Are the Torah and the Gospel mutually exclusive?

Vivificat - from Contemplation to Action ^ | 26 July 2012 | TDJ

[Teófilo]

Brethren: Peace and Good to all of you.

I've been reading lately several works on textual, form, literary, and historical criticism of the Bible, as well as the relationship between both Testaments, and as corollary, the relationship between the Church and the Jewish people. Today I reached the millenary impasse: for the Jews to accept Jesus as their Messiah would entail, in their view, a rejection of the Torah; for us Christians to reconcile with them would entail the rejection of the core of Christianity  - without a necessary conversion to Judaism which they don't see as necessary for "righteous Gentiles" to reach "the world to come". At least in the view of those Jews who still believe in "a world to come."

Testing my diamond

During my investigation, I found a letter to Yemeni Jews by the Jewish medieval sage Moses Maimonides to be upsetting. The quote is as follows:

Ever since the time of Revelation, every despot or slave that has attained to power, be he violent or ignoble, has made it his first aim and his final purpose to destroy our law, and to vitiate our religion, by means of the sword, by violence, or by brute force, such as Amalek, Sisera, Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar, Titus, Hadrian, may their bones be ground to dust, and others like them. This is one of the two classes which attempt to foil the Divine will. 

The second class consists of the most intelligent and educated among the nations, such as the Syrians, Persians, and Greeks. These also endeavor to demolish our law and to vitiate it by means of arguments which they invent, and by means of controversies which they institute.... 

After that there arose a new sect which combined the two methods, namely, conquest and controversy, into one, because it believed that this procedure would be more effective in wiping out every trace of the Jewish nation and religion. It, therefore, resolved to lay claim to prophecy and to found a new faith, contrary to our Divine religion, and to contend that it was equally God-given.  

Thereby it hoped to raise doubts and to create confusion, since one is opposed to the other and both supposedly emanate from a Divine source, which would lead to the destruction of both religions. For such is the remarkable plan contrived by a man who is envious and querulous. He will strive to kill his enemy and to save his own life, but when he finds it impossible to attain his objective, he will devise a scheme whereby they both will be slain. 

The first one to have adopted this plan was Jesus the Nazarene, may his bones be ground to dust. He was a Jew because his mother was a Jewess although his father was a Gentile. For in accordance with the principles of our law, a child born of a Jewess and a Gentile, or of a Jewess and a slave, is legitimate. (Yebamot 45a). Jesus is only figuratively termed an illegitimate child. He impelled people to believe that he was a prophet sent by God to clarify perplexities in the Torah, and that he was the Messiah that was predicted by each and every seer. He interpreted the Torah and its precepts in such a fashion as to lead to their total annulment, to the abolition of all its commandments and to the violation of its prohibitions. The sages, of blessed memory, having become aware of his plans before his reputation spread among our people, meted out fitting punishment to him. 

Daniel had already alluded to him when he presaged the downfall of a wicked one and a heretic among the Jews who would endeavor to destroy the Law, claim prophecy for himself, make pretenses to miracles, and allege that he is the Messiah, as it is written, "Also the children of the impudent among thy people shall make bold to claim prophecy, but they shall fall." (Daniel 11:14). [1]

The allegation that Jesus had "a Gentile father" notwithstanding - based on a Talmudic passage alleging that Jesus was the product of a Roman soldier's rape - I took the text of the letter at face value for analysis and asked myself C.S. Lewis' famous questions: Jesus was either evil, a madman, or who he said he was, the Messiah, Son of God. Maimonides, along with post-Second Temple Judaism denied the third option. Therefore, we're left with defining Jesus within an spectrum of possibilities located anywhere between two extremes: he was either crazy as a loon or as evil as the devil.

(You might be asking why I even care to ask that kind of question. Well, because I care about the truth. I tell people I possess a diamond that I want to share with them, but that this diamond is unique because giving it away will not make me any less wealthy, whereas those receiving it may become as wealthy as I am. Ocassionally, I like to step back and test my diamond for its beauty and hardness.)

Ratzinger's reply

As I said before, I asked myself: is the price to pay to reconcile myself with my Jewish brethren fully and in heart and through this reconciliation, reach the "true" knowledge of the God of Israel, my abandonment of the central claims we make about Jesus of Nazareth, namely that he's God incarnate, the new Moses and lawgiver, Son of God and of Man, and Israel's Messiah?

I didn't have an immediate answer and therefore I prayed for one. God answered the prayer inmediately. It so happens that someone else had asked that question before. Here's how he put it:

The history of the relationship between Israel and Christendom is drenched with blood and tears. It is a history of mistrust and hostility, but also — thank God — a history marked again and again by attempts at forgiveness, understanding and mutual acceptance. After Auschwitz, the mission of reconciliation and acceptance permits no deferral.

Even if we know that Auschwitz is the gruesome expression of an ideology that not only wanted to destroy Judaism but also hated and sought to eradicate from Christianity its Jewish heritage, the question remains, What could be the reason for so much historical hostility between those who actually must belong together because of their faith in the one God and commitment to his will?

Does this hostility result from something in the very faith of Christians? Is it something in the "essence of Christianity," such that one would have to prescind from Christianity's core, deny Christianity its heart, in order to come to real reconciliation? This is an assumption that some Christian thinkers have in fact made in the last few decades in reaction to the horrors of history. Do confession of Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of the living God and faith in the cross as the redemption of mankind contain an implicit condemnation of the Jews as stubborn and blind, as guilty of the death of the Son of God? Could it be that the core of the faith of Christians themselves compels them to intolerance, even to hostility toward the Jews, and conversely, that the self-esteem of Jews and the defense of their historic dignity and deepest convictions oblige them to demand that Christians abandon the heart of their faith and so require Jews similarly to forsake tolerance? Is the conflict programmed in the heart of religion and only to be overcome through its repudiation?

In this heightened framing of the question, the problem confronting us today reaches far beyond an academic interreligious dialogue into the fundamental decisions of this historic hour. One sees more frequent attempts to mollify the issue by representing Jesus as a Jewish teacher who in principle did not go beyond what was possible in Jewish tradition. His execution is understood to result from the political tensions between Jews and Romans. In point of fact, he was executed by the Roman authority in the way political rebels were punished. His elevation to Son of God is accordingly understood to have occurred after the fact, in a Hellenistic climate; at the same time, in view of the given political circumstances, the blame for the crucifixion is transferred from the Romans to the Jews. As a challenge to exegesis, such interpretations can further an acute listening to the text and perhaps produce something useful. However, they do not speak of the Jesus of the historic sources, but instead construct a new and different Jesus, relegating the historical faith in the Christ of the church to mythology. Christ appears as a product of Greek religiosity and political opportunism in the Roman Empire. One does not do justice to the gravity of the question with such a view; indeed one retreats from it.

Thus the question remains: Can Christian faith, left in its inner power and dignity, not only tolerate Judaism but accept it in its historic mission? Or can it not? Can there be true reconciliation without abandoning the faith, or is reconciliation tied to such abandonment? In reply to this question which concerns us most deeply, I shall not present simply my own views. Rather, I wish to show what the Catechism of the Catholic Church released in 1992 has to say. This work has been published by the magisterium of the Catholic Church as an authentic expression of her faith. In recognition of the significance of Auschwitz and from the mission of the Second Vatican Council, the matter of reconciliation has been inscribed in the catechism as an object of faith. Let us see then how the catechism sounds in relation to our question in terms of its definition of its own mission.

Read the whole essay here.

The man who asked himself the same question and then proceeded to answer it was Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI.

God does answer prayer and comes to the rescue at the precise moment when one is looking down the chasm on the point of vertigo.

A torn, seamless garment

In words repeated by the scholar - and frequent advisor to the US Catholic Bishops - Amy-Jill Levine, I feel a "holy envy" towards Judaism, more so because without Judaism, Christianity would be unintellgible. I study Judaism just before, during, and after the New Testament era with utter seriousness, respect, and many times, admiration.

Yet, my readings have led me to believe that after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD, Judaism resembled - if you allow me the analogy - a seamless garment ripped and torn at the bottom. I think that the Jewish remnant in the Holy Land also saw the discontinuity because, starting with the sucessors of the Pharisees at Jamnia and through the Talmudic age, the Jewish sages applied themselves to "hem" the jagged edges, cut, tie, and add new tzitzits to the torn, seamless garment, sometimes without paying attention to the discontinuities their repairs created.

As a consequence, Judaism became self-contained, unique, standard, and logically impervious to Christian evangelism and apologetics. This is, for the most part, the Talmudists greatest achievement which in turn guaranteed the survival of Jewish identity throughout the centuries.

These centuries were not not good for the Jewish people as they endured persecution by Christians in East and West which in turn  cemented in the emotions of the Jewish people what they had previously held intellectually: that any claim of Jesus as the unique Jewish Messiah was a non-sequitur, to be rejected a priori at all times, and at all places. For, "how can this man ever be considered as God's supreme intervention when his followers kill, persecute, and often disposses and disenfranchise us." It is a fair question and the answer should encourage in us a deep self-reflection.

Nevertheless, and setting momentarily aside the Jewish people's sorrowful history. as a Catholic Christian I can see that the "ripped garment" missing piece is precisely Jesus of Nazareth, his life, teachings, and redemptive mission. Every fiber, every shape of the missing part fits perfectly to its ripped counterpart to the last thread. That many Jews understood this explain why so many of them accepted Jesus as Messiah - and a crucified one at that - shortly after his reported death. For these Jews - and not all of them were yokels from the boondocks - the Christ-event made sense in the light of Israel's election, the Torah, and the designs of a universal God who wanted to draw every single human being toward himself. If Jesus made sense to these Jews, then there was something to Jesus that can invalidate Maimonides' the harsh evaluation he made of Jesus.

This is so, in my view, because as then Cardinal Ratzinger said, Israel's vocation was oriented toward universality. Judaism after Jesus placed its universal vocation in the back fire, at times because survival was of the essence and other times, well, what's the point? Since God will admit righteous Gentiles into his Kingdom, Jews are free to be themselves while leaving to God the fulfillment of Israel's universal vocation.

Yet, this very vocation uniquely seems to have been fulfilled in a single Israelite, Jesus of Nazareth. Therefore, and based upon then Cardinal Ratzinger's solution, I can conclude that not only there is no mutual exclusivity between the Torah and the Gospel, but that their ultimate intelligibility depends on their mutual dependence. Only in this way Israel's universal vocation can be realized, as the God of Israel is made known to all peoples. This is why so many Jews accepted Jesus as Messiah, this is why Christianity is intelligible in Jewish terms.

Love is the key

Yes, I know that most of my Jewish brethren, conditioned as they are to deny any thought of Jesus as Messiah (and for the reasons we have discussed) will reject my conclusion. Alas, I can't do more.

The rift between Jews and Christians will not be healed in my lifetime, I don't think. However, I do think that the claims of Jesus, as preserved and proclaimed by the Church, make sense even withing the Jewish crucible from which Christianity surged. My faith and my reason are secured, but the problem remains: how do I take the Gospel in an affirmative fashion to my Jewish brethren while preserving both our identities? The only personal solution I can find at the moment is by loving them as Jesus loves them, and as we love ourselves. Once we love with this intensity, the remainder will resolve itself through mutual forgiveness before the God who loves, forgive, and judge us all.
[1] Halkin, Abraham S., ed., and Cohen, Boaz, trans. Moses Maimonides' Epistle to Yemen: The Arabic Original and the Three Hebrew Versions, American Academy for Jewish Research, 1952, pp. iii-iv. as quoted in the Wikipedia.

[POWERSBOOTHEFAN]

Torah is the first pages of the Gospel? *Sigh*

The Christian Bible is the beginning of the Gospel.

[POWERSBOOTHEFAN]

When the messiah (who will be fully human)comes there will be peace on earth.

The messiah will come only once.

All Jews will be Torah observant. Clearly there are those who aren’t.

The Third Temple will be rebuilt.

All the peoples of the earth will worship the one true G-d.

There are many other messianic qualifications.

One must fulfill ALL of the requirements in order to be the messiah.

[POWERSBOOTHEFAN]

Well,I did get into the fray. *chuckle*

[jjotto]

So which of the several stories in the Talmud about different people with names similar to ‘Jesus’ is the one about the Jesus of Christianity?

Here’s something else Maimonides wrote that Christians censored:

“If he [a potential Messiah] did not succeed to this degree or he was killed, he surely is not [the redeemer] promised by the Torah. [Rather,] he should be considered as all the other proper and legitimate kings of the Davidic dynasty who died. G-d only caused him to arise in order to test the multitude. As it is written [Daniel 11:35], “Some of the wise men will stumble, to purge, to refine, and to clarify, until the appointed time, for it is yet to come.”

“Jesus of Nazareth who aspired to be the Mashiach and was executed by the court was also spoken of in Daniel’s prophecies [Daniel 11:14], “The renegades among your people shall exalt themselves in an attempt to fulfill the vision, but they shall stumble.”

“Can there be a greater stumbling block than [Christianity]? All the prophets spoke of Moshiach as the redeemer of Israel and their savior, who would gather their dispersed ones and strengthen their [observance of] the mitzvos. In contrast [the founder of Christianity] caused the Jews to be slain by the sword, their remnants to be scattered and humiliated, the Torah to be altered, and the majority of the world to err and serve a god other than the L-rd.”

“Nevertheless, the intent of the Creator of the world is not within the power of man to comprehend, for [to paraphrase Yeshayahu 55:8] His ways are not our ways, nor are His thoughts our thoughts. [Ultimately,] all the deeds of Jesus of Nazareth and that Ishmaelite [i.e. Mohammed] who arose after him will only serve to pave the way for the coming of Mashiach and for the improvement of the entire world, [motivating the nations] to serve G-d together, as it is written [Zephaniah 3:9], “I will make the peoples pure of speech so that they will all call upon the Name of G-d and serve Him with one purpose.”

“How will this come about? The entire world has already become filled with talk of [the supposed] Messiah, as well as of the Torah and the mitzvos. These matters have been spread among many spiritually insensitive nations, who discuss these matters as well as the mitzvos of the Torah. Some of them [i.e. the Christians] say: “These commandments were true, but are not in force in the present age; they are not applicable for all time.” Others [i.e. the Moslems] say: “Implied in the commandments are hidden concepts that cannot be understood simply; the Messiah has already come and revealed them.”

“When the true Messiah king will arise and prove successful, his [position becoming] exalted and uplifted, they will all return and realize that their ancestors endowed them with a false heritage; their prophets and ancestors cause them to err.”

Hilchot Melachim, Chapter 11

[POWERSBOOTHEFAN]

Because there’ll be a huge theological debate and we all know how that works out.

[Uri’el-2012]

In contrast [the founder of Christianity] caused the Jews to be slain by the sword, their remnants to be scattered and humiliated, the Torah to be altered, and the majority of the world to err and serve a god other than the L-rd.”

This is based on the assumption that the
Roman "church" was created by Yah'shua.

The Roman 'church" was created by
Constantine in 325 CE.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

[Iscool]

I personally do not think Jesus was ministering only to those who were Jews

That's exactly what He said...Why would you not believe it???

[jjotto]

Maimonides lived in Muslim cultures. Many students are surprised he addressed Christianity at all. It is unclear if he knew anything about Christianity first-hand.

I recall shock when I first heard from a well-known Torah teacher that Roman Catholicism (not just ‘Christians’) had killed *ten million* Jews down through the centuries long before the Nazi Holocaust. Perhaps I heard wrong or there was a misunderstanding.

Then later I heard the same number and story from a well-known Torah teacher from a very different kind of Torah school of thought.

It still agitates my mind.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Christianity is a god of another land.

[editor-surveyor]

No, the “Christian” Bible is the whole Bible.

YHVH is the preincarnate Christ, and every word in Torah, as the rest of the Bible, is about him.

He is coming back for his own; be ready.

[Iscool]

well, there are those who believe that the message went to gentiles only to quote “make His people jealous” — I kid you not, that’s been posted on this forum! And not by a Jewish poster!

Hey, I'm glad you brought that up...It not only gives folks the opportunity to see that the Bible seems to be another meaningless book to you, but it allows me to show the truth of the Bible...

Rom 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

What amazes me is that there are those who deny scripture even after it is posted right in front of their faces...

[Iscool]

I doubt you could say “the masses” — more specifically the crowd gathered in front of Pilate. This could have been a specially bought crowd, yes “bought” by Cleophas etc.

Or it could have been a local troop of GirlScouts posing as the religious leaders of Israel, eh??? Or it could have been a stranded group of Klingons angry at Jesus for not revealing the location of the StarGate...

[Gluteus Maximus]

So, don't eat the fruit in the Garden is acceptable to Christianity, but don't eat pig isn't.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

My response is that God in the OT never required gentiles to refrain from pork or to keep the other dietary laws. He did, however, require that they keep the Law of Noah. My point is that we gentiles are not required to do so by the Law of Moses.

The early Church was forced to confront the problem of the applicability of the Law of Moses in all its many details to the gentiles who converted to Christianity. This crisis was brought about in no small part by the amazing success of the mission of Saul of Tarsus (St. Paul), who converted gentiles left and right. Were gentiles required to be circumcised? Did they have to keep the dietary laws?

The answer, as set forth in the Acts of the Apostles, is that gentiles were not bound to keep the Law of Moses, but were, in keeping with Genesis, required to keep the law of Noah. This was the first authoritative ruling by a Church council. It was read aloud not by Peter, interestingly enough, but by St. James, who was the head of the Jewish Church at the time.

Once that is understood, I see no contradiction. Do you see my point?

[Iscool]

The crowd at the governor's palace was not necessarily a representative sample of the Jewish populace. It would have been extraordinarily foolish of the Jewish leaders to not have as many of their henchmen as possible in this crowd. The remainder would have probably been largely city rif-raf. As in today's city mobs, most "solid citizens" are busy elsewhere with their lives.

While this may (or may not) be the case, Jesus certainly didn't punish the entire Jewish Nation just because of a few rabble rousers...Jesus was rejected by the majority of the Jewish population...And as such, the Jewish population is going thru a period where the Truth is hid from them...

Would seem (to me) that while most Jews were not present at the conviction and Crucifixion, most did not oppose it...

And as such, I feel that while the group of Jews we not chosen by their peers to be present at the sentencing, they did however represent the indifference of the conviction of their fellow Jews...

[Belteshazzar]

Having read through the various posts to this point, three things strike me:

1) There are different definitions/concepts of “Torah” being used. In my experience debates that are initiated without defining (precising) terms usually descends quickly into a pointless and often hostile shouting match.

2) There appears to be the assumption that Judaism is monolithic. While there might be some truth to that today (and, yes, I know there are other viewpoints, but they are very much the minority), it certainly was not true at the time of Jesus. There were significant differences between Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians, Zealots, Essenes, and those with whom Jesus resonated ... and, perhaps, others. Because modern Judaism is, essentially, Pharisaic Judaism (don’t take my word for it, consult the Encyclopedia Judaica for yourselves on this matter), the Pharisaical viewpoint - whether of the conservative-leaning variety or the skeptical-leaning variety - is the lens through which all matters Jewish are viewed today. I do not buy into the notion of a monolithic Judaism from which Jesus rebelled or which He discarded as useless.

3) It is evident also that assumption reigns here that the Old Testament (or Hebrew Bible or Tanach, if you prefer) is all about “law” and the New Testament all about “gospel” as opposed to law. If one looks at the words of Jesus quoted in the canonical New Testament - and here I have no interest in dealing with the skeptical opinions of academics who want to debate, ala the Jesus Seminar, which words Jesus did or did not speak - you will find that He assumed no such thing.

These three things, it seems to me, render this discussion pretty much useless.

[Tzfat]

Sounds theological excuses

[100American]

Are you then saying that the New Testament is for Jews only? That he does not intend for it to be for all men, not just them?

[Sherman Logan]

And as such, the Jewish population is going thru a period where the Truth is hid from them.

Don't buy that. God accepts Jews as Christians now on exactly the same basis as anybody else. The Jewish nation is not being punished, except insofar as they refuse to accept the word of God.

[hosepipe]

[ one would know Yah’shua many times said it is written ]

It was written..... but not by God.... but by others..
The letter kills... but the Spirit gives life.. who said that?..

The bible is useful but not mandatory..
Even the stupid and ignorant can be saved by God..
Seems God does not require you to be smart.. or smarter...

God evidently keeps the smart sheep in the Sheep Pens.. i.e. denominations..
But the dumber ones of us he releases into the pasture.. i.e. John ch 10, Ps 23..

[Iscool]

Don't buy that. God accepts Jews as Christians now on exactly the same basis as anybody else. The Jewish nation is not being punished, except insofar as they refuse to accept the word of God.

Rom 11:7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded
Rom 11:8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.
Rom 11:9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:
Rom 11:10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.
Rom 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.

Rom 11:14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.

Rom 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

Rom 11:30 For as ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
Rom 11:31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
Rom 11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

Didn't say that no Jews could be saved...

Rom 11:14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.