One More Time: Why Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah

[cnorman18]

From some recent threads, it appears that its time to repost this yet again -- as usual, as an informational piece only. It first appeared, in a slightly different form, in late 2007. It was among my very first posts to this forum.

My usual caveats before I begin:

This post is NOT an attack on Christianity.

This post is intended to EXPLAIN some things that very many non-Jews, including many Christians but also including many others, apparently do not understand.

Jews, as a rule, do not comment on the truth or falsehood of any other faith, and that includes the Christian faith; we have no right. We only claim to know how, in the words of our tradition, God chose to speak to US. If He chose to speak to another people in another manner, that is no business of ours, and we have no warrant to say that He did not.

Asserting a belief in one tradition is NOT, in our view, a negation of all others, no matter how passionately others try to put those words in our mouths. We go our own way, and others may go theirs; we do not believe ours to be "the only true religion," as some others do, nor do we believe that one must be Jewish to be "saved." We truly have no such concept anyway, as will be seen presently.

This post is also not addressed to atheists. I have spoken on the radically different theology (insofar as it exists) of the Jewish religion elsewhere, and at length, and have many times noted the fact that very many Jews ARE atheists; but all of those issues, and the debates and discussions connected thereto, are not for this thread, and I will not be dealing with them here.

This post is on the rather more limited topic of why the Jews did not, and do not, and will not, accept Jesus as our Messiah.

That some few have, and do, does not matter, any more than the fact that very many Christians have converted to Judaism as well (I am one of them). People may choose to believe as they like; but that is not relevant here. The fact is that there are reasons why very few Jews who are familiar with and committed to their faith and tradition ever have, or ever will, believe in Jesus. This post is an effort to explain some of the most important of those reasons. If you do not agree with them, that is your right, but these matters are not, for Jews, open to debate or argument.

The core of this problem is that the office of Messiah, to Jews, and that of the Christ, to Christians, are two very different and virtually mutually exclusive things.

To begin, then: Jesus, to put it plainly, simply did not perform the very specific actions that the Messiah was expected to do. There can be no "wiggle room" here; the tradition has been constant for, quite literally, thousands of years, and it has not changed. It is true that most modern Jews are no longer much interested in the figure of the Messiah, and his importance has rather sunk into the background in recent centuries; but the concept, and the office, remains the same.

The issue was never that there were certain "prophecies" that the Messiah had to "fulfill," as many seem to think. Most of the prophecies which it is claimed that Jesus fulfilled were never considered prophecies by Jews in the first place, a fact which is easily confirmed by any good book on Judaism. The very term prophecy has a different meaning in the Jewish religion anyway; there, it is only occasionally related to foretelling the future, and even then generally only in the short term.

The Messiah was never to be identified by prophecy; he was to be identified by the PERFORMANCE of certain concrete, real-world actions. To do them was to be the Messiah, and the meaning of the word "Messiah" was "the man who does these things."

Jesus did not do them. He was not the Messiah. There is no "therefore," because the phrases are synonymous.

Jesus fulfilled one and only one attribute of the Messiah; he was of the tribe of Judah. Much is made of this in two of the Gospels, Matthew and Luke, with elaborate genealogies given for Mary, and, oddly, for Joseph.

Other than that, St. Paul and the Gospels to the contrary, Jesus did nothing expected of the Messiah. Three such expectations will suffice for our purposes:

The Messiah was to be a military and/or a political leader, an actual, rightful King who would restore the line of David to the throne of Israel and reign in Jerusalem as the actual, literal earthly monarch of the Jewish nation.

He would restore the political independence of the land of Israel and free it from foreign rule.

Most importantly, his coming would coincide with the beginning of a time of perfect peace, justice, liberty and piety that would shortly extend over all the earth -- in THIS world and THIS life, and not in a "symbolic" or spiritual way, but in literal, present human history. Whether he himself would bring about this "Messianic Age," or whether he would arrive after we humans ourselves have achieved it by our own efforts, has been a bone of contention among Jews for centuries. I, myself, do not claim to know.

This last is, as I say, the most important signifier of all; the Messiah would arrive with the Messianic Age. He was named for it, and it was named for him. The two would come together, or not at all. They were, and remain, one.

It seems rather clear that none of these occurred, and most glaringly the last, which was and has always been the most important sign and task of the Messiah. The short answer, for many Jews, to the question "Why don't you believe in Jesus?" is "Oy! Look around!" The world is not at peace; ergo, Messiah has not come. That's an end to the "debate," for most Jews.

And now we come to the nature of the Christian Christ, and the enormous differences between what is said of Jesus and the attributes of the Jewish Messiah.

Put simply: Jesus claimed (or it was claimed for him) that he had power and authority that no Jew could or would claim for any man, and power and authority far beyond any that were ever attributed to the coming Messiah. These claims were, and remain, alien to Judaism and are in fact often blasphemous from a Jewish point of view.

First, It was claimed that Jesus was God incarnate; that he, a human being, was, in fact and truth, God Almighty Himself in the flesh.

It would be hard to think of an idea more repugnant to Jews, then or now. The oldest and most fundamental and nonnegotiable tenet of Judaism is that God is One, which means a good deal more than "one God." Among other things, it means that God is unique and indivisible, and shares His Essence and Being with no one and nothing. He is Alone. He is One.

It was, therefore, and will remain, impossible for Jews to accept the claim that a man could be, in any sense, God. The Messiah was never conceived to be anything other than an ordinary mortal man; anointed by God, to be sure, but no more a God himself than King David was, the paradigmatic King in Jewish history and tradition. There is no hint of such a thing as a Divine Man anywhere in Jewish tradition, teaching or literature; it is about as likely as the High Priest carving a stone idol and placing it in the Holy of Holies. It was, and remains, quite literally unthinkable.

The one -- count em, ONE -- verse from Scripture (Isaiah 9:6) that is commonly given as proof that this notion DID have a part in Jewish tradition is, without apology, a gross misreading and mistranslation of the passage in question; and it is also, just as importantly, unique. The idea that such a radical departure from the ancient tenets of the Jewish religion would not be known and even heavily emphasized throughout Jewish teachings over the centuries, as opposed to appearing in one and only one verse of the Bible, is more than a little ludicrous. Basing the practice of snake-handling on one verse in Mark is positively reasonable and credible in comparison.

Second, Jesus was said to be the literal son of God. This was way beyond bizarre. The idea that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of Moses and Sinai, could or would come down to earth and father a human child on a human woman is as foreign to Judaism as temple prostitution. That is a Greek idea, not a Jewish one -- consider Zeus and Hercules -- and it may be no coincidence that Paul was speaking to Greeks, not Jews, when he formulated it. There has never been anything within a light-year of that idea anywhere in all the enormous tradition and long history of the Jewish people. It is, once again, unthinkable:

Third, Jesus claimed the power and authority to forgive sins.

All sins.

It may be more difficult to see why this is such a problem for Jews, because this is not widely known: In the Jewish religion, sins can only be forgiven by the person being sinned against. That means, among other things, that God Himself cannot forgive all sins. If I punch you in the nose, who is God to forgive me? That sin must be forgiven by you, and only you, or it is not to be forgiven at all. No one else has the right. God can forgive sins against Himself -- failures to honor vows, ritual "sins," and so on -- but not personal sins against other people.

This is why Jews do not generally respond to the observation that the Holocaust should be "forgiven." We, the Jews of the present day, have no right. As Elie Wiesel, himself a Holocaust survivor, once said: "Ask the six million for forgiveness."

By the same token, even Christians, I think, often feel a certain revulsion when some convicted murderer taunts his victim's family with "God has forgiven me; why can't you?" I think most people instinctively feel that claim to be fraudulent and self-serving, not to mention hypocritical, even if they dont share our belief.

By claiming the authority to forgive ALL sins, Jesus was not claiming to be coequal with God; he was claiming to be greater than God. No wonder some tore their robes and cried Blasphemy! when they heard him speak.

Fourth, as if all this were not enough: It was claimed that Jesus took on a role that had never been contemplated by any Jew from Abraham onward, a role that was not necessary and was, again, alien to the whole of Jewish teachings and traditions from the beginning to the present day; That role was that of Savior. it is claimed that Jesus was the sacrifice that saves all men from their sins, and that this salvation is accessed by believing in him, and nothing more.

This seems simple; but for Jews, there are no less than six separate problems here.

First, the idea that people need to be saved from their sins in the first place. Jews have never believed in "Original Sin," nor that all people are born sinful. We believe that everyone has an impulse to do good, and an impulse to do evil, and that these remain with us all our lives; our job is to follow the first and resist (or redirect) the second to the best of our ability.

Second, St. Paul to the contrary, Jews have never taught, nor do we believe, that we are obligated to fulfill "the whole of the Law" or face eternal damnation. We believe that, since God made us, He knows our imperfection and our weakness, and does not demand that we be perfect and without fault or flaw. That would be the act of an unjust God, and we do not believe that God is unjust.

Third, Jews do not believe that any human can bear the sins of another. That principle is underlined in the Torah over and over again. Each man bears his own sins, and that cannot be changed. Sins are forgiven through prayer, repentance, and deeds of lovingkindness. No blood is necessary.

Fourth, we do not believe that a "sacrifice" is necessary to obtain forgiveness for sins, whether animal or human (and the idea of a human sacrifice is so far from any Jewish belief or practice that it is barely comprehensible that anyone would even propose it as a possibility). It is true that animal sacrifices were performed in the Tabernacle and later in the Temple, but it is clear throughout the Torah and the Prophets that the sacrifice itself was meaningless without the repentance and devotion of the individual human heart.

Fifth, in Judaism, "belief" accomplishes precisely nothing by itself. There is no Creed in Judaism, no specified set of acceptable beliefs. What one "believes" is all but insignificant next to what one does, and no amount of "belief" cancels or ameliorates the results of one's actions. Believing the proper "doctrines" in Judaism is utterly irrelevant to anything at all.

A concrete example, put simply: if I am in need, what do I care what you "believe"? Will you help me, or not? Nothing else matters.

Sixth, Jews are not even certain that there is a Heaven at all. Judaism has rather little concern with the afterlife; it is not mentioned in the Torah, and belief in it seems to have been entirely absent from its teachings in the early years of our religion. Even those Jews who do believe in Heaven spend little time or energy thinking and talking about it -- and there is no belief in an eternal fiery Hell at all, anywhere in all of Jewish history or tradition. The focus of the Jewish religion is THIS life, in THIS world. The next, we leave to God. Salvation, in the Christian sense of going to Heaven, is a non-issue for Jews. It is not even a peripheral interest, let alone a central principle.

As you can see, though Judaism and Christianity share an ethic, basic values, and many religious practices, as well as (in part) common literature, our views of the nature and structure of the relationship between God and man, the nature and importance of sin and the means of its forgiveness, the significance of the afterlife, and many other matters, are so profoundly different that they really do constitute two entirely separate religions.

That one was derived from the other, and that we share a large body of Scripture, no longer matters. We stand beside each other as brothers; but we have long since taken separate paths. We ought to respect one another and work together where our ideals and ethics converge in the real world -- which is almost everywhere. Where our beliefs differ, we should agree to disagree and leave each other alone, because there can be no reconciliation there.

One more note: It is wholly illegitimate and improper for a follower of any faith to attempt to dictate to a follower of another what his beliefs OUGHT to be, then castigate him because they do not follow his prescription. No one has any warrant to point out passages of "prophecy" in our own Scriptures that we do not, and have never, read as such, and overrule the traditions and beliefs that we have held for more than three thousand years--and tell us what we ought to think and believe. No one has that right; not you, not your Church, not Jesus himself.

To Christians: This caveat applies in both directions. We have no warrant to tell YOU how to read the Bible, either; you may read the Hebrew Bible, which you have adopted as your Old Testament, in any way you choose. We also have no warrant to deny that Jesus is your Savior, or to deny that, for you, any belief you may hold about him is true. That is between you and God, and is none of our business; for all any Jew knows, those beliefs are true and correct for Christians and God will honor them. Jesus may very well be YOUR Messiah, even though he is not ours. That is not for us to say.

But in the same way, it is not your right to insist that we abandon our own beliefs and convictions in favor of an understanding of our own Scriptures that we have never held. As I say; this matter is not open to debate. This determination was made by my people two thousand years ago, and it has been reaffirmed in every generation.

If anybody is planning to post a point-by-point attempt at refuting all this, complete with a whole raft of "proof texts" from the Bible -- Old OR New Testament -- it will be a waste of your time. It won't be a waste of mine, because I've seen them all before, and I'll be declining to "debate." Others may choose to respond, which is fine, but for my part, I'll just refer you to this website, where you will find all the information you need.

If anyone wishes to DISCUSS these things, on the other hand, I'd be glad to participate. But don't try to convince me, as so many have, that Judaism actually, really does teach that Jesus was the true Messiah. That argument entails one of two, and only two, corollaries, you see; (1) that Jews are too stupid to understand their own religion and have been for 2,000 years, or (2) that we all secretly know that Jesus was our Messiah and have simply been lying about it. Both of those claims are insulting, demeaning, and grossly offensive to Jews, and are therefore by definition antisemitic. Don't go there.

I'll close with a saying from the Talmud that, I would hope, indicates a way to peace. When the sages of old disagreed and could find no way to reconcile their differences, they would often allow both rulings to stand as equally acceptable options in Jewish law. When asked how this was possible, it was said that "When Elijah comes, he will explain which of us was right -- or why we both were."

In that spirit, I'll offer this: I have said for many years that, when (if) the Messiah finally comes, the Jews will look up and say, Youre here! the Christians will look up and say, Youre back! -- and then well all hug each other and laugh about it.

Peace to all.

[cnorman18]

[Replying to post 40 by Duvduv]

That is still a separate topic. No one here is concerned with YOUR topic but YOU. Your demand is precisely analogous to diverting every religious debate into one over the existence of God, and we don't do that either. You've already been given the best alternative:

START YOUR OWN THREAD!

[Duvduv]

Now, now, Norman. Just calm down. So you are admitting, therefore, that the discussion of whether Jesus was the messiah is valuable even if there is no corroborating evidence that he even actually existed in the 1st century. Hmmm.....that's rather interesting.

[Replying to post 40 by Duvduv]

That is still a separate topic. No one here is concerned with YOUR topic but YOU. Your demand is precisely analogous to diverting every religious debate into one over the existence of God, and we don't do that either. You've already been given the best alternative:

START YOUR OWN THREAD!

[Goat]

Excuse me, Norman, but if one is going to discuss whether or not he was the messiah, you have to start from the point as to WHETHER he even existed, and the ONLY actually sources that suggest he existed are the NT texts themselves. That is what I was pointing out. If hijacking has occurred it is reducing the discussion about this person to a theological discussion assuming he existed without having even critically examined whether he actually existed OUTSIDE OF THE CHRISTIAN CANON and other texts in the exclusive possession of the Church libraries and monasteries.

This thread is merely a discussion in polemics, not a discussion of corroborative evidence or lack thereof of the existence of the person called Jesus in the NT writings. That is rather unfortunate.

This thread is a discussion of why Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah. Perhaps you noticed that in the TITLE.

If you want to see "a discussion of corroborative evidence or lack thereof of the existence of the person called Jesus in the NT writings" -- start your own!

You don't get to HIJACK threads here to divert them to your own pet topics.

I disagree. it doesn't matter if he existed or not. The traits given to the Gospel Jesus are such , that , even if he had all those traits and did all those deeds, he would not be qualified for the Jewish Messiah.

End of story.

His existence/non-existence is the subject of a different thread.

[cnorman18]

[Replying to post 42 by Duvduv]

So you're going to try out that tired old moss-covered tactic of patronizing your opponent by pretending that he's emotionally upset?

Interesting.

Yes, I DO think that the discussion of whether Jesus was the messiah is valuable even if there were no corroborating evidence that he actually existed in the 1st century.

I would also "admit," as if that were something to be ashamed of (another hoary old tactic around here), that discussions about the Afterlife, the "Soul," the Ideal Government, the Perfect Woman, faster-than-light travel, and God Himself are valuable, even though there has never been any conclusive evidence that ANY of those actually exist.

Now if there's another topic you find of interest other than the one actually under discussion in this thread, feel free to start your own. Is there some kind of problem with that simple suggestion?

[Duvduv]

[Replying to cnorman18]

Well, you know that the existence of G-d can NEVER be empirically proven. However, it is possible to provide some kind of empirical proof about the existence of human beings. Short of that, all you can do is rely on OTHERS, which amounts to FAITH. If a person insists that Jesus existed in the 1st century despite the lack of any evidence then you are relying on faith in the claims of others and nothing more. Making determinations requires inference, logic and analysis of context. But it is not the same thing as empirical evidence. A careful analysis of the Jewish environment and texts results in the inference that such Jesus did not exist in the first century.

[Haven]

Well, you know that the existence of G-d can NEVER be empirically proven. However, it is possible to provide some kind of empirical proof about the existence of human beings. Short of that, all you can do is rely on OTHERS, which amounts to FAITH. If a person insists that Jesus existed in the 1st century despite the lack of any evidence then you are relying on faith in the claims of others and nothing more. Making determinations requires inference, logic and analysis of context. But it is not the same thing as empirical evidence. A careful analysis of the Jewish environment and texts results in the inference that such Jesus did not exist in the first century.

Jesus may or may not have been a historical figure. That, while an interesting topic (I'm starting a thread on it in the C & A section if you're interested), is irrelevant to this discussion.

This thread centers not on Jesus' existence but on whether or not he (as described in the Christian New Testament) fulfills the requirements of the Jewish Messiah. The answer to that question, as others have said, is a resounding "no." The Jewish Messiah was to be a political leader who brought peace to Israel in this earthly life, while Christians claim Jesus was a 'spiritual' leader who brings peace in the afterlife, in a 'spiritual' sense, or at some later date when he returns. Given these things, it seems obvious that the character of Jesus (whether he was historical or not) is NOT the Jewish Messiah.

[otseng]

[Replying to post 40 by Duvduv]

[Replying to post 45 by Duvduv]

Moderator Comment

Please start a different thread if another topic is raised.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Elijah John]

Very well written OP, a clear and concise explanation as to why Jews do not consider Jesus to be their awaited Messiah.

Just a couple of observations, I would agree that the folks who invented the concept of Messiahship get to define the qualifications of said Messiahship.

And the difference between the awaited Messiah and the Christ of Paul's faith is noted, it is a clear distinction and a tolerant concession that Christians are entitled to believe what they want, but not entitled to redefine the Jewish concept. I too wish some of the dogmatic Fundamentalists and replacement theologians would return the courtesy and stop telling Jews how they are to interpret their own Scripture.

And the examples cnorman provided to demonstrate that many Christian denominations have renounced replacement theology are well cited, and that whole post could be an article in and of itself.

I was told as a child that the only difference between Christians and Jews is that Jews don't have their Messiah yet, and we have ours in Jesus. Well, I guess that is an appropriate way to explain things to a child. But since I have researched Judaism and I can attest that everything in the OP is valid and true, that the differences are far more varied and profound than that explanation to a child. I'm making an educated guess that cnorman pretty much does speak for most if not all practicing Jews, at least on the matters he cited.

But not being a Jew, and free from the remarkable restraint shown by cnorman though out this thread, I will go a step beyond the OP in saying that I think the whole reason for the invention of the doctrine of the second coming was because Jesus did not fulfill the Messianic qualifications the first time around. If Jesus was really the Messiah, why would he have to visit the earth twice? That is probably the biggest reason I do not believe Jesus was the Messiah, although I do revere him as a Rabbi and a prophet. And where in the OT is it ever prophesied that Jesus would have to come back for a 2nd time, to get the job done?

So even though I do side with Jesus on some issues described in the NT, I do think Jews are correct in not considering Jesus to be Messiah, or the "Son" of God, or God incarnate, for all the reasons cnorman articulated so well.

And I think some of the opposing arguments to the OP are examples of some of the most circular reasoning I have ever read.

[The Me's]

The core of this problem is that the office of Messiah, to Jews, and that of the Christ, to Christians, are two very different and virtually mutually exclusive things.

You're right about this being the core of the problem.

Unfortunately, the office of "messiah" according to modern Jews, and the office of "messiah" according to the Tenakh, are two very, very different things.

The Christian concept of messiah need not respond to modern rabbinic teachings at all. We only need respond to the OT, and I think we do quite well.

When I attended my own local synagogue for classes, I was saddened to see such a profound disregard for the religion of the OT in favor of the Talmud. This is a loss to Judaism.

[cnorman18]

The core of this problem is that the office of Messiah, to Jews, and that of the Christ, to Christians, are two very different and virtually mutually exclusive things.

You're right about this being the core of the problem.

Unfortunately, the office of "messiah" according to modern Jews, and the office of "messiah" according to the Tenakh, are two very, very different things.

Please demonstrate this. I rather suspect you are assuming that the modern Christian interpretations of certain passages in Tanakh are correct, rather than the Jewish interpretations.

Sorry, but you don't have the authority to tell Jews how to read our Bible.

The Christian concept of messiah need not respond to modern rabbinic teachings at all. We only need respond to the OT, and I think we do quite well.

If you want to convince Jews that Jesus was our Messiah, you certainly need to take the teachings of modern-day Judaism into account. Further, if you're going to dismiss those teachings, you have an obligation to explain why you do so, and why modern Jews are so benighted that we do not understand our own religion, and justify your claim that you understand it better than we.

When I attended my own local synagogue for classes, I was saddened to see such a profound disregard for the religion of the OT in favor of the Talmud. This is a loss to Judaism.

Please show where Tanakh teaches that the Messiah will (a) be God Himself incarnated as a human being; (b) be the literal Son of God; (c) have authority to forgive ALL sins; (d) be resurrected from the dead as proof of his office; and (e) be the necessary sacrifice for the sins of all men.

While you're at it, please show that the Jewish understandings of the cherry picked passages that you will no doubt post are incorrect, in the context of the entire books in which they appear and of Tanakh as a whole, and explain why they are incorrect.

Of course, it would be advisable to know what the Jewish interpretation of those passages IS in order to do that. I recommend The Jewish Study Bible for this effort. Another useful volume might be David Klinghoffer's Why the Jews Rejected Jesus. I feel rather sure that it will inform you of some things that you do not know.

Good luck with all that.