Posted on 03/24/2005 5:47:34 PM PST by Crackingham
Passover and Easter are upon us, and so is a book with a fascinating title and audacious subtitle: David Klinghoffer's "Why the Jews Rejected Jesus: The Turning Point in Western History" (Doubleday, 2005).
On the title's crucial theological point: Klinghoffer, an orthodox Jew, rightly takes to task the "well-meaning Christian" seeking to improve Jewish-Christian relations by saying that Jesus' teaching was very close to that of the rabbis of the time. He also jumps past "New Perspective on Paul" theologians who do not find "substantial points of disagreement between Jesus and his contemporaries."
Both groups err, the author notes, by not taking into full account the doctrine of the "oral Torah" that was sweeping through Judaism 2,000 years ago: "What Jesus rejected was the oral Torah that explains the written Torah. Essential to rabbinic Judaism, this concept of an oral Torah recognizes the Pentateuch as a cryptic document, a coded text. It posits that the Bible's first five books were revealed to Moses along with a key to unlock the code." That key was purportedly passed on orally throughout the generations.
Christians today learn that the New Testament explains certain previously mysterious Old Testament passages; proponents of the "oral Torah" (written down as the Talmud) claimed the same for their teaching. Jesus said, in essence, sola scriptura, the Bible alone: He allowed his followers to pluck grain on the Sabbath, which was perfectly fine according to the Bible but wrong according to the code. The code said that Jews should not wash their faces on fast days, but Jesus taught the opposite.
As Klinghoffer notes, "For Jesus, oral Torah was a manmade accretion without transcendent authority. He tells a group of Pharisees, 'So for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God.' ... This explains why he felt it was appropriate to teach solely on his own authority, rather than by citing previous sages." Some Christians today believe they have figured out the Bible's secret code. Some Jews 2,000 years ago felt the same way, but Jesus flatly told them that there was no code: Just read and pray.
The author has many other valuable insights. For example, he writes: "The oral Torah values sociability and thus calls upon the individual to pray in company with a minimum of 10 men (a minyan, or quorum). Jesus advised his followers, 'When you pray,' to pray by yourself, 'in secret.'" Christianity values community worship but emphasizes the role of the individual, and much of Western culture emerges from that emphasis.
Klinghoffer thus explains well "why the Jews rejected Jesus." But what about his subtitle, "the turning point in Western history"? He argues that if more Jews had embraced Jesus, believers would have stayed within Judaism and continued to emphasize circumcision and kosher food rules. They would have required abstaining from sex for a week after menstruation, and so on: "The Jesus movement might have remained a Jewish sect. ... Christianity would not have spread wildly across the Roman Empire and later across Europe, as it did."
Hebrew Roots, Noahides, Yahwehists, etc. are groups that lead into apostasy. Much of the book of Hebrews was written as warnings against people taking Christian faith to far back into Judaism. When you do you are an apostate.
You Judaizers who have dominated this string need to realize some of us can read. Sorry, we have already read the Apostle Paul. For instance the allegory of Abraham’s family in Gal. 4:21-31.
I say with the Apostle Paul, “cast out the bondwoman,” v. 30. Christianity following Paul, did that early on. Now you Judaizers think to drag us all back under slavery (the bondwoman, Hagar, in the allegory), the Old Covenant.
At the beginning of Galatians, Paul defined its main theme, the subversion of the Gospel by Judaizers:
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed,” 1:7.
Your Judaizing is accursed. Cast out the slave woman.
Was Jesus 'accursed' for his 'Judaizing'? Please explain.
Bad analogy. The Old Covenant was established well after the story of Hagar.
Take up your argument with the Apostle Paul, he wrote the analogy.
Malakhi, if memory serves me right your posts on other Christian-Judaism issues always come down on the side of Judaism. Have you switched sides to Christian? If so, glad to hear it.
If not, I don't attach much weight to arguments by people who don't even believe in their own Messiah. The Law vs Grace debate doesn't even pertain to you anyhow, as it is an in-house Christian debate. Been going on for the last 2000 years.
No, I am a Jew.
If not, I don't attach much weight to arguments by people who don't even believe in their own Messiah.
I didn't make an argument; I asked you a question. Are you unable to answer it?
You forgot to paste in this part
"The Law vs Grace debate doesn't even pertain to you anyhow, as it is an in-house Christian debate. Been going on for the last 2000 years."
Are you unable to answer the question?
I'm sorry, but I do not feel 'accursed' for pursuing my own legacy. I do not dishonor Christ by learning about Him.
Free to engage in any discussion that we are interested in? In that case I'll argue things that interest me. Arguing with Jews about in-house Christian issues is not one of those things.
I'd like to ask him how 'Judaizing' Christians would offend Jesus too. As far as I know, Jesus is still Jewish, and our covenant arrangements are for all eternity.
Jesus is not Jewish. He is Lord.
He is both IMHO.
We will have to agree to disagree. I don't think God is accurately described by the term.
I would never think to drag us back under slavery to 'the law'. I only wish to learn about God and His original culture.
My unconfirmed research has led me to believe that Passover can be celebrated the day before or the day of. Therefore, the 'last supper' could have been a Passover Seder. It would make sense because Yeshua followed the traditions of the Passover meal.
True, 'God' is not adequately described as being 'a Jew'. But is it not apostasy on its face to remove all Jewish heritage from Christianity? My heart looks toward Jerusalem, and I'm not ashamed.
Just one correction in your terminology. Many of the
ante-Nicene Fathers were anti-Jewish, not anti-Semitic.
Anti-Semitism implies the racism and ethnic intolerance
of modern fascism. There was none of that in the early
Church. St. Paul was anti-Jewish but boasted of his
Hebraic background. The examples can be multiplied but
the term "anti-Semitism" is so loaded with its ugly
modern connotations that it's best not used at all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.