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

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."

Your #217 points out some of the difficulties of reconciling the chronologies of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. I read through your post, and think I have an understanding of the timeline you propose. The problem still remains, though, of Ezra's use of the name "Artaxerxes" in chapter 4. If your timeline is right, then Ezra must be in error about the identity of the king.

I answered your question, now answer mine: Did the decree of Cyrus in Ezra 1:2 and reread 15 years later by Darius in Ezra 6:3 give permission for the Jews to rebuild the city and/or walls of Jerusalem ? Yes or no --- YES or NO

No, the decree mentioned in Ezra 1:2 does not mention the rebuilding of the city. However, Isaiah 44 does prophecy that Cyrus would authorize it. That may not be good enough for you, but that is good enough for me. As I said to Starwind, the one does not exclude the other.

Now, if you will, an answer to my question about Jesus's anointing as king of Israel. Please feel free to use whatever scripture you like.

So, what version did you use in post #215, and why didn't you use JPS?

I used the RSV. As I stated earlier, I frequently use it in conversation with Christians, because most Christians accept that translation.

Shall we look at the KJV?

But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night. (Psalm 1:2)

I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart. (Psalm 40:8)

Let thy tender mercies come unto me, that I may live: for thy law is my delight. (Psalm 119:77)

No matter which translation you use, it is clear that David did not consider the Law a curse.

That which is born of flesh is flesh, and that which is born of spirit is spirit. Both are offspring.

Words mean things. "Seed" is pretty explicit.

Oh, and how exactly were Jesus's days prolonged? I seem to recall him dying fairly young.

Try these words from a great Hebrew scholar:

"They who are children of the flesh, these are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as the seed". [Romans 9:8]

And I do believe that Jesus rose from the dead, visited with his disciples afterwards, then ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of His Father even to this day -- is that pro-longed enough?

Jesus has not been anointed King of Israel yet, but He will. That is the point regarding the 7 things listed in Daniel 9:24. The first 3 were accomplished in Jesus's first coming. The last 4 will be completed in his second coming, including "anointing the most Holy". The root of the word "Messiah" appears 3 times in Gabriel's message there in only 4 verses, which is why I say it is a Messianic message that should be listened to.

Remember the crime for which he was crucified -- it was on the board above his head on the cross in three languages: Jesus --- King of the Jews.

When you get a chance, perhaps you can help me underrstand how the Jews reconciled their lunar calendar. I get conflicting stories on this.

1] I am told that their months were 30 days long giving them a 360 day year, but every six years they would add a second month of Adar to reconcile it with the solar calendar.

2] I am also told that the year [month of Nisan (Abib)] did not begin until the barley began to come up, and that the barley did not begin to green for several days after the end of the month of Adar and beginning of Nisan, which was generally 5 days later.

Which did they use -- the first, the second, both, or some other method?

"They who are children of the flesh, these are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as the seed". [Romans 9:8]

Paul's particular theology does not establish what Isaiah's intent was in writing "he shall see his seed" hundreds of years before.

Then there is the matter of "he shall prolong his days". Although I suspect I know where you'd take that one.

And I do believe that Jesus rose from the dead, visited with his disciples afterwards, then ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of His Father even to this day -- is that pro-longed enough?

I was right. Of course, this aspect of the passage becomes meaningless if we consider that everyone has eternal life, and therefore this verse, understood this way, could refer to anybody.

Jesus has not been anointed King of Israel yet, but He will.

Interesting. The response I usually see suggests that the anointing took place at Luke 7:38. We actually agree, then, that a king must be properly anointed.

The last 4 will be completed in his second coming, including "anointing the most Holy".

And where, again, in the Hebrew scriptures is this second coming prophecied?

Remember the crime for which he was crucified -- it was on the board above his head on the cross in three languages: Jesus --- King of the Jews.

Of course the Romans were mocking him by putting that there. You yourself agreed just above that he has not been anointed king of Israel yet.

Which did they use -- the first, the second, both, or some other method?

Both are true. Here is a link that describes how the calendar worked: http://www.jewfaq.org/calendar.htm.

The start of the new year was a separate but related issue. When the calendar was standardized, the start of the new year was fixed. Some Jews did not go along with the changed calendar. Karaite Jews do not view rabbinic interpretation as authoritative. They are like sola scriptura Jews. They claim to be the "original" Jews, but the historical record suggests that they began as a reaction against rabbinic Judaism in the 8th century CE. Anyway, to make a long story longer, the Karaites hold to the earlier calendar method of astronomical observation to determine the month, and locating of barley to determine the start of the new year. There is an interesting discussion of the issue here: http://www.karaite-korner.org/abib.shtml

Okay, if you say so

Great. I'm glad you agree with me.

but back in the first century, children of Abraham were considered to be those who kept the Law, especially WRT circumcision.

There was a special name for these people. They were called "converts". Conversion to Judaism is scriptural; see Ruth 1:16.

There were and are "righteous gentiles" who worship the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but who do not convert to Judaism or observe the details of the Law. The name for them is B'nei Noach, or Sons of Noah.

Huh? I thought "righteous gentiles" referred to people who were not Jews, didn't claim to be Jews, but nonetheless lived exemplary lives or performed worthy deeds.

Yes, that's what I said. They haven't converted to Judaism. In Roman times, the term "righteous gentile" was used in reference to those who had abandoned paganism to worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but who had not formally converted. Nowadays, the term is used generically for a person who follows the 7 Laws of Noah, whether consciously or not. By this definition, most Christians would be classified as righteous gentiles.

I thought we were all sons of Noah. Are you saying there are some who are not descended from him?

We all are. The specific term B'nei Noach is used for those who are under the Noahide covenant, but who are not descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob bound to the additional Law of the Sinaitic covenant. Jews are a subset of the sons of Noah. Non-Jews do not need to follow all the Law of the Torah in order to be reckoned righteous.

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.