Christians and Jews

For many centuries Jews found the Christian interpretation of the scriptures puzzling. None of the so-called references to Christ seemed to be anywhere in the texts. They concluded that Christians took their Bible, used an inferior translation, changed the meaning, misread the story line, and interpreted its details to draw conclusions with little resemblance to the original work. The Christian counter can be expressed in the writings of two early writers. The first is the Apostle Paul who postulated that the Jewish concept of the Messiah was incorrect, and the second century author of the letter of Barnabas (not the same Barnabas described in the Book of Acts). Barnabas asserted that when God gave Moses his commandments on tablets that God had written, Moses broke them. There was never a covenant between the Jews and God. The Covenant is between God and those who believe in the real Messiah, the one God sent. Like Paul, Barnabas asserted that belief in Christ's resurrection supersedes any literal reading of the mosaic laws and they should be understood as God intended, figuratively. Oddly, this argument; never a particularly strong one, falls apart with the re-establishment of the State of Israel and the Jewish presence in modern Jerusalem. The Christian claim of a broken covenant destining the Jews to wander the Earth forever was invalidated in 1948 and 1967.

The Jewish definition of Messiah is best summarized by the twelfth century rabbi and philosopher Moses Maimonides in his seminal work the Mishneh Torah. The Messiah shall come from the house of David; will be a great student of Torah (Jewish law); will unite all of Israel; fight and win a great war; rebuild the Holy Temple; and bring all Jews back from the diaspora. According to Maimonides, many can assert this claim, just as the Rabbi Akiva asserted that Simon Bar Kokhba was the Messiah in Jewish war of the second century. That Bar Kokhba failed proves he was not the Messiah. That Jesus did not succeed proves he was not the Messiah. You are only recognized as the Messiah when you are successful. While Maimonides wrote 1100 years after Jesus, his definition of Messiah was the same as the definition of Messiah in the time of Pontius Pilate.

From what the Gospels tell us of Jesus we can be fairly confident that Jesus fulfilled only one of the six tasks required for someone to earn the title "messiah." Jesus was described as a great student of Torah. Since both the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke trace Jesus lineage through Joseph, who was not Jesus' father, it is impossible to say whether Jesus was from the house of David. As to the other four, no one, including the Gospel authors, claim Jesus accomplished any of them. The conclusion is very straight forward. Jesus was not the Jewish messiah. One only earns this title when the job is done.

When Christians read their Old Testament the can find references to Christ Jesus everywhere and have a list that numbers near one hundred the scriptural references or prophesies about Jesus Christ. Most of these are laughably taken out of context and refer to events of details that have nothing to do with the messiahship. The only way to make the inference is to simply read into it materials that are simply not present. Another batch of these references are pulled from Greek translations, reading into the texts ideas that are not part of the original Hebrew. However; the most significant point is that all of the Hebrew Bible references to the messiah are just that: references to the messiah figure, not Jesus. They describe the characteristics of the messiah in order to make him recognizable. In numerous references the Gospels make reference to Jesus fulfilling some of the prophecies about the messiahship. What they could not do is have Jesus fulfill the primary and critical prophecies about messiahship because they knew he died without fulfilling them.

What becomes more critical for Jewish thinking is that Paul's revisions of the concept of Messiah (that Jesus' resurrection proves the he was the Messiah and that the Messiah came to save the entire world) had no basis outside of Paul's own imagination. There is absolutely no reference to the messiah making two trips. Paul made a well reasoned argument based on a critical assumption; namely that the messianic age began with Jesus' resurrection. The Messiah spearheads the messianic age (the period on Earth ruled by the Messiah). Paul's messianic age hypothesis was dependent on Christ's imminent return during Paul's lifetime. When this return failed to materialize Paul was effectively proven wrong. This is probably the time when any Jewish followers faded from the scene. Jesus was clearly not the Messiah. Later Christians have separated the Messiah from the messianic age, something entirely impossible within the Hebrew Bible. Christianity could still flourish because the pagans that accepted the message did not know what the Hebrew Bible actually said; nor did they care. They don't seem to care, even today.

For Jews the Hebrew Scriptures are both their history and their guide. For Christians the Old Testament is a mystery novel, revealing hints of Christ throughout. Rabbinical Judaism does not have the same problem with literalism that is so problematic among modern Christians. Judaism has companion literature designed for both interpretation and guidance. Stripped of this guidance Christians do what the medieval Catholic Church warned about. They read it any way they want. Some read it literally, or at least parts of it literally. Others read it as a figurative story line. Even the Catholic Church has its own interpretations, which no Rabbi would understand. As a result, the Old Testament becomes a tool to justify anything, except, oddly, Judaism.

The Jews might have maintained the special status had they not been so rebellious. It was the political insurrection, not their non-pagan religion, that put them at odds with Rome. The Hebrew monotheism had a unique attractiveness throughout the Roman Empire and the concept of a single, all powerful creator God was appealing to many pagans used to their far-from-perfect petty and cantankerous gods. The primary obstacle was one that the emerging Christian religion avoided; namely those complex Jewish laws including dietary prohibitions, sexual prohibitions and, of course, circumcision. The Apostle Paul was adamant that his Gentile followers did not have be circumcised and this fact alone probably won over many converts and sealed the fate of the Jewish Christians that required Christians "become Jewish" before they could become Christian. Paul's tweaks of the Hebrew laws made his message much more palatable to the gentile listeners already familiar with the Hebrew concept of monotheism.

It is generally recognized that without Judaism there would not be Christianity. More specifically, without the Jewish culture permeating much of the 1st century empire, there would not have been a spread of Christianity either. After AD 70 Christians would have all the stigma of the rebellious Jews without the benefit of the ancient traditions that earned Roman respect. Breaking with Judaism was critical to their survival which became even more critical when the Jews revolted once again in AD 132. Had Christianity maintained its ties to Judaism many, if not most, Christians would have suffered the same fate as the Jews.