputes between Catholic and Jewish scholars.

"This is important," he said, "and all the more so because it comes from Cardinal Ratzinger, who is not considered the most liberal spokesman for the church. It represents real and remarkable progress on the Catholic-Jewish front," even as the dispute over the Catholic Church's wartime history seems to be hardening, he added.

At least initially, the only voices of dissent were on the Catholic side, where some traditionalists said they felt the church under Pope John Paul II had done altogether too much apologizing already.

Vittorio Messori, a Catholic writer and commentator, said he respects the pope but "his apologies leave me perplexed."

"He's inspired and has his reasons," Mr. Messori said, "but what's dangerous in these apologies is that he seems to say the church itself has been wrong in its teaching," rather than just some within the church.

The oddest thing about the document from the Jewish perspective is that it was so quietly released. It has been in bookstores here since November, but as a small book titled "The Jewish People and the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible," it drew no notice until the Italian news agency ANSA printed a small report on it Wednesday.

Tullia Zevi, a longtime Jewish community leader and commentator here, said: "The widespread opinion on the document is that it's trying to question the validity of past attitudes of the church, and seems an attempt to move us closer to together. So why was such an important document kept secret?"

One possibility, she said, was that the church was trying to avoid criticism within its own ranks.

Vatican officials, however, say it was not announced because it was seen mainly as a theological study intended for other theologians.

The Vatican is governed by tradition and habit, and is thus quite able to keep silent about even important new policies. In December, for example, word emerged without fanfare of new rules on the treatment of priests accused of pedophilia.

Andrea Riccardi, the founder of the Sant'Egidio Community, a left- leaning Catholic group with a history of mediating international conflicts and promoting religious dialogue, said he was most impressed by the depth of the new document.

"This should be reassuring" to Jews, he said, "especially because these last years have not been easy."

He said the document in no way backtracks from "Dominus Iesus" ("The Lord Jesus"), but does represent a significant shift.

"In the past, we've talked about an ancient, common heritage," he said. "But now, for the first time, we're talking about our future waiting for the Messiah and the end of time."

Waiting together?

"No," Mr. Riccardi said. "But waiting close to each other."

[malakhi]

so, I see no reason for exchanges.

Very well. However, there remain your accusations against the Talmud. Please substantiate them, or withdraw them.

[Frumanchu]

Hmmm. My very first question is this: how will it be possible for present day Jews to validate any claim of direct descendency from David through Solomon? Is there a Mormon-esque archive of Jewish family lineage currently being kept somewhere?

[Frumanchu]

I'm curious also to know of the disqualification of Isaiah 9:6 from the group of messianic prophecies. Of whom is this verse speaking?

[malakhi]

Hmmm. My very first question is this: how will it be possible for present day Jews to validate any claim of direct descendency from David through Solomon? Is there a Mormon-esque archive of Jewish family lineage currently being kept somewhere?

There are families that can trace their lineage to this line. This should not be too surprising. The Kung family in China can trace their ancestry back to K'ung-Fu-Tzu (Confucious) over 2400 years ago.

[Frumanchu]

Any idea of how many Jewish families actually can do that? Are they all on Messiah watch? ;)

[malakhi]

I'm curious also to know of the disqualification of Isaiah 9:6 from the group of messianic prophecies. Of whom is this verse speaking?

The passage refers to Hezekiah. There is some selective translating going on here. In most cases, Hebrew names are transliterated rather than translated. Many Hebrew names make reference to God. For example, Abijah means "the Lord is my father". Jeremiah means "exalted of the Lord". But we don't translate Jeremiah's name; we don't refer to the "Book of the prophet 'Exalted of the Lord'". The JPS translation renders the verse:

For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele- joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom

If this is surprising, consider that the King James Version leaves untranslated the name in Isaiah 8:3:

And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the LORD to me, Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz

I suggest that this selective translation is done precisely to try to suggest a meaning unsupported by the Hebrew.

[malakhi]

Any idea of how many Jewish families actually can do that? Are they all on Messiah watch? ;)

How many? I'm not sure. The late Menachem Schneerson, rebbe of the Chabad Lubavitch sect of chasidism, was of this line. Prior to his death, some of his followers thought that he might be the messiah. There are other families which have preserved knowledge of their descent, just as the kohenim are descended from the priestly families of the temple period, even though it has been nearly 2000 years since the destruction of the second temple.

[Woodkirk]

The numbers in the following, according to Daniel 9:24-26:

483 years [Jewish years] after the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem [which was issued in the 20th year of Artaxerxes, the king of Persia per Nehemiah 2, circa 445 BC -- a date fixed and attested to in history], the Messiah was prophesied by Daniel to be "cut off".

Is this a messianic prophecy or not? Who was it that was cut off 483 Jewish years after Artaxerxes' order?

[Frumanchu]

Interesting defense, but what do you make of this?

[from link]
Others, however, say that Hebrew names often incorporate the name of God in them, and Isaiah often gives long, multi-syllable names to children to be born. For instance, Isaiah's sons were named She'ar yashuv (which means "a remnant will return") and Mahar shalal hash baz (which means "quick to the plunder, swift to the spoil"). However, all such names form a small understandable phrase and not a list of acclimates like the list in Isaiah 9:6. The list is constructed of 4 pair of 2 word phrases with the first word of each pair being a titles and the following word being a word describing what he has title over. Wonderful of counseling, God of might, Father of eternity, Prince of peace. So it would seem that these titles are giving the attributes of God to Messiah.

[malakhi]

Is this a messianic prophecy or not? Who was it that was cut off 483 Jewish years after Artaxerxes' order?

Did you read the link I gave you? The passage refers to Cyrus's order, not to that of Artaxerxes.

The second annointed one referred to was the high priest Alexander Yannai, who was punished for his transgressions.

Please go back and read the link I gave you earlier.

[malakhi]

That is that author's interpretation. Obviously I disagree.

As far as I am concerned, Christians are free to interpret the scriptures any way they want to. What bothers me is when they use their, IMO, faulty interpretations to try to prosyletize Jews.

[Frumanchu]

That is that author's interpretation. Obviously I disagree.

Which you are absolutely free to do, recognizing of course that your interpretation is subject to the same scrutiny and rejection.

As far as I am concerned, Christians are free to interpret the scriptures any way they want to. What bothers me is when they use their, IMO, faulty interpretations to try to prosyletize Jews.

My only concern is the extent to which that proselytizing goes. My concern doesn't just apply to sharing the gospel with Jews, but with anyone. As one familiar with Christian doctrine, you must understand the Christians' obligation to fulfill the great commission and bring the gospel to as many as we can. You must also understand the frustration a Christian has with someone who, from their viewpoint, only gets half the truth. Unfortunately, that frustration often manifests itself in belittling insults, anger and an ultimate classification of that person as ignorant. This is not the proper attitude to have.

From my perspective as a Christian, I share the gospel and defend the faith not because I think I can win someone over to "our side," but because God has chosen to use His elect as the instruments to call upon His elect. Without the Spirit of God working within a person, I can preach and proselytize till perousia and not make a dent. All I can do is plant seeds:)

[Starwind]

It's taken me a while to digest what's been written and angelo's links to other sites;

Angelo, please;

To crystallize what I perceive as un-reconciled in your position is:

1) The Jewish Messiah must fulfill all messianic prophecy within one [human] lifetime (among other criteria, but this one will suffice for my question).

2) Daniel’s prophecy of 70 weeks (1 + 2 + 7 + 60) 9:24-27 remains wholly unfulfilled.

The website you cite while rebutting Christian interpretations of dates in Dan 9 states “Christians and Jews agree means seventy groups of seven years”. One (possibly you) might argue ‘dating’ to be important. I agree it is, but bear with me as an even larger more encompassing ‘date’ issue arises from your position (I believe).

So, Dan 9 is prophetic (it predicts the future, at least from Daniels timeframe) and is Messianic (it foretells a coming of the “mashiyach”), yet according to your view point is unfulfilled, remaining to be fulfilled by the true Jewish Messiah, one criteria of which is that it will be fulfilled in one lifetime.

So can you help me understand from your position how a messianic prophecy extending some 490 years will yet be fulfilled, along with Daniel 9:24-27 other predictions that Jerusalem be rebuilt, then destroyed, then a covenant and then desolation/appalment in the temple, all starting with Daniel’s timeframe (assuming you’re not going to posit that Daniel’s prophecy was ‘delayed’ in starting)?

I assume you might posit a ‘Methuselah’ type lifespan for the Jewish Messiah yet to come, but again, if he’s yet to come, are not Daniels 1st 69 (if not 70) other weeks also unfulfilled and does this not accuse Daniel of being a false prophet? ….thus necessitating that Daniel be stoned and removed from the Holy Scripture?

[Frumanchu]

Ya know...it just struck me sitting here how funny the thread's title is. If the Jews refuse to believe that Jesus was the Messiah, then OF COURSE they're still waiting! And of course the Messiah is validated by the Old Testament or we wouldn't believe in one and they wouldn't be looking for one!!

Way to go, Vatican!:D

[Woodkirk]

Please tell ZVI that he needs to read his Hebrew Scriptures as carefully and diligently as Christians do.

Cyrus gave the order to build the Temple to Ezra in 538 BC, while Artaxerxes gave the order to build the city and its wall to Nehemiah in 445 BC. Daniel's prophecy specifically states "to restore and build Jerusalem" -- not the Temple -- therefore, it is Artaxerxes' order which is referred to here in Daniel -- 445 BC.

Now the text separates the "7" from the "62" for a very important reason. It took 7 septads from 445BC to finish the "wall in troublous times" as is recorded in Nehemiah. The 62 septads is measured from the date of the completion of the wall.

If he thinks that refers to the time of the Maccabees, then he must be using some imaginative calender.

No matter how many days you choose to use for your year, 354 to 365, it still puts you there at the time of Jesus.

Daniel is not easy to dismiss --

[Frumanchu]

bump...catch the bottom of the post.

[Starwind]

Exactly my point in post #41, though I was perhaps too subtle.

[Starwind]

Yes. And even harder to dismiss only the parts you don't like.

[malakhi]

allend, I think you should know by now that I don't accept your Father Most's authority on anything. If you have something to say, please use your own words. Cut and pastes become tiresome.