I. Women in Judaism: The role of women in Judaism is one that is unsettling, and one that might lead someone to approve of getting rid of the Old Testament and all its idiosyncrasies. However, like I said in my last post, there is a reason behind it having to do with the removal of obligation. However, in Reform congregations women are finding themselves in larger capacities and roles. I believe that since the reason for removing women from such obligation was due to their more important obligations of raising children, and because there is no need to assume that in 2010 women are universally taking this “more important role”, women should therefore be allowed to serve in such capacities provided they are therefore under equal obligation as men (in the same way that one is under obligation immediately following conversion), and when/if a woman does have childern is she then removed from time-based ritual mitzvot obligations (although, interestingly, and worryingly, there are a few things that don’t apply here yet women don’t do them, such as wearing of phylactery, tallis, and kippah (I’m sure this brings up a whole different story of which I am not aware; I don’t claim to be an expert in even the vaguest sense of the word). There is a problem, of course, when a woman demands to receive only the “good” opportunities in the name of equality. And this would not cover all the extra things women must do to be less “distracting” to men.
II. Proselytising and evangelism: One thing I find interesting concerning the differences between Judaism and Christianity is the view on proselytism (or conversion) and evangelism (or public outreach; also conversion). Judaism discourages conversion (I guess because of the whole 3000+ years of tortuous history thing), while Christianity, as we all well know, quite encourages it. This seems related to the fact that in Judaism, 1.) Jews are under obligation to the entire set of rules, and the rest are only expected to follow Noah’s seven, and 2.) the plan is redemption for the world, not just for the Jews, although in Christianity, 1.) Everyone is expected to follow the Bible, and 2.) salvation is meant only for Christians.
III. Mitzvot versus faith: Another contrast is apparent concerning the role of action versus plain faith. Of course, in Protestant Christianity, faith rules above all, although in Catholicism there are certain rules to follow alongside faith. However, regarding Judaism, I read two contradicting things. The first was that faith is not a requirement so long as we fulfill the appropriate mitzvot, and in fact this holds evident empirically, since there are so many agnostic Jews running amok that are nonetheless as Jewish as the next guy (i.e., skepticism is more than acceptable, and in fact God wants you to question him and use your reason, which, as I’m aware, Christianity seems to advise against). I also read that by performing rituals we will eventually feel appropriate devotion and so on. I also read, on the other hand, that prayer should not be done at all without a feeling of devotion (“lest it be necessary to start over appropriately”). The reason for such rituals, naturally, are subject to different reasoning, i.e. “To remind you that you are a Jew”, “Because God wants it so”, etc.
IV. Forgiveness and sin: Running parallel to the differences in the role of faith is the role of forgiveness and sin. Of course, in Christianity, since God is the only thing that counts, all forgiveness is asked of only him. In Judaism, when a sin is committed against God, a person must ask God for forgiveness. However, when a sin is committed against another person, forgiveness must be asked of that other person. This is integral, considering that a major Jewish theme is “reparation of the world“. Further, instead of viewing man as intimately flawed and condemned to everlasting sin, Judaism, although it sees man as, rather rightfully, inherently evil, doesn’t see life as an endless struggle against the losing game of repentance for lifelong, unavoidable sin. Sin is seen as simply a deviation from the Law in Judaism—it doesn’t lead to eternal damnation (in fact, I don’t think there is a Jewish Hell, nor is there a Jewish Satan).
V. Jesus: Where to even start? To begin with, there have been false prophets before Jesus and we should start by evaluating whether he fit any of the requirements the Torah had set forth for a Messiah. There is a danger, of course, to subjecting Christianity to the rules of a religion it rejects, which would be like saying certain rules in Judaism don’t fit Zoroastrianism’s requirements (which apparently influenced Judaism into becoming monotheistic, and although Zoroastrianism resembles Christianity pretty strongly, it is mostly associated with, and predates, the Judaism that we know and love). Christianity was founded on half-truths and re-translating the Old Testament as a history of the New Testament and a “testament” (pun) to Jesus’ divine character. There is a good article on About.com detailing this as well.
- Messianic properties: Jesus did not fill the required qualifications necessary to deem him a Messiah in a land of false ones. He was not a descendant of King David, he did not bring peace to Israel in a land of apparently violent Roman rule, and most notably, he did not bring us an era of peace. His reason for becoming a “Messiah” was misconstrued by Paul to be God’s way of forgiving us for our inability to keep all the laws of the Torah. However, this led to another disqualification, being the total abandonment of the Torah, rather than inviting universal knowledge and observance of it.
- Saul/Paul’s misinterpretation: What was Paul’s misinterpretation? Paul told early Christians (late Jews?) that Jesus’ death did not happen for no reason. He cited a passage which stated something like this (I don’t have the exact passage, although this observation, along with the passage, came from The Nine Questions People Ask About Judaism by Prager and Telushkin): “If you do not follow the laws of this Torah you shall be subject to damnation” (right after I just said there is no Jewish Hell, eh?) Paul interpreted this to mean we are subject to damnation if we do not follow all 613 obligations of the entire Torah, although the phrase “this Torah” was used often to mean only the preceding lines. Paul then decided because we could not follow the entire Torah, and because Jesus decidedly had just “died for those sins”, we no longer needed to follow them, hence the need for them simply vanishing. This is what people mean, then, when they say “Jesus died for their sins” (I wonder if they know what they are really saying, because I sure didn’t).
Nicely articulated thoughts – good job! I do wonder, however, with your points under “Messianic properties.” They are unsupported assertions, but the best I can understand is that you’re reiterating the points from Rabbi Simmon’s About.com article. I am sure that Rabbi Simmons is an intelligent and respectable rabbi. On the other hand, I do think there are problems with some points of the article. For one, under 2B, neither Genesis 49:10 nor Isaiah 11:1 state that “the Messiah must be descended on his father’s side from King David” – neither the words nor the idea are there (Christians do believe the Messiah is a descendant of King David). With regard to point 2C, Deuteronomy 13:1-4 doesn’t speak of “anyone coming to change Torah” but instead speaks of those who would lead Israel away to follow “other gods” – I don’t see anywhere that Jesus came to do this. With regard to Rabbi Simmon’s mistranslations, particularly 3B (the crucifixion), even the JPS (Jewish Publication Society) translates Psalm 22:17 has “like lions [they] maul my hands and feet” which can be taken to mean “they pierced my hands and feet” (for a lion to maul someone means it pierces that person). The translators of the Septuagint (the Greek translation used in 1st century Palestine) also translated Psalm 22:17 with a very similar sense.
Rabbi Simmons also says: “Christians counter that Jesus will fulfill these in the Second Coming, but Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright, and no concept of a second coming exists.” This is just arguing by assertion. I don’t see anywhere in Ezekiel 37:26-28; Isaiah 2:4; 43:5-6; or Zechariah 1:9 that “the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright” Also, the statement “no concept of a second coming exists” is an argument from silence and doesn’t prove that there isn’t a Second Coming. Those are just a few problems I immediately noticed.
Your points about Paul’s “misinterpretation” are interesting, but I’m not convinced they are quite forceful. It doesn’t seem that it’s only Paul, but the epistle of James and the epistle to the Hebrews say the same thing in regard to observance of the Torah – although they move toward different emphases. James sees the Torah as a unified whole: “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it” (Jas 2:10). The author of Hebrews (and most modern critical scholarship doubts the author is Paul) saw that observance of the Torah could not “perfect the conscience of the worshipper” (Heb 9:9-10). I’m curious as to what passage it actually was that Paul cited and interpreted.
If it isn’t clear, I’m not saying anything about which of Judaism or Christianity is correct. I’m only saying that although you have raised some good points, the points you raised haven’t been well established.
Thanks for your reply. Like I said, I am writing as a mere novice to religious history, so I’m glad you pointed out the inconsistencies. I only have secondary sources concerning which Messianic qualities are expressed from either perspective. I think the concept of having to be liberated from the previous laws is what’s crucial to the existence of a Second Coming; and to discredit the necessity of two Messiahs, either misinterpretation would have to occur concerning which laws are absolutely required, or there is always the question “Why would God require the old Law just for 3000 years? What’s the point, especially if the first Messiah existed only to relieve us of the need to keep following them, requiring yet another for more things later on?” It also may rest on whether Christianity should be considered bound to the same requirements as Judaism (concerning Messianic qualities, whatever they may be).
The way I see it is this—the laws exist for us to work towards, and in a perfect world they will all be followed. We weren’t expected to follow every one from the moment they were given (especially since so many required extensive interpretation), and it would make no sense to be given laws that we would never be able to follow. I could be wrong, especially given the death penalty is explicitly required for something as simple as “doing work on the Sabbath”.
I will look for the book tomorrow; I’d really like to know which passage was cited, too.
I understand this is your foray into this area, so I’m not trying to seem like a meanie when I push back a little.
I did think Rabbi Simmons had inconsistencies with what was said and how the Scriptures were used – although there could have been unstated suppositions the rabbi had that didn’t come through in the article. In regard to your own points, I didn’t think you had inconsistencies more than a somewhat narrow view of things. My goal was to expand that view a little.
The “two Messiah” language seems a bit odd. From a Christian perspective, it would be the same Messiah doing two distinct things. I think it’s pretty clear in the Hebraic scriptures that there would be a new covenant that supersedes the system of Torah as found in Genesis-Deuteronomy. For instance, the statement in Jeremiah 31:31-32 (JPS):
See, a time is coming — declares the LORD — when I will make a new covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their fathers, when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, a covenant which they broke, though I espoused them — declares the LORD.
The new covenant seems to be a particularly spiritual one in which the people are completely empowered to obey God:
I will give them one heart and put a new spirit in them; I will remove the heart of stone from their bodies and give them a heart of flesh, that they may follow My laws and faithfully observe My rules. Then they shall be My people and I will be their God. (Ezekiel 11:19-20 JPS)
The Christian view sees Jesus as having come to inaugurate the new covenant, but the fullness of the new covenant comes to be fulfilled at a later time, viz,. the Second Coming. You’ll find that the New Testament writers have this “already, but not yet” paradox concerning the benefits of the new covenant.
One thing with the old Law that seems clear is that it was an exclusive covenant between God and Israel. The inauguration of the new covenant allows all persons (that is, both Jew and Gentile) to experience the spiritual benefits of the covenant before its fullness comes into effect. Paul saw this universal participation before the fullness of the new covenant as a mystery – something not revealed explicitly to the prophets.
Part of what I said was trying to address your point that “the laws exist for us to work towards, and in a perfect world they will all be followed” – from a Christian view, that perfect world is coming because of the “setting into motion” that happened in the First Coming, and will find its completeness in the Second Coming. You are correct about putting someone to death for working on the Sabbath, but I see that as something exclusively between Israel and God in pre-Christ times.
Alas, much more could be said. But I’m not trying to write a treatise here. I hope this addressed some of your larger points and that it gives you an understanding of a more Christian perspective from someone who’s been at this for quite some time. I think that a large portion of academic Christians across a broad span of denominations would affirm what I’ve said here.
Looking forward to seeing what passage was addressed in the Prager and Telushkin book.
Is there an explanation in the New Testament for why we needed this halfway-covenant—is it simply to allow all people to experience it? If so, it would seem that Christianity would be more pluralistic at this point; instead it’s Christianity that so encourages conversion, while Judaism views its being under obligation for everyone’s sake (this is my reading; I haven’t even looked at the New Testament for years, I admit). I wouldn’t be surprised if Rabbi Simmons was writing under certain presuppositions, but if these aren’t the requisites, what are?
I have finally retrieved the book again. Prager et al. say that the old Law continued to be followed after Jesus’ death (Acts 10:14, Galatians 2:12, Acts 21:24). When the second Temple was destroyed, Paul ignited a new ideology, and this is what they have to say about it:
Prager et al. say that this notion of being “cursed by breaking the Law” is not to be found in the Torah (a previous verse being “there is no man so righteous who does only good and never sins” [Eccelesiastes 7:20]), and his mistaken reading regarding this notion derives from Deuteronomy 27:15-26, which lists eleven obligations and concludes with the line “cursed be he who does not maintain all the words of this Torah to do them…”. I don’t know where Paul got his ideas from, but if it was this verse, it would have been mistaken to assume that “this Torah” meant every law in the Torah, for this phrase is used to refer to a specific group of laws at other times (Leviticus 6:2, 6:18, 7:37, 11:46, 13:59, Numbers 6:21, Deuteronomy 1:5, 4:8, 28:61), and there would be no need to repeat the eleven obligations. Of course this is all assuming that it was Deuteronomy 27:15-26 after all.
My apologies for the delay in reply. Things have been crazy hectic since I last replied (in the process of looking for a new place, taking an intensive May-term, and devoting over 25 hours a week to writing and research, in addition to about 5-7 hours of travel each week), but I’ve been thinking about your reply since I noticed it.
From a Christian perspective, this wouldn’t be a “halfway covenant.” It seems the Bible writers all believed that every Christian was genuinely in the New Covenant. Part of the reason is to show that salvation was universal and not limited to Israel and Israel’s mediator role to the other nations as envisioned in the Hebrew scriptures. I am unsure of what you mean by “pluralistic” so I am unable to comment on that, except that Christianity isn’t pluralistic in the sense of the belief that all religions are valid means to approach God. Yes, Rabbi Sammons more than likely had some presuppositional framework, but I think that framework colored the approach to the text instead of taking into account the broader voice of how ancient Christian Jews would have understood the text. In fact, I think that the good rabbi’s framework in some cases results in missing the voice of the text altogether.
One factor, in my mind, is that rabbinic Judaism today is a continuation of the Judaism from the Council of Jamnia (90 CE) onward. This Judaism was a reaction to Christianity; the first-century Jews needed to make their identity more distinct from the Jews who followed Christ. Prior to rabbinic Judaism, there were many flavors of Judaism in the Bible writers’ time. So for Rabbi Sammons to read into the Hebrew scriptures today from his rabbinic Judaic standpoint does not necessary mean that he is reading it with the same eyes that the Jews in first century Palestine would have. It seems to me that Rabbi would have been reading it from a Judaism designed to distinguish itself from Christianity (and by implication, a Judaism that would deny some of the core tenets of Christianity). Rabbi Sammons would, therefore, have different understanding of the presentation of the Messiah in the scriptures.
Thanks for retrieving Prager and Telushkin. You’re correct that we must assume Paul was referencing Deuteronomy 27:26 – and it seems he was. As I mentioned in the first post, James and Hebrews both see the Law as one unified whole, so Paul isn’t alone here in thinking of all of Torah. The unified Torah view seems to have been a common view, at least for these particular Jews.
It might be interesting to note that the phrase “this Torah” as it appears in Deuteronomy (Hebrew hatorah-hazoth – literally “the Law the this one”) is found 20 times in the Hebrew scriptures, and only two occur outside of Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy in a few places contains the phrase “the book of this Law,” which is almost exactly what Paul says in Galatians 3:10. So “this Law” has a very special usage in Deuteronomy and seems to refer to the entire book. Deuteronomy is essentially “the second Law” or a reiteration of the Law. It wouldn’t be hard to see how the phrase “this Law” eventually becomes an all-encompassing phrase for the entire [book of the] Law in later generations.
In Leviticus, the phrasing of “this Law” is zoth torath (literally “this is the law of …”). Here, it isn’t “the Law” but rather a more generic “law.” The Jewish Publication Society translates this phrase consistently as “this/such is the ritual of …” Leviticus is essential a holiness code and is primarily addressed to the priesthood.
I appreciate the dialogue. Am I making sense? Any thoughts?
I think I meant “pluralistic” as in “accepts other denominations as, potentially, equally salvageable”. If the New Testament was meant to allow more people into the original covenant, wouldn’t it make sense that instead of Judaism not requiring conversion to have some kind of place in the afterlife and Christianity requiring conversion, wouldn’t it be the other way around (not that either considers “all paths lead to the same God”)? It seems to me, and I could be wrong here, that this new covenant simply moved over Israel’s role onto Christians. (Although, there’s this.)
I am really interested in how early Christians might have proven the validity of Jesus being a true messiah using the qualifications that were in place at the time (and other sources agree with at least some of the rabbi’s points). I was talking about this with a friend yesterday, and we figured that if they had wanted to, early Christians still could have said that those qualifications didn’t apply to them anymore, given the circumstances. I definitely agree that historical knowledge would be necessary for making any kind of speculations about it, or anything else.
That is an important consideration (the Council of Jamnia)—I’m sure that the many forms of Judaism through the years would have warranted different interpretations of the text, and I think the attempt at re-interpretation of such lines as “like lions, they were at my hands and feet” is totally inconsequential in disproving anything. However, Christian interpretation of such ideas that following the Torah would necessarily lead to a lifetime of inescapable sin, or that the Messiah doesn’t have to bring world peace, or could actually be a demigod, would be inconsequential too (Deuteronomy 40:11-14, Psalm 105:8). Actually, the link above is kind of interesting because it suggests that the way the requirement of the Messiah’s descent was avoided was by appealing to pagan worshipers at the time by saying that Jesus was the direct son of God and didn’t even need to be involved in a line of descent.
If it was hatorah-hazoth that Paul et al. were referencing in Deuteronomy, why is there no concept of original sin or hell in Judaism (or, maybe I should ask, were there such concepts in Judaism in ≈29-90 AD)? It’s my understanding that total compliance with the Torah isn’t even meant to be achieved until the Messiah, as part of the stipulation (I don’t have any evidence for that one, but I’ve heard as much)…especially since a lot of it isn’t even applicable without a Temple, which is also supposed to then be rebuilt. I don’t think this could be said to be the same as “not requiring the old Law anymore”.
Anyway, I too appreciate this. I’ve started reading a book on Judeo-Christian history so I will actually know what I’m talking about, and, hopefully, a class on the Old Testament next semester. I also want to find out more about early polytheism, as I’m surprised a bigger deal isn’t made about it.
I have to say, your criticism is very intelligent. As a Christian, of course, I disagree, and actually believe there is ample evidence that Jesus both fulfilled the Messianic prophecies, and that, rather than doing away with the Old Covenant, he fulfilled it.
Please forgive the following clumsy/oversimplified rendition of the Christian Old Covenant-New Covenant theology. I’m still a student, and I’m certainly not exactly an expert, but I’ve met people I greatly respect that are, particularly Scott Hahn. If I make any sense at all to you, and if the readings I recommend interest you, I’ll be happy to give you references to some other materials as well. You seem like the type who would be interested in good arguments on any side. Well, here goes.
The New Covenant was a covenant to all peoples; the Old was Mosaic and specifically for Israel. Its complexities partly arose from the fact that Israel kept relying on its own power to please and obey God; yet YHWH wanted to be more than a Master–he wanted to be their Father. God was trying to break the Israelites of idolatry because they had it so ingrained in them from Egypt, and it became clear that they would need a strict set of laws to get the idea of respect for God hammered into their heads.
It’s not exactly that the Old Covenant was rendered obsolete by the New. Its complexities, to be sure, were done away with, but those were never meant to last. God wanted, first and foremost, a circumcised heart: hearts that loved him–even in the Old Covenant this was true. Any ritual or sacrifice was an outward sign of a spiritual reality, and certain complicated laws only came about because of Israel’s hardened heart (because Israel is like all of humanity: we are stubborn and foolish). The Old Covenant was originally intended to take Israel as “firstborn son” of God, and all of Israel was to serve a priestly role before the nations. Their task was supposed to be to lead all nations, their younger siblings, into relationship with God as their Father. The Old Covenant always existed in preparation for the New. You will even find this in the Old Testament: God tells of a time (messianic) when he would establish a new covenant and replace hearts of stone with hearts of flesh. So this was even part of the Old Covenant’s expectation. It existed for the sake of preparing Israel, and all the world by her example, for God’s coming Messiah. But it was never to be permanent.
For a Jewish perspective, here is what Moses Maimonides has to say on the subject -
http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/gfp/gfp168.htm
I’d also recommend two books from a Christian perspective by Scott Hahn: A Father Who Keeps His Promises, and also the second half of his book, “Reasons to Believe.” He is a phenomenal Christian scholar who has done extensive research on Israel, covenant, and messiah. His books are toned down for the common reader, but he also writes scholarly articles. His site has some interesting scholarly readings if you are interested. Sorry again for my clumsy arguments…it’s just a subject that greatly interests me and that I happen to have studied this semester!
God bless.
Now that I re-read what I said, it was clumsier than I thought. I should have put more time into clarifying what I meant. To clarify…this is my view, from a Christian perspective:
When I said the Old Covenant was not permanent, I did not mean that it was pointless or meaningless. It wasn’t even replaced. It was entirely necessary, and intimately related to the coming New Covenant: it strongly foreshadowed it, and through it, God prepared mankind to receive the fullness of his revelation in the Messiah, who would establish this new covenant. But the Old Covenant could not simply be done away with; it was real and sacred, and had to be fulfilled before it could make way for a new one. Only because Jesus fulfilled that old covenant, both in its requirements and in bearing its curses, was the New Covenant valid at all. This fulfillment was part-and-parcel to the very establishment of the Messiah’s new covenant. In him we are said to meet the requirements of the Old; the stringent laws commanded to Israel from Sinai, however, were never meant to be the “law of mankind.” They themselves were specific to Israel, although with the purpose of preparing her to gather her younger siblings into the fold. In the reign of Solomon, a proto-messiah who ushered in a sort of messianic age, such a “law for the nations” was made manifest: the kingdom was marked by wisdom and thanksgiving more than law and burnt-offering. It was in this Davidic Covenant that the fullness of the new covenant-to-come began to be seen; and in fact the Messiah was the ultimate fulfillment of God’s Covenant with David. The Son of David would be the anointed son of God, the messiah, who would rule all nations with wisdom forever from Zion. David foreshadowed the priest-kingly role the Messiah was to have, and Solomon reflected the international rule of wisdom and peace that would belong to that Kingdom.
I hope I’m making at least some sense. And I know you’re busy with finals, so maybe it will be awhile before you can read this…anyway, blessings.
Oh, don’t worry about your oversimplified rendition—I probably don’t know much more than you do. Lately, I’ve been very uninterested in arguing about the tenets of Christianity (because of a Bible study, naturally), but fortunately I know a little more than I did when I wrote this post (was it really seven months ago?), so maybe it’s time to get back on the wagon.
The first thing you say reminds me of my philosophy teacher’s argument for Christianity…”The Old Testament was only meant for back then”. But think of it: do we not still need a sense of respect hammered into our heads? In Judaism, there are all kinds of ideas covering this: Don’t deface God’s written name (that’s where ‘G-d’ comes from)…Don’t use it in speaking when you don’t need it (That’s where ‘Hashem’ comes from; it means ‘The Name’)…cover your head while speaking of his name…Don’t turn your back to the Torah…Don’t touch the Torah when you are dirty…Don’t say prayers in a dirty place…There is even an important prayer called the Amidah that begins with three steps forward “as if you’re approaching a king”. So I agree that it is a pretty important concept. But how many Jews don’t keep the Sabbath because it’s inconvenient, even whilst admitting that the law requires it? And how many Christians think of Jesus as their BFF, who’s there when they need something and forgettable when they don’t? And idolatry may no longer consist of erecting statues of Greeks and Romans, but polytheistic and pagan religions still exist (hello, Wiccans). One could even argue that money and technology function as idols (and I might like to propose that idolatry still existed in pockets after 29 AD)…but either way, who could argue that we’ve eliminated all or even most distractions from God?
Nothing about the development of Christianity, essentially, has convinced me that the world has shifted toward a messianic existence. The most blatant problem is that nowhere in the Torah does it say that the messiah will be anything other than fully and utterly human.
You say “those complexities were never meant to last”. Well, I don’t mean to be so blunt, but how do you know this? I actually believe the very same thing about the beginnings of Christianity…it developed during a time of great messianic fervor, and I’m under the impression that Jesus’ followers constructed these principles specifically because the world was supposed to end within their lifetimes: they would cleanse the Temple, overthrow the Romans, and establish a “Kingdom of God” here on earth. Now, when this didn’t happen within their lifetimes, the idea soon arose linking this “Kingdom of God” to a timeless place outside of this world. This is not a Jewish idea, nor is the idea of “messiah as God”—where could it have come from?
Various other additions—the resurrection (which itself faced revisions), the virgin birth, even the idea of a god that dies—brought together Jewish and non-Jewish tradition in a way that was difficult to refute, due to its being so vast and syncretic. (Of course, this isn’t what the New Testament says, but all we have to go on, if I’m not mistaken, is Simon’s vision, and a passage where someone named “Immanuel” was to be born from a “young woman”…and Jesus was not, after all, actually named Immanuel. He was named Jesus.)
The mentions in the Torah of the messianic age of which you speak is there, I admit. But I tend to hold that the idea developed mainly as a placatory measure during the exile. I’m not sure how popular that idea is traditional Judaism, but nonetheless, though there are many mentions of the messianic age, it is by no means central. The Israelites weren’t, after all, given the Torah at Mt. Sinai with the words, “Obey these commandments and you shall have a place in heaven on Judgment Day”! I am extremely against the idea that we should perform mitzvot here on earth in order to secure a place in heaven…though it is conditionally stated in rabbinic tradition that if you do this or that, you will have a place in the World to Come, the phrase “World to Come” is typically used, suggesting a messianic age here on earth. We are not, however, really “preparing” for this messianic age…as one rabbi said, if you hear that the messiah has come, don’t necessarily stop what you’re doing.
The idea of “outward obedience” is still essential in Judaism, of course, because, well, I think we still need it. For example, do you think we are going to be more likely to give 10% of our income because it’s commanded, or because it is voluntary but laudatory? What about returning a lost wallet, or even going to church or the synagogue regularly, when you don’t really feel like doing these things? Judaism has lots of laws because you can tell me to “be a good person”, for example, but where does that leave me? But if you tell me that “it’s a mitzvah and therefore obligatory that you invite over house guests who have nowhere else to stay”—well, that I can do.
This isn’t to say that there aren’t just as many reasons in Judaism for why all the mitzvot are still relevant. For example, lots of people would tell you that the Sabbath is meant for resting and being with your family. That sounds good, doesn’t it? But the commandment isn’t to “rest on the Sabbath”, or even, really, to “refrain from work on the Sabbath”—it’s “to keep the Sabbath holy”. How is resting, shopping, watching TV, and doing household chores “keeping the Sabbath holy”, or sanctifying God’s name? Because we happen to fit church (or synagogue) in there first? The Jewish idea of the Sabbath is specifically meant to do just that—we don’t watch TV, we don’t mow the lawn, we don’t drive, we don’t even pick flowers, because the day is meant to be sanctified.
“A while before I read this”, ha!
PS The laws meant for Israel are still only meant for Israel to this day. To say that they are no longer relevant hinges solely, of course, on whether Jesus fulfilled each and every commandment. If he didn’t, he was a just a regular guy. If he did, he must have been God because no one is perfect. Judaism says no man can be God. That’s pretty much the basics.
PPS One could still hold, though, that the sacrifices ended up being no longer necessary, and replaced by prayer. In fact, the prayer times (or morning and afternoon services, I should say) in Judaism correspond with sacrifice times.
Yeah…I guess that is a basic difference between Judaism and Christianity. I agree…if Jesus really fulfilled the Law perfectly, he had to be God, all the way. But then, as a Christian, that’s exactly who I believe he was. It’s not that a man could become God, but that God could become man. Man can never become God, but couldn’t an all-powerful God come down to save us? Also, I do not believe Jesus was part-God and part-man, but that he was fully God: he simply took on full human nature for our sake. That’s the only reason I can believe in the Messiah as God Incarnate.
Thanks for taking the time to read this. Good luck with finals!
No problem. You know ,that’s why I usually don’t like to get into arguments about Christianity versus Judaism…I’m not going to change anyone’s views, nor do I want to! But I have to admit I don’t really understand certain tenets of Christianity (like, for example, the Trinity)…so I do like to hear the other side occasionally.
Anyway, thanks for reading my blog! This one is getting pretty old [note:originally on historyclub.wordpress.com]…I haven’t written anything for months.