Jews and Jesus

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."

I have always wondered why Jesus was not accepted by the Jews as the Messiah?? He fulfilled over 300 Prophesies including naming the exact day of his death in Daniel yet the Jews still deny he is the Messiah. Can any Jews explain that?? Shalom

Most of what you interpret as "the fulfillment of 300 prophecies" are not considered "prophecies" (let alone messianic prophecies) by Jews at all. At best, they are typographies, usually single verses taken out of context and interpreted in a Christological way.

From the Jewish perspective, the qualifications of being messiah are straightforward, and are explicitly and literally spelled out in the Hebrew scriptures. The messiah will be a man of the line of David, and will be known as the messiah because he will bring world peace, the return of all the Jews to Israel, the rebuilding of the temple, and universal knowledge of God. There are other, less significant factors, but those are the main ones. (And ones which Christians generally believe will be fulfilled at Jesus's second coming). We will know who is the messiah because he will fulfill all of these prophecies within his lifetime. There is no prophecy in the Hebrew scriptures which states that the messiah will come more than once.

Unlike most of their neighbors, the Jews of Jesus' time had not been conquered by the Roman military.

What???

It was a brutal occupation, when one Roman procurator after another tried to install statues of emperors in the Temple, crucified rebels, robed the country blind, etc. Romans brought their laws, roads, soldiers, etc.

All this is well documented.

Romans also appointed High Priest of the Temple. So, for example, the situation described in the New Testament were Pilot is pressured by Jews just could not had happened.

The scene with moneychangers at the Temple happened because throughout Judea only Roman money were accepted. Priests insisted that people pay for their services with Temple money. This shows that the entire area was completely under Roman rule.

Yeshua story reads very much like a story of a typical Jewish Rabbi at the time. Jews did go to Jerusalem twice a year - for Yom Kippur and for Passover, so Yeshua trip was nothing out of ordinary.

These were also times when agitators for different fractions came to incite people for rebellion against Romans.

Roman laws were very specific about punishments for various crimes. Crucification was used specifically for those convicted of rebellion.

Yeshua was branded as "King of Jews" and was crucified together with two other rebels. One rebel was pardoned. His name was Barabbas - Son of Father (hope it rings a bell). Some people think that Yeshua was that person himself or was closely associated with his freedom movement. There is a passage in the New Testament when Jesus encorages his followers to get a sword.

Crucification was purely Roman punishment. Jews used stoning. If Yeshua was convicted by the Jewish court as a false Messiah, he would had been thrown from the high wall.

I think that Jews may look at Yeshua as one of the freedom fighters against Roman occupation. In this case he is closer to Zealots.

How do you know or explain he didn't rise from the Grave?

Outside of the testimony of some of his followers, as recorded in Christian scriptures, there is no evidence that he did rise from the grave. You believe this on faith, not because it has been proven to you.

Briefly, my opinion of what happened is as follows. At some point soon after Jesus's execution, one of his close disciples had the insight that, given the doctrine of resurrection, Jesus really wasn't dead, but was, in fact, in heaven with God. Perhaps this was accompanied by a vision (something like Stephen's in the book of Acts), perhaps not. And, since he was still alive, and they believed him to be the messiah, then surely he must return to finish what he had left undone. I think they believed the resurrection to be real (in that Jesus was really alive with the Father), but that they also, in those first years, believed it to be a spiritual resurrection. Remember that Paul's writings are the earliest of the Christian canon. I think what Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15 supports my reading of events (see especially verses 42-47). I think with the passage of time, the idea of Jesus's resurrection came to be understood more literally. Which may explain why the resurrection accounts are more detailed in the later gospels (and the most ancient manuscripts of Mark lack the last 12 verses of chapter 16).

It still doesn't explain how the 2 Roman Guards watching the tomb fell asleep and then the tomb was empty. It also doesn't explain over 50 people witnessed him walking among them before he rose to heaven. Even Thomas never believed and he saw all of his miracles until he put his fingers in his wounds.

All of which you believe to be true based upon their being written in the gospels. Since I do not accept the gospels as being inspired scripture, I do not assume that what is recorded in them is literally historically accurate.

does that mean there is no way for that lineage to bring a Messiah?

If you think that part of being the messiah is sitting upon the throne of David, then yes.

Thus says the LORD:
"Write this man down as childless,
a man who shall not succeed in his days;
for none of his offspring shall succeed
in sitting on the throne of David,
and ruling again in Judah." (Jeremiah 22:30)

If so, why does Matthew who was a Jewish scholar make sure to trace his lineage?

Matthew was a tax collector, not a Jewish scholar. Some of what he writes can make one question the strength of his scholarship.

Are they no longer Jewish

They remained Jewish, they simply were prohibited from ever sitting on the throne of David.

and why were they cursed, idolatry?

Idolatry and wickedness.

Clearly we have very different beliefs, and very different ways of interpreting scripture. I appreciate that we have been able to have a polite discussion here. I hope you understand that I do not desire to denigrate your faith, especially on today of all days. I wish you a blessed holy day.

What???

It was a brutal occupation, when one Roman procurator after another tried to install statues of emperors in the Temple, crucified rebels, robed the country blind, etc. Romans brought their laws, roads, soldiers, etc.

Judea was certainly a part of the Roman empire, but it did not originally become so through military attack. Herod I integrated Judea into the Roman empire through political means. In the aftermath of Julius Ceasar's assasination, Herod aligned Judea first with Marc Antony when he was the dominant force in the eastern portion of Roman empire, then at the critical moment he switched allegience to Octavius/Augustus. His only other choice for keeping Judea out of the Roman sphere of influence would have been some sort of alliance with Persia, but he probably made the best choice given the situation.

Herod was handsomely rewarded for his allegience to Augustus, reigning over a kingdom that included Galilee, Samaria, Judea, as well as parts of modern Jordan and Syria. Roman influence was assured by a garrison maintained in the coastal city of Ceasaria, but Herod was given a free hand to govern, unlike many other regions in the Roman empire where Augustus instituted a system of Roman governors.

After the death of Herod 'the Great', his kingdom was divided among multiple sons, and some were more successful at governing than others. The Romans eventually appointed a governor over Judea, but Herod II maintained authority over Galilee and Samaria. This was the Herod depicted in the Gospels during the time of John the Baptist and Egypt.

The influence of Herod's dynasty within the Roman Empire is illustrated by the fact that according to some accounts, Herod Agrippa (the heir of Herod II) played a role an key role in securing the ascension of Claudius to the Emperor's throne following the assasination of Caligula around 40 A.D.

The Romans understood the volatility of Jewish religious sensibilities and the more astute emporers worked fairly hard to not provoke them. One of the surviving Roman references to Governor Pilate indicates that he was reprimanded by Rome for one of the incidents that your refer to of displaying Legion banners in the Temple. This happened about A.D. 28, so it is not unreasonable to believe the Gospel account that he feared rioting would reflect poorly on him. Since the incidents took place in Jerusalem, but Jesus himself was from Galilee, it is also reasonable to believe that he would have tried to coordinate some kind of response with King Herod. The Gospels depict him as trying to finesse situation so that he wouldn't appear to be the bad guy, but doing so rather ham-handedly. This portrait of a tactless administrator who is alternately autocratic and weak-willed is fairly consistent with what Roman records remain tell of Pilate.

I fully agree with you that the Romans brought their roads, laws, and commerce with them. This resulted in substantial prosperity for the urban Jewish population who cooperated with the Romans (e.g., the Sadducees), but was resented by the rural poor Jews, resulting in many rival factions.

I think it might be more accurate to say that the Romans had a defacto veto over who held the position of High Priest, rather than that the Romans appointed the high Priest. While the Gospels refer to Caiaphus as the High Priest, they also mention another influential Priest named Annias. Annias came from a prominent Hasmonian family, and had held the High Priesthood for five or six consecutive years before Caiaphus. The Romans didn't want anyone accumulating too much authority, so they hinted that six years was long enough, resulting in the change.

I agree with you that there were many teachers/prophets leading groups of followers during this period. Jesus is certainly remembered more than any of the others.

There are a great many stories/traditions about associates of Jesus, who are only described with a few tantalizing sentences in the cannonical writings. It is intriguing to speculate on the identity of the Jesus Barabas who was released, on whether Mary Magdelene was a reformed prostitute or a prominent leader in the early church, and on whether the 'James the Just' who was thrown from the Temple Wall for heresy in the events leading up the 67 A.D. rebellion was a relative of Jesus. However, the cannonical writings and verifiable historical records don't offer enough information.

There is a little more support for the conjecture that the Disciples James and John were initially followers of John the Baptist, and therefore likely influenced by the Essene movement. There is also some evidence that the disciples Simon 'the Patriot' and Judas Iscariot may have been influenced by the Zealot movement. Some traditions hold that Judas betrayed Jesus to provoke a confrontation with the Temple authorities which would force Jesus to declare himself the Messiah and begin a violent revolution. By this tradition, Judas' failing was attempting to force God to behave in a certain way rather than accepting God's plan.

It is a fascinating period in human history. The world changed in a remarkable way around 30 A.D. Though I'd like to know all the details, for now I will have to settle for looking "through a glass darkly" and trust that all will be revealed in the fullness of time.

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.