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, Dan 9 is prophetic (it predicts the future, at least from Daniels timeframe) and is Messianic (it foretells a coming of the “mashiyach”)

I disagree. Daniel 9 is not messianic. Its prophecy was fulfilled 100 years before the time of Jesus.

[malakhi]

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 --

The "7 weeks" passes before Cyrus's pronouncement in 538 BCE. 538 + 49 = 587 BCE: the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of Solomon's temple.

[Starwind]

Does not the Hebrew in Dan 9:25 refer to “mashiyach” (Messiah)? Why does the original Hebrew actually say?

[Starwind]

I meant - What does the original Hebrew actually say?

[malakhi]

Does not the Hebrew in Dan 9:25 refer to “mashiyach” (Messiah)? Why does the original Hebrew actually say?

veteda vetaskel min-motsa davar lehashiv velivnot yeroushalam ad-mashiakh nagid shavuim shiva veshavuim shishim ushenayim tashuv venivneta rekhov vekharuts uvetsok haitim:

An accurate translation of verse 25:

Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto one anointed, a prince, shall be seven weeks; and for threescore and two weeks, it shall be built again, with broad place and moat, but in troublous times.

The "anointed" from verse 25 is Cyrus. Compare to Isaiah:

who says of Cyrus, `He is my shepherd, and he shall fulfil all my purpose'; saying of Jerusalem, `She shall be built,' and of the temple, `Your foundation shall be laid.'

"Thus says the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus... (Isaiah 44:28, 45:1)

[1 spark]

The early church was comprised of many Jews. The Apostles etc. The Trinity is Divine Revelation, the nascent Catholic Church did not "come up with" it.

The doctrine of the Trinity isn't in the Bible. Jesus never claims to be the second person of the trinity, wholly equal to God. As a Jew, he would have found the whole concept offensive. Reread what he said in my reply #40. Note, he refers to the ONE God, as "OUR" God, meaning his God, too. One of the biggest obstacles in converting Jews and Muslims to Christianity, is the doctrine of the trinity. There is ONE God, not 3 in one.

You're right that the Catholic Church didn't "come up with it". Instead they borrowed it from numerous other Pagan sources. If you want me to list them, i will.

[Starwind]

The "7 weeks" passes before Cyrus's pronouncement in 538 BCE. 538 + 49 = 587 BCE: the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of Solomon's temple.

Cyrus ruled from 539 BC to 530 BC.

You seem to be arguing that:

1) Daniel’s prophecy in Dan 9:24 was made during Daniels time (of the exile 605-530BC)
2) Cryus made his decree sometime in 538-530
3) Daniels 7 weeks elapsed before Cryus decree, before he even ruled, in 587BC

That does not make sense.

[Starwind]

Dan 9:25 refers to “mashiyach” (you have “ad-mashiakh”, if I read that correctly) and “nagid” is prince. Can you please support where your English translation of ad-mashiakh uses “anointed” instead of “messiah” in Dan 9:25? Why doesn’t “mashiyach” mean messiah?

Your translation is from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto one anointed, a prince, shall be seven weeks;

You further state The "anointed" from verse 25 is Cyrus. Compare to Isaiah [44:28, 45:1]:

Isa 44:28 has “Kowresh” for Cyrus, and no mention of anointed
Isa 45:1 has “mashiyach” (anointed) “Kowresh” (Cyrus)

Is your position that a reference to “mashiyach” (as in Dan 9:25) always means Cyrus, in spite of the fact that your first translation has it as “anointed”? Even though Isaiah adds “mashiyach” as a further qualification to Cyrus…i.e. “mashiyach Kowresh”?

And so your translation of Dan 9:25 would thus read from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto Cyrus, a prince, shall be seven weeks;?

Or, as I posted earlier, your interpretation is that Daniel’s prophecy in 9:25 is that 49 years would elapse between at least beginning Jerusalem’s foundation being laid (built) up to Cyrus. And given that Cyrus ruled from 538-530BC, the prophecy implies Jerusalem’s foundation was started before Cyrus, while the Jews were in exile?

[Fithal the Wise]

I cannot conceive that it took a 210 page document to clearly distinguish the characteristics of first and second messianic comings in the old testament, and cannot imagine that this has not been classic christian teaching for 2000 years.

Consider just the messianic prophesies of Isaiah 61:1-2a which Jesus describes as fullfilled in Luke 4. The balance of the prophesies in Isaiah 61 are yet to be flfilled.

ISAIAH 61

1 "The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me,

Because the LORD has anointed Me

To preach good tidings to the poor;

He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,

To proclaim liberty to the captives,

And the opening of the prison to those who are bound;

2To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, (END OF QUOTE IN LUKE 4)

And the day of vengeance of our God;

To comfort all who mourn,

3To console those who mourn in Zion,

To give them beauty for ashes,

The oil of joy for mourning,

The garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness;

That they may be called trees of righteousness,

The planting of the LORD, that He may be glorified."

4And they shall rebuild the old ruins,

They shall raise up the former desolations,

And they shall repair the ruined cities,

The desolations of many generations.

5Strangers shall stand and feed your flocks,

And the sons of the foreigner

Shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers.

6But you shall be named the priests of the LORD,

They shall call you the servants of our God.

You shall eat the riches of the Gentiles,

And in their glory you shall boast.

7Instead of your shame you shall have double honor,

And instead of confusion they shall rejoice in their portion.

Therefore in their land they shall possess double;

Everlasting joy shall be theirs.

8"For I, the LORD, love justice;

I hate robbery for burnt offering;

I will direct their work in truth,

And will make with them an everlasting covenant.

9Their descendants shall be known among the Gentiles,

And their offspring among the people.

All who see them shall acknowledge them,

That they are the posterity whom the LORD has blessed."

10I will greatly rejoice in the LORD,

My soul shall be joyful in my God;

For He has clothed me with the garments of salvation,

He has covered me with the robe of righteousness,

As a bridegroom decks himself with ornaments,

And as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.

11For as the earth brings forth its bud,

As the garden causes the things that are sown in it to spring forth,

So the Lord GOD will cause righteousness and praise to spring forth before all the nations.

LUKE 4

16 So He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read. 17And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written:

18"The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me,

Because He has anointed Me

To preach the gospel to the poor;

He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted

To proclaim liberty to the captives

And recovery of sight to the blind,

To set at liberty those who are oppressed;

19To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD.

20<Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. 21And He began to say to them, "Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."

[Woodkirk]

The 7 weeks and the 62 weeks are counted from the commandment to restore Jerusalem given by Artaxerxes to Nehemiah. Neither Cyrus nor any Medo-Persian king authorized the restoration of Jerusalem -- only the Temple -- until the 20th year of Artaxerxes. Daniel doesn't say from the command to restore the Temple, but the command to restore Jerusalem. Two completely separate commands, kings, and Books of the Hebrew Scriptures, and dates in history.

[ventana]

Jesus is not the messiah, BTW.

Do you have a Scriptural reference for that? ;^)

(is too)

v.

[Woodkirk]

1]Cyrus is not the anointed one referred to by Daniel unless you believe in reincarnation, because the anointed prince would come AFTER the commandment regarding Jerusalem.

2] Isaiah 44:28 records that Cyrus will say "Jerusalem, thou shalt be built" but no order to build Jerusalem was ever recorded by Cyrus and none is even alluded to in Ezra -- only the Temple rebuilding.

3]Furthermore, Daniel says "From the going forth of the comand to RESTORE and BUILD Jerusalem" -- two things, not one. Isaiah has Cyrus saying Jerusalem shall be "built" but not "restored".

4] It was Artaxerxes who gave the order to restore and build Jerusalem and Nehemiah who carried out the order beginning circa 445 BCE. If the order had been given by Cyrus then why was Jerusalem still in ruins a hundred years later?

5] And Judas Maccabee was not a "prince" . Is the Book of Maccabees even considered part of the Hebrew Scriptures?

[malakhi]

3) Daniels 7 weeks elapsed before Cryus decree, before he even ruled, in 587BC

The dates get confusing, so let me try this again. 587 BCE was the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of Solomon's temple. "7 weeks" (49 years) later, in 538 BCE, Cyrus (the Lord's anointed, according to Isaiah) authorized the reconstruction of the temple. This accords with Daniel:

Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto one anointed, a prince, shall be seven weeks (Daniel 9:25)

[malakhi]

Dan 9:25 refers to “mashiyach” (you have “ad-mashiakh”, if I read that correctly) and “nagid” is prince. Can you please support where your English translation of ad- mashiakh uses “anointed” instead of “messiah” in Dan 9:25? Why doesn’t “mashiyach” mean messiah?

Are you serious? "Moshiach" literally means anointed. "Messiah" is transliterated English for moshiach.

Is your position that a reference to “mashiyach” (as in Dan 9:25) always means Cyrus, in spite of the fact that your first translation has it as “anointed”?

Of course not. Where would you get that idea? Do you know how many times, and in reference to how many people, that word is used in the Hebrew scriptures? Let me give you just one example, where moshiach is used in reference to King Saul:

vayomer laanashav khalila li meihova im-eese et-hadavar haze ladoni limshiakh adonai lishloakh yadi bo ki-meshiakh adonai hu

And he said unto his men: 'The LORD forbid it me, that I should do this thing unto my lord, the LORD'S anointed, to put forth my hand against him, seeing he is the LORD'S anointed.'

(1 Samuel 24:6)

[malakhi]

I think that you have definitively proven that Jesus and his disciples were familiar with the Hebrew scriptures. Good job!

[malakhi]

The 7 weeks and the 62 weeks are counted from the commandment to restore Jerusalem given by Artaxerxes to Nehemiah.

That is your opinion. What is your basis for it?

Neither Cyrus nor any Medo-Persian king authorized the restoration of Jerusalem -- only the Temple -- until the 20th year of Artaxerxes.

Ahem.

who says of Cyrus, `He is my shepherd,
and he shall fulfil all my purpose';
saying of Jerusalem, `She shall be built,'
and of the temple, `Your foundation shall be laid.'" (Isaiah 44:28)

[malakhi]

Do you have a Scriptural reference for that? ;^) (is too)

Sure, happy to oblige. ;o)

He shall judge between the nations,
and shall decide for many peoples;
and they shall beat their swords into plowshares,
and their spears into pruning hooks;
nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
neither shall they learn war any more. (Isaiah 2:4)

If I'm not mistaken, there have been a few wars in the last 2000 years.

[malakhi]

Cyrus is not the anointed one referred to by Daniel unless you believe in reincarnation, because the anointed prince would come AFTER the commandment regarding Jerusalem.

See my replies to Starwind.

Isaiah 44:28 records that Cyrus will say "Jerusalem, thou shalt be built" but no order to build Jerusalem was ever recorded by Cyrus and none is even alluded to in Ezra -- only the Temple rebuilding.

Hmmm, Isaiah must have been a false prophet then.

Furthermore, Daniel says "From the going forth of the comand to RESTORE and BUILD Jerusalem" -- two things, not one. Isaiah has Cyrus saying Jerusalem shall be "built" but not "restored".

That is really stretching.

It was Artaxerxes who gave the order to restore and build Jerusalem and Nehemiah who carried out the order beginning circa 445 BCE. If the order had been given by Cyrus then why was Jerusalem still in ruins a hundred years later?

Who said it would be easy?

...and for threescore and two weeks, it shall be built again, with broad place and moat, but in troublous times. (Daniel 9:25)

Is the Book of Maccabees even considered part of the Hebrew Scriptures?

No. But Judas Maccabee has nothing to do with Daniel 9 in any case.

[malakhi]

You have responsed with some rather, ah, exotic translations and interpretations which agree neither with those of Christian scholars nor with many of your own rabbinic authorities.

Wrong, these are the actual, mainstream Jewish interpretations of these passages.

Prof. Most is a scholar in his own right and, as you have seen, includes in his works information from your own scholars, both contemporary and ancient.

Father Most is a Catholic priest, and has his own biases. He is hardly an objective source of information about Judaism and Jewish belief.