Christians have proclaimed a false and misleading G-d to the Jews, and the Jews were right to reject it entirely. Since this falsehood is so intimately associated with Jesus, it remains unclear whether God could endorse Jesus as the Moshiach of Israel in the end times without giving a false witness and a tacit approval to an abhorrent misrepresentation of G-d.

 Bishop N.T. Wright names “going to heaven” as “totally and utterly wrong”

Space does not allow me to demonstrate, point by point, just how far the Socratic thinkers within the Jesus Movement refashioned and distorted the message of Jesus. My most worthy companion in this task is N.T. Wright, one of the world’s finest biblical scholars, a prolific author, and the former Bishop of Durham for the Church of England. In a nutshell, here is Wright’s thesis:

Mention salvation, and almost all Western Christians assume that you mean going to heaven when you die. But a moment’s thought, in the light of all we have said so far, reveals that this simply cannot be right. . . . If God’s good creation—of the world, of life as we know it, or our glorious and remarkable bodies, brains, and bloodstreams—really is good . . . , then to see the death of the body and the escape of the soul as salvation is not simply slightly off course, in need of a few subtle alterations and modifications. It is totally and utterly wrong!

As we have seen, the whole of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, speaks out against such nonsense. It is, however, what most Western Christians, including most Bible Christians of whatever sort, actually believe. This is a serious state of affairs [and my intention is to join with others in correcting it].50

My limited space here does not allow me to justify Wright’s “bold certainty”51 in this matter. For the moment, therefore, let’s assume that Wright is correct when he concludes that Jesus never, never, never anticipated a mass exodus from earth in order that his faithful disciples would spend an eternity with him in Heaven. Sure enough, Jesus himself was taken up into Heaven by his Father, but that was an exceptional move. Jesus and Elijah were both taken up alive into Heaven only because God had future plans for them, and he was getting them ready for the roles that would be assigned to them when he sent them back to earth to prepare for God’s Kingdom that would arrive following the resurrection of the dead and the Final Judgment.  No book in the bible takes the position that all those saved by Jesus will be resurrected and then they will be taken to Heaven for an eternity enjoying the beatific vision.

Now, at this late period of my life—I want to come clean. I want to realign myself with Jesus of Nazareth and to risk my life by openly abandoning Socrates. I also want to go on record for advocating to all Catholics that a return to Jesus requires a long and careful reexamination of how the faith of Jesus has been compromised by uncritically embracing a Jesus dressed in Socratic undergarments.  Do not depend upon me to have all the answers.  Do the work necessary to find your own answers.[i]

Before considering the conflicts that have arisen over the identity and the function of the Messiah, it is necessary to remember that Judaism and Christianity share a common hope[ii] in the coming of the Kingdom of God. In dialogue with Jews, both the Christian and the Jewish participants would do well to begin with this and, after all the controversies have been considered, to return to it as the basis for what we hold in common.

According to the Synoptics, the coming kingdom was the central metaphor dominating Jesus’ public ministry:

The central aspect of the teaching of Jesus was that concerning the Kingdom of God. Of this there can be no doubt and today no scholar does, in fact, doubt it. Jesus appeared as one who proclaimed the Kingdom; all else in his message and ministry serves a function in relation to that proclamation and derives its meaning from it.[iii]

In Matthew’s Gospel, for instance, Jesus’ public ministry is summarized by saying that “he went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the Gospel of the kingdom. . .” (Matt 4:23 and par.). And again, when Jesus is presented as anticipating the future, it is summarized in these terms: “This Gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world, as a testimony to all nations; and then the end will come” (Matt 24:14). The “end” referred to here is the passing of this present era in order to make way for the Kingdom of God that will manifest itself everywhere on Earth.

Heralding the kingdom did not bring the kingdom into existence. Heralding the kingdom serves to prepare God’s people to get ready for God’s arrival. Most of Jesus’ parables are really metaphors of getting ready. For the women, Jesus tells the parable of how ten virgins, friends of the bride, kept their lamps burning as they awaited the arrival of the bridegroom with his male friends who, it seems, completely lost track of time and arrive after midnight (Matt 25:1-13).  Notice that the virgins are “in the correct place.” They stay at the home of the bride.  They rightly assume that the groom will come and the wedding will take place in the home of the bride. At no point is there the slightest hint that they are getting ready to be transported into Heaven.

For the men, Jesus tells the parable of how the male servants need to keep busy (literally, “keep their loins gird”) while their master is away at a wedding feast and could arrive home unexpectedly at any moment. When the master returns, he surprises everyone by girding himself, setting a table, and waiting personally on his faithful servants (Luke 12:35-40). Parables such a this emphasize that God was coming to gather Israel into a festive meal, that the moment of his arrival is uncertain, that he will arrive in the dead of night (when evil is afoot), and that those awaiting him needed to keep busy (about their Father’s business) until the moment of his arrival.  The surprise in this parable is that when the Master arrives, he immediately sets about his business of serving his faithful servants.

The Acts of the Apostles makes it clear that the proclamation of the kingdom continued to form the central agenda of the early church. Philip, one of the Seven ordained by the Twelve, is presented as reaching out to the Samaritans in these terms: “he preached Good News about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 8:12). Likewise, Luke characterized the mission of Paul in these same terms: “he entered the synagogue and for three months spoke boldly, arguing and pleading about the kingdom of God” (Acts 19:8). The whole of Acts closes with this summary of Paul’s final mission to the Romans: “he [Paul] lived there [in Rome] for two whole years . . . preaching the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ quite openly and unhindered (Acts 28:31).

In sum, what Luke presents to us it that, at the time of his writing of Acts, the proclamation of the coming kingdom of God was the Good News that formed the focal message of Jesus and the early disciples. Furthermore, Luke also makes plain that at the time when Jesus’ importance in the drama of salvation was being expanded, Jesus’ role was always integrated within and subordinated to God’s kingdom.[iv]

The kingdom prayer of Jesus

Jesus’ prayer addressed the “Father” and petitioned that his “kingdom come.” This prayer, accordingly, admirably captures the central core of Jesus’ preaching as explained above. Having studied this prayer, Joachim Jeremias concluded that the first two petitions in the Lord’s Prayer were not “newly constructed by Jesus, but come from the Jewish liturgy, namely from the Kaddish, the `Holy’ prayer with which the synagogue liturgy ended and which was familiar to Jesus from childhood.”[v] James D.G. Dunn, writing twenty years later, came to this same conclusion (seemingly independently) when he noted how “striking” it was that the Lord’s Prayer “was so closely modeled on Jewish prayers of the time–particularly the Kaddish.”[vi] The Kaddish used in the synagogue during the time of Jesus was surmised[vii] to be as follows:

Exalted and hallowed be his great name.

In the world which he created according to his will,

may he establish his kingdom in your lifetime

and in the lifetime of the whole household of Israel,

speedily and at a near time.[viii]

The entire prayer expresses the Jewish hope that God’s kingdom would come and establish his kingdom “speedily.” The highlighted phrases, more especially, help show the remarkable affinity to the opening petitions of the Lord’s Prayer. Thus, when the Lord’s Prayer is appreciated as an expression of the long-standing hope of Israel,[ix] one can justifiably imagine that this prayer would have been easily understood and readily received even by Jewish fishermen.

I believe with a perfect faith in the coming of the Moshiach

Judaism lives primarily within orthopraxis (rightly serving God) while Christianity has placed its emphasis within orthodoxy (rightly believing God). Nonetheless, Jews do sometimes formulate what Christians understand as “creeds.” One such important faith summary was prepared by Moses Maimonides (d. 1204) in his commentary to the Mishnah Sanhedrin. This is familiar to Jews as the Shloshah-Asar Ikkarim (“The Thirteen Articles of Faith”) and, in some congregations, they are publicly recited. Each of the thirteen articles begins with “I believe with a prefect faith. . . .” The first is as follows: “I believe with a prefect faith that God is the Creator and [he] guides all creation.” The fifth affirms: “I believe with a prefect faith that God only and no one else is worthy of our prayers.” For our discussion here, however, the twelfth proposition is of especial importance: “I believe with a perfect faith in the coming of the Moshiach, and though he may tarry, still I await him every day.”

The use of the Hebrew term Moshiach in the above “creed” refers to what has come into the English language as “Messiah” or “Christ” (from the Greek word christos = “the anointed”). Jews, however, are often painfully aware that when Christians use such terms, they mean very different things:

The term “moshiach” or “messiah” literally means “the anointed one,” and refers to the ancient practice of anointing kings with oil when they took the throne. The moshiach is the one who will be anointed as king in the End of Days. The word “moshiach” does not mean “savior.” The notion of an innocent, divine or semi‑divine being who will sacrifice himself to save mankind from the consequences of their own sin is a purely Christian concept that has no basis in Jewish thought. Unfortunately, this Christian concept has become so deeply ingrained in the English word “messiah” that this English word can no longer be used to refer to the Jewish concept.[x]

Accordingly, in what follows, I will do what we often did in dialogue—we used “moshiach” when emphasizing the Jewish understanding and “messiah” when emphasizing the Christian understanding.

Catholic faith in the coming of the Messiah

In order to check out what Jews may be reacting to, I decided to look at the description of the Messiah found in the official Catechism of the Catholic Church. The results confirmed the cautions voiced above. The Catechism declares that “Jesus . . . unveiled the authentic content of his messianic kingship . . . in his redemptive mission as the suffering Servant [on the cross]” (sec. 440).[xi] Here the messianic kingship is cast entirely as a past event with no bearing whatsoever on the future Kingdom of God. This is disappointing, for it demonstrates that the traditional medieval Christology has been retained with its focus on the atoning death without giving (a) due attention to a half-century of Catholic biblical studies regarding the Kingdom of God and (b) without making use of Vatican II statements that might easily have been introduced at this point. Consider the following:

We are taught that God is preparing a new dwelling and a new earth in which righteousness dwells, whose happiness will fill and surpass all the desires of peace arising in the hearts of man [woman]. Then with death conquered, the sons [daughters] of God will be raised in Christ. . . (Gaudium et Spes 39).

The bishops here use the phrase “new earth” because the language of the Kingdom of God has been so traditionally associated with “going to heaven.” Notice that the future tense is used throughout and that the general resurrection is associated with the moshiach.

This being said, the bishops then give a caution to those who get so fixated on God’s future that they fail to fix their faucets, their families, and their failing world:

Far from diminishing our concerns to develop this earth, the expectancy of the new earth should spur us on, for it is here that the body of a new human family grows, foreshadowing in some way the age which is to come. That is why . . . such progress [now] is of vital concern to the [future] kingdom of God (Gaudium et Spes 39).

The progress named here is not principally in the areas of technological, agricultural, or industrial development, but specifically focused on “human dignity, brotherly communion, and freedom.” These “fruits of our nature,” the bishops assure us, will be “cleansed . . . from the stain of sin, illuminated and transfigured, when Christ presents to his Father an eternal and universal kingdom of truth and life, a kingdom of holiness and grace, a kingdom of justice, love, and peace” (Gaudium et Spes 39). To this end, the bishops further note that “Christ is now at work in the hearts of men by the power of his Spirit; not only does he arouse in them the desire for the world to come but he quickens, purifies and strengthens the generous aspirations of mankind to make life more humaine . . .” (38). What the bishops identify as the ongoing work of the moshiach, however, only comes to completion in the age to come: “Here [now] on earth the kingdom is mysteriously present, when the Lord comes it will enter into its perfection” (39). In sum, the work of Jesus as Messiah does not come to completion with his death (as the Catechism implies); rather, the Spirit continues to work in the hearts of believers until, on the last day, Jesus returns to complete his mission. “Then comes the end,” explains Paul, “when he [the Moshiach] hands over the kingdom to God the Father . . . , then the Son [the Moshiach] himself will be subjected to the one [the Father] who put all things under subjection to him, so that God [the Father] may be all in all” (1 Cor 15:24, 28).

Whether Jesus fulfilled all the Jewish prophesies

For nearly two thousand years, Christians have rallied around Jesus and hailed him as the one whom God has sent as the Moshiach of Israel. Immediately after the fall of Adam and Eve in the Garden, for example, Christians discover the first promise that God would send a redeemer in the words directed to the serpent:

I will put enmity between you [the serpent] and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he [her offspring] will strike your head, and you [the serpent] will strike his heel” (Gen 3:15).

At face value, one might suspect that one has here some ancient Jewish folklore designed to explain why there is a mutual antagonism between people and snakes. The children of Eve fear snakebites; hence, they kill snakes by clubbing them on the head. Prior to the eating of the fruit of the forbidden tree, it should be noted, Eve felt no fear or antagonism toward the serpent. On the contrary, she found the serpent to be an attractive dialogue partner prompting her to explore the hidden power of the forbidden fruit.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “this passage in Genesis is called the Protoevangelium (“first Gospel”), the first announcement of the Messiah and Redeemer, of a battle between the serpent and the Woman, and the final victory of a descendant of hers” (410).

The Catechism, in this case, has championed the allegorical reading of Irenaeus (130-200 C.E.) where the woman = the Virgin Mary and her offspring = Jesus. Far from being an etiology for why humans kills snakes, therefore, this obscure Jewish text becomes, in Christian eyes, a revelation of how the future moshiach will strike out and destroy evil (serpent = Satan) on the face of the earth.[xii]

Consider a second example. The early Church Fathers saw in the command of God and in the willingness of Abraham to sacrifice his “only son” (Gen 22:16) a prefiguring of the future mystery of redemption wherein God the Father would willingly sacrifice his only-begotten Son. The blessings follow:

Because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will indeed bless you, and I will make your offspring as numerous as the stars of heaven and . . . by your offspring shall all the nations of the earth gain blessing for themselves, because you have obeyed my voice (Gen 22:16-18).

According to Christian commentators, “your offspring” here refers, first and foremost, to the future Messiah who will not only redeem Israel but “all the nations of the earth” as well. Thus, Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son has been used by Christians as prophetically prefiguring how God would in the future accomplish the universal redemption through Jesus Christ.[xiii]

The early followers of Jesus clearly favored their Teacher as God’s favored Son. Peter, as the tradition has it, was the first to believe that Jesus was also God’s Moshiach. He came to this not because “flesh and blood revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven” (Matt 16:17). This makes clear that Jesus did not preach or teach anything about his messianic connection, but that Peter came to this directly due to divine inspiration. On the way to Jerusalem, the disciples were obsessed with “who is the greatest” (Matt 18:1 and par.), and the Zebedee sons wanted to be Jesus’ first lieutenants when he arrived “in his kingdom” (Matt 20:21 and par.). They clearly anticipated that Jesus would reveal himself as the Moshiach in Jerusalem. What a brutal letdown, then, when Jesus was handed over to Pilate and crucified as an insurrectionist.

“No one expected the Messiah to suffer. . . . No one expected the Messiah to rise from the dead, because he was not expected to die.”[xiv] These events undoubtedly threw the disciples into fits of despair and confusion. Gradually, over time, however, they discovered in their Jewish Scriptures (they had no other authoritative source) ways of squaring what actually had happened with their abiding hope that Jesus would be appointed as God’s Moshiach. Paul did this in his way. Each of the four evangelists did this in their ways. Everyone came to believe that the suffering, death, and resurrection was “according to [God’s plan as revealed in] the [Hebrew] Scriptures.”

Given this historical background, it is no surprise that Christians today are persuaded that the Hebrew Scriptures (esp. Gen 22, Ps 22, Isa 53) contain nearly three hundred texts that reveal both the promise and the character of the messiah. We have just examined two of these texts above. Based upon this pattern of “prefiguring” and “fulfillment,” the temptation is very strong for Christians to confront Jews with a list of “prefiguring” texts in their Scriptures with the expectation that they will (if their minds are opened) recognize in Jesus their “fulfillment.”

Compulsory sermons for Jews become normal after the sixth century.[xv] When these sermons did not have the required effect, some Christians relieved their frustration by beating “stubborn Jews” in the same way that they had seen schoolmasters beat recalcitrant pupils.  At other times, Christians forced Jews to take part in public debates.

Happily, these times are nearly over. I say “nearly” because I am aware that, as you are reading this book, militant Fundamentalist churches are preparing to send out trained missionary teams (college students for the most part) to vacation in the State of Israel with the express intent of snaring Jews into recognizing Jesus as the Moshiach.[xvi] One has only to surf the web to locate their sites.

A Rabbi responds: Whether Jesus may have been the Messiah

Fundamentalist Christians have prepared pamphlets, comic books, and websites especially targeting Jews whom, as they say, “many never have had the opportunity to explore the possibility that their own Scriptures point to Jesus.” The Christian who wrote the email below was undoubtedly persuaded that he might be able to offer Rabbi Richman such an “opportunity.”

To Rabbi Chaim Richman,

Greetings from a Christian living in Washington, D.C. Do you think that Jesus may have been the messiah? Why or why not . . . ? In the New Testament it is written that Jesus fulfilled all of the prophecies of the prophets and the law. . . .

I am including a list of biblical verses[xvii] that I would like you to look at. . . . Also the Psalms speak of many prophecies fulfilled by Jesus. . . . Please take a look and see if Jesus was the Moshiach.

Again I say that I hope that this letter did not offend you, however I must do what G‑d requires of me.

Thank you very much. (signed ‑‑‑)

Here then is Rabbi Richman’s response:

My dear friend,

Thank you very much for your sincere letter. . . .

The identity of the messiah is not up to you or me; it is up to his performance to prove. . . Can a little booklet one receives in the mail prove that the messiah has come? Is that all it takes? The state of the world must prove that the messiah has come; not a tract. Don’t you think that when the messiah arrives, it should not be necessary for his identity to be subject to debate‑-for the world should be so drastically changed for the better that it should be absolutely incontestable!

According to the prophets of the Bible, amongst the most basic missions of the messiah are:

• to cause all the world to return to G‑d and His teachings,
• to restore the royal dynasty to the descendants of David,
• to oversee the rebuilding of Jerusalem, including the Temple, in the event that it has not yet been rebuilt;
• to gather the Jewish people from all over the world and bring them home to the Land of Israel,
• to reestablish the Sanhedrin,
• and to restore the sacrificial system. . . .

You have stated that in the New Testament it is written that Jesus fulfilled all of the prophecies. . . . But which of these above requirements did Jesus fulfill? And if he is going to fulfill them the second time [when he returns], why did he not attend to them the first time? This in itself is one concept which no amount of Biblical sleuthing can find a prophetic basis for—[namely] for the notion that the messiah does not accomplish these things upon his [first] appearance, and therefore must return a second time. . . .

Finally, there had to be an explanation for the first coming and its catastrophic end. The basic structure of this explanation was to shift the function of the messiah from a visible level (the only level emphasized by the Bible)-‑where it could be tested-‑to an invisible level-‑where it could not. The messiah’s goal, at least the first time around, was now not said to be the redemption of Israel (which had clearly not taken place) but the atonement for original [and actual] sin[s]. . . .

But for Jews, if the Bible’s description of the messiah has not been fulfilled, then for authentic Jews there can only be one explanation: he has not yet come. To Jews, who were often subjected to mockery and contempt when asked where their messiah was, this conclusion was painful. But an honest facing of the facts makes it inescapable. In adversity and joy, through holocaust and statehood, Jews who are truly faithful to the Torah and prophets can only repeat the words of their forefathers: “I believe with complete faith in the coming of the messiah; and though he may tarry I shall wait for him every day.”

I have had no intention, Heaven forbid, to offend you. But just as you feel that you must do what G‑d requires of you, so have I done as well. If you, or any of our readers, wish to correspond with me and truly establish a dialogue, I am at your service. . . .

(signed ‑‑‑)

 

When I was engaged in debating during my high school years, we were trained to ferret out the best possible arguments of our opponents and to devise ways to turn them around to our own advantage. In the case of R. Richman’s letter, consequently, I am prompted to accept it and to weigh its true merits:

To begin with, I would have to agree with R. Richman that the messianic expectations listed in his letter (plus many more unlisted) were not accomplished by Jesus and, if the truth be known, there is no way for either of us to know how many or how few will be accomplished when the Lord actually arrives.

Going further, I would have to acknowledge as a believer and as a scholar that the Hebrew Scriptures contain such a diverse and divergent set of particulars regarding the end times that is accurate to say that no single individual could ever fulfill everything. Within the collected apocalyptic poems of Isaiah, for instance, there are times when the Egyptians are slated for utter destruction (31:3) and other times when the Lord “will send a savior to protect and deliver the Egyptians” (19:20) such that, in the end, they too will receive his favor: “Blessed be my people Egypt” (19:25). Similarly, there are times when the Lord, speaking through the prophet Isaiah, limits the final ingathering to “your offspring [Israel]” (43:5); while, at other times, the prophet (or someone speaking in his name) says that “the nations of every tongue” (66:18) will be gathered by the Lord.

Those churches and synagogues claiming that the bible contains a single and unified scenario for the arrival of God’s kingdom have not yet dealt squarely with the sheer diversity and incompatibility found within the prophetic and apocalyptic writings. Unless both Christians and Jews get a measure of honesty on this issue, both sides will end up continually talking past each other.

Dialogue that honors a Jewish interpretation of Scripture

How then would one start a true dialogue? Well, to begin with, it would be very helpful for each side to acknowledge that, by virtue of their belonging, they have been schooled to expect certain things from God in the future and to neglect other things. Next, each side might want to explore how their separate commitments lead them to use and reuse certain prophetic texts while turning a blind eye to other texts. In so doing, both sides might come to realize that their “opponents” are not just self-serving or idiosyncratic in their selection of texts, but rather that there is an authentic diversity of religious and intellectual passions operative when it comes to God’s future. If these initial honest admissions go well, then participants from each side might more easily make sincere inquiries and learn to respect the diversity of viewpoints that will be expressed between and among those present. Furthermore, each side might discover that, at times, their use of a prophetic text is paper thin and bound to carry little conviction whereas, in other cases, the textual meaning seems rock solid. In the end, all those involved might be willing to allow that they are poised before a future that is in God’s hands and that is bound to hold surprises for all concerned.

In 2001, official Vatican explorations of the Jewish interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures opened up a new era of honesty. This began by posing to Catholics a potentially embarrassing question:

The horror in the wake of the extermination of the Jews (the Shoah) during the Second World War has led all the Churches to rethink their relationship with Judaism and, as a result, to reconsider their interpretation of the Jewish Bible, the Old Testament. It may be asked whether Christians should be blamed for having monopolized the Jewish Bible and reading there what no Jew has found.[xviii]

This admission is noteworthy. On the basis of what has been said above, Christians have pushed forward “their interpretation” of “their messianic fulfillment texts” without any regard for the Jewish understandings of the texts in question. Jews were even sometimes beaten because they failed to find these “Christian interpretations” within their texts. The Vatican document honestly asks whether Christians “should be blamed for having monopolized the Jewish Bible and reading there what no Jew has found.” The Vatican team responded as follows:

Christians can and ought to admit that the Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible one, in continuity with the Jewish Sacred Scriptures from the Second Temple period, a reading analogous to the Christian reading which developed in parallel fashion. Both readings are bound up with the vision of their respective faiths, of which the readings are the result and expression. Consequently, both are irreducible.[xix]

This is noteworthy! No longer can it be said that Jews are hard-headed dunces unable to recognize the correct interpretation of their own Scriptures. Rather, the Vatican allows that the Jewish interpretations (devoid of any hidden references to Jesus) are “possible” (nay, even more, “valid”) because they grew out of their history of interpretation and are responsive to the particular set of religious passions nurtured by their community. The same thing, of course, could be said of Christian exegesis—it also is “possible” (here again, I would say, “valid”) for the very same reasons. The conclusions drawn are twofold: (1) “Both readings are bound up with the vision of their respective faiths,” and (2) “Both are irreducible.”

In brief, for eighteen hundred years, Christians have interpreted the Jewish Scriptures in such a way as to undercut Jewish values and Jewish integrity. The presumption was that, in the face of two irreducibly different interpretations of any given text, only one could be right; hence, the Jews had to be wrong! Now, however, the Vatican has acknowledged that the Jewish reading of Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac is valid for them, while our finding of a hidden reference to the forthcoming sacrifice of Christ is valid for us. The Vatican then goes on to draw the practical conclusion that Catholics “can learn much from Jewish exegesis practiced for more than two thousand years.” Reciprocally, Catholics, for their part, can hope that Jews “can derive profit from Christian exegetical research.”[xx]

Mutual unwillingness to sanction a tyrannical future

After having arrived at this mutual recognition of how and why our interpretations of messianic texts are irreducibly different, then the dialogue partners might be able to move on to honestly reflect upon the tyrannical power that would be necessary to implement certain prophetic anticipations. To take an example, consider a specific case from R. Richman’s list, namely the expectation that the messiah would “cause all the world to return to God and his teachings.” Such a hope finds an honored place in the daily prayers of Jews and is widespread in the prophetic literature‑-“To me [the God of Israel] every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear” (Isa 45:24). In like fashion, Christians generally expect that, in the end times, the teachings of Jesus would be universally accepted by all humanity “so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend” (Phil 2:10).

For the sake of argument, let’s imagine that Phil 2:10 would be fully implemented by the Lord when he comes. In this new world order, are we to imagine that the teachings of the rabbis and the patterns of synagogue prayer would suddenly lose their legitimacy and deserve to be outlawed and stamped out? Are we to imagine that the Jewish way of life would have no sanction whatsoever in the eyes of Jesus and his twelve disciples (who would presumably be raised from the dead as believing Jews)? How could any moshiach, even one who had a divine charisma and who worked repeated miracles, be expected to bring the entire Jewish world to turn itself inside out in order to welcome a Christian theology, a Christian liturgy, and Christian eschatology? A world tyrant (the anti-Christ or a neo-Nazi revival) might be able to coerce a measure of conformity in these matters; yet, strong-arm measures would violate freedom of conscience and debase human rights. Must the Christian Messiah then become a ruthless tyrant in order that “at the name of Jesus every knee should bend” (Phil 2:10)?

As for myself, I say to you, the reader, that if this were to come to pass, Christians and Jews would have to band together in order to overthrow such a tyranny! No divine future can be tolerated that would force Jews to bend their knees before Jesus. Even if the Son of God would do it, it would still be “unworthy of God” and have to be overthrown. This, for me, is the breathtaking and scary realization that grips my soul when I read triumphalist texts such as Phil 2:10.[xxi]

Mutual uncertainties regarding God’s future

The renowned Catholic scholar, Karl Rahner stated quite boldly his conclusion that “the imaginative portrayals of Scripture [regarding the last days] cannot be harmonized with one another.”[xxii] According to Rahner, fantastic and impossible-to-attain metaphors are deliberately used in order to remind readers that the future as future remains both known and unknowable: “Now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face” (1 Cor 13:12). Thus, it would be mistaken to imagine that “the sheep will be [literally] turned into wolves” (Did. 16:3) or that the elect “will be caught up [literally] in the clouds” (2 Thess 4:17). If this were so, we would do well to study the behavior of wolves or take up skydiving in order to prepare ourselves for the last days. It would be likewise mistaken to join with Tim LaHaye[xxiii] in his expectation that, when the rapture takes place, vehicles will be running out of control and causing havoc everywhere because their drivers had been instantaneously caught up in the clouds. Accordingly, I would like to challenge the eschatological values of Tim LaHaye by asking him, “What kind of God would cause such senseless destruction when initiating his finest hour?”

Relative to the Hebrew Scriptures, humility and truth would seemingly enable us as Christians to positively adhere to the way of Jesus without imagining that all or most of the prophetic texts either directly or indirectly point to his life, death, and resurrection. The sheer complexity, incompatibility, and obscurity of the Jewish prophetic texts ensure that no Messiah or messianic series of events could possibly fulfill them all. When the disciples of Jesus found aspects of his life obscurely referred to in the Hebrew Scriptures, they were selectively reading back into their cherished Jewish sources key aspects of Jesus’ life. Their faith in Jesus, it must be made clear, came from their intimate association with Jesus and not the other way around. No one became a disciple of Jesus by virtue of drawing together a thousand prophetic texts and then scoring every living Jew for many generations to see whether someone comes up with a “perfect” match. This would be sheer lunacy.[xxiv] Even more importantly, the early disciples of Jesus used their Scriptures both to support their adherence to Jesus and their adherence to Judaism. Most modern disciples, in contrast, are intent upon using the Hebrew Scriptures to bring Jews to Jesus while entirely uprooting and destroying their adherence to Judaism. This, in itself, must serve as a “warning sign” and a “wake-up call” to both Christians and Jews as to how perfidious this enterprise is and how contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the early church traditions.

When it comes to the use of prophetic texts, Christians and Jews should be able to say to themselves and to each other that we cannot know when God will elect to establish his kingdom on earth. Nor can we know the precise details that this kingdom will include. Jews, naturally and legitimately, will want to include the ingathering of all the dispersed Jews from all over the world into the rebuilt temple in the new Jerusalem. Might it not be possible, on the other hand, that many Diaspora Jews would elect to remain rooted within those regions that they have come to know and love due to their long habituation? Furthermore, might it not be the case that the territory of Israel would create an ecological and sociological disaster should all Jews living in all times elect to return to the Land of Israel. Going further, if the Lord expected by Israel is just and favors the oppressed, then would it not be expected that the needs and the purposes of the Palestinians would gain some permanent recognition and generous response on the part of the Lord in the world to come. Abraham opposed the Lord face-to-face when his plans included the destruction of the innocent with the guilty (Gen 18:23-25). Would not the sons and daughters of Abraham then be expected to oppose any formation of God’s future Land of Israel that would be crassly insensitive to the legitimate needs and rights of their Palestinian neighbors?[xxv]

A few pages earlier, I objected to the literal fulfillment of Phil 2:10. Now I endeavor to examine the Jewish expectation of the ingathering of the exiles in the face of ecological, sociological, and political realities of which the Jewish prophets were ignorant. My hope is that Jews might learn from this that they can and must challenge, for example, those Israelis who use the Hebrew Scriptures to support the view that not an inch of land (conquered by recent wars) can legitimately be returned to the goyim. My hope earlier was to demonstrate that Christians can and must challenge bible thumpers who preach that Phil 2:10 (and associated texts) gives them the right to trample the religious sensibilities and legitimate practices of the Jews (or the Muslims) here and now because God himself holds out a future when he himself will trample any Jew who does not bend his knee at the name of Jesus. What? How can those engaged in Christian-Jewish dialogue continue to be insensitive and indifferent to such things? All in all, Christian-Jewish dialogue can and does (I am even tempted to say “must”) empower believers on both sides to go home and clean up the mess made by their own co-religionists in their own houses.[xxvi]

Whether Christians have destroyed Jesus’ future

The Christian Scriptures give ample testimony to the supreme importance that Jesus had for the lives of those Jews who had accepted him and walked in his ways. For modern Christians, however, a new situation has arisen that may nullify God’s choice of Jesus as the Moshiach:

Christians have shamed the God of Israel by painting him as locked in unforgiveness from the fall of Adam to the death of Jesus. Such a doctrine, even in its mitigated forms, has always stood in contradiction to the lavish experience of forgiveness described in both the Hebrew Scriptures and in the parables of Jesus.

Christians have, accordingly, proclaimed a false and misleading god to the Jews, and the Jews were right to reject it entirely. Since this falsehood is so intimately associated with Jesus, it remains unclear whether God could endorse Jesus as the Moshiach of Israel in the end times without giving a false witness and a tacit approval to an abhorrent misrepresentation of God.

According to Matthew Gospel, Jesus anticipated that his disciples would someday “sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matt 19:27f). How could the disciples of Jesus be expected to properly judge or guide Israel if they have been poisoned by a doctrine that “salvation is only found in the name of Jesus” and that “salvation consists in applying to Jews the merits Jesus earned dying on the cross”?

The Church must also struggle with Elie Wiesel’s charge that “any messiah in whose name men are tortured is a false messiah.”[xxvii] Thus, in humility and in truth, Christians must wonder whether the long history of Christian harassment, intimidation, and torture of Jews does not entirely preclude God from giving anyone associated with these horrendous events any significant role in the future of Israel.

One can speak glibly of Jesus as being Jewish and sinless; however, this does not remove the pain and horror of millions of Jews who were tormented in the name of Jesus Christ. Wiesel himself recounts his own story:

As a child I was afraid of the church . . . not only because of what I inherited‑-our collective memory‑-but also because of the simple fact that twice a year, at Easter and Christmas, Jewish school children would be beaten up by their Christian neighbors. A symbol of compassion and love to Christians, the cross has become an instrument of torment and terror to be used against the Jews.[xxviii]

Just as it is impossible to contemplate that God would use former S.S. officers to keep order during the final judgment and to usher Jews into the world to come, so too, it remains unclear whether the God of Israel could be so crass and insensitive as to allow the Crucified Savior Jesus Christ to be the most credible candidate for the Moshiach of Israel.

In humility and truth, consequently, the false doctrines and horrendous deeds of Christians may have temporarily (and maybe even permanently) ruined the chances that Jesus of Nazareth will still be God’s choice for the Moshiach of Israel. No appeal to the infallibility of the popes or to the persistent faith of the Church could possibly overturn this terrible conclusion. In fact, when understood correctly, it is the very teaching and conduct of the popes and the very persistent faith and conduct of the Church that will be used by God to explain why the name of Jesus has been withdrawn as his choice as Moshiach.

Observe, Judge, and Act

Q1. Up until this point of time, the message given to you by loving parents and by your religion teachers is that “Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah sent by God to redeem his people.” This message has been repeated so often and has been enforced by loving teachers to the point that “there can be no doubting that this is exactly the greatest gift that God offers us.”  Think back to the moment in your life to when you felt absolutely certain that “Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah sent by God to redeem his people.” What assurance did you have that backed up your conviction.  What feeling tones did this leave you with?

Q2. Think back to the moment in your life when you felt some doubt that “Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah sent by God to redeem his people.”.  Describe one of these moments.  What feeling tones did this doubt and burden leave you with?

Q3. To what degree is this true?  To what degree is this false?

Christians have shamed the God of Israel by painting him as locked in unforgiveness from the fall of Adam to the death of Jesus. Such a doctrine, even in its mitigated forms, has always stood in contradiction to the lavish experience of forgiveness described in both the Hebrew Scriptures and in the parables of Jesus.

Q4. To what degree is this true?  To what degree is this false?

The Church must also struggle with Elie Wiesel’s charge that “any messiah in whose name men are tortured is a false messiah.”  Wiesel explains this in his own experiences:

As a child I was afraid of the church . . . not only because of what I inherited‑-our collective memory‑-but also because of the simple fact that twice a year, at Easter and Christmas, Jewish school children would be beaten up by their Christian neighbors. A symbol of compassion and love to Christians, the cross has become an instrument of torment and terror to be used against the Jews.

Q5. To what degree is this true?  To what degree is this false?

In humility and truth, consequently, the false doctrines (named in Q3) and horrendous deeds of Christians (named in Q4) may have temporarily (and maybe even permanently) ruined the chances that Jesus of Nazareth will still be God’s choice for the Moshiach of Israel. No appeal to the infallibility of the popes or to the persistent faith of the Church could possibly overturn this terrible conclusion.

Q6. Rabbi Eugene B. Borowitz speaks forthrightly for hundreds of thousands of Jews when he says, quite categorically, that the name of Jesus of Nazareth has to be struck from the list of potential candidates for moshiach. His reasons are clear and uncompromising:

• This Jesus is the one who validated the hatred and oppression of his own people.

• He is the Jesus who stands for crusades, inquisitions, ritual murder charges, and forced conversions.

• He is the Jesus who did not protest the Holocaust. That Jesus may not hate his kinfolk in his heart, but he has stood idly by while his kinfolk bled.

• Jews like Rabbi Borowitz shake their heads and tremble in rage whenever they encounter zealous Christians contorting the Hebrew Scriptures into saying that the Moshiach had to undergo a barbaric death in order to coax God into forgiving sins. Such a scheme of things perverts the Jewish image of a just and merciful Father that is plainly written in their sacred texts.

• It also demonstrates how ignorant Christians can be of the Jewish experience of receiving God’s love and forgiveness. The shame is not that Christians (as gentiles) experience the loving forgiveness of the God of Israel through Jesus; the shame is that so many Christians believe that no one can legitimately have an experience of God’s forgiveness of sins without praising the name of Jesus.

Q7.  No one can change her mind without first of all having slept on the evidence.  The process of deep sleep allows one to forget the non-essentials that are cluttering your mind and feelings.  Therefore, I urge you not to commit yourself until you sleep on it for a few nights.  Where has your mind and heart settled after three days?

Q7.  After a week, open your heart and mind to a trusted and informed guide who is willing to hear the depths of your soul.  Share your whole process of finding flaws in your original position.  How and why have you undertaken to study this issue more deeply.  What new evidence has jumped out at you and how has it changed you?  Give yourself forty days to test drive the position of Rabbi Elis Wiesel.

Q8.  Rabbi Eugene B. Borowitz speaks forthrightly for hundreds of thousands of Jews when he says, quite categorically, that the name of Jesus of Nazareth has to be struck from the list of potential candidates for moshiach. His reasons are clear and uncompromising:

• This Jesus is the one who validated the hatred and oppression of his own people.

• He is the Jesus who stands for crusades, inquisitions, ritual murder charges, and forced conversions.

• He is the Jesus who did not protest the Holocaust. Jesus may not hate his kinfolk in his heart, but he stood idly by while his kinfolk bled.

• Jews like Rabbi Borowitz shake their heads and tremble in rage whenever they encounter zealous Christians contorting the Hebrew Scriptures into saying that the Moshiach had to undergo a barbaric death in order to coax God into forgiving sins. Such a scheme of things perverts the Jewish image of a just and merciful Father that is plainly written in their sacred texts.

• It also demonstrates how ignorant Christians can be of the Jewish experience of receiving God’s love and forgiveness. The shame is not that Christians experience the loving forgiveness of the God of Israel through Jesus; the shame is that so many Christians believe that no Jew can legitimately have an experience of God’s forgiveness of sins without praising the name of Jesus.

Can a Jew be certain that Jesus was not the Moshiach?

From what has already been said, it is clear that Jews can take their stand within their religious tradition and say, with calm assurance, that Jesus was not the Moshiach. This is so primarily because Jews cannot rightly imagine that God’s Moshiach was somehow sent into the world unequipped to establish even a small part of God’s design for Israel in the end times. To this can be added the painful fact that the smoke of the burning children at Auschwitz conclusively demonstrates that God’s kingdom has not arrived. Just as there are false Messiahs, so too there are also false claims as to the presence of the kingdom (made by well-meaning Christians). The smell of the flesh of burning children keeps Jews honest on this point.

Rabbi Eugene B. Borowitz speaks forthrightly for hundreds of thousands of Jews when he says, quite categorically, that the name of Jesus of Nazareth has to be struck from the list of potential candidates for moshiach. His reasons are clear and uncompromising:

• This Jesus is the one who validated the hatred and oppression of his own people.

• He is the Jesus who stands for crusades, inquisitions, ritual murder charges, and forced conversions.

• He is the Jesus who did not protest the Holocaust. That Jesus may not hate his kinfolk in his heart, but he has stood idly by while his kinfolk bled.

One can still hear the reverberations of anger between the lines. Jews like Rabbi Borowitz, consequently, can barely stomach the hypocrisy of pious Christians who naively applaud Jesus as the Messiah. Jews like Rabbi Borowitz shake their heads and tremble in rage whenever they encounter zealous Christians contorting the Hebrew Scriptures into saying that the Moshiach had to undergo a barbaric death in order to coax God into forgiving sins. Such a scheme of things perverts the Jewish image of a just and merciful Father that is plainly written in their sacred texts. It also demonstrates how ignorant Christians can be of the Jewish experience of receiving God’s love and forgiveness. The shame is not that Christians experience the loving forgiveness of the God of Israel through Jesus; the shame is that so many Christians believe that no one can legitimately have such an experience without praising the name of Jesus.

The case of Jews who admire Jesus

On the brighter side, some Jews have explored the teachings and the deeds of Jesus of Nazareth and come away with admiration in their hearts. At the turn of the century, for example, Max Nordau, the faithful collaborator of Theodor Herzl, founder of the Zionist movement, wrote, “Jesus is the soul of our soul, as he is flesh of our flesh.”[xxix] Martin Buber, a little later, began describing Jesus as the “elder brother” to whom “belongs an important place in Israel’s history of faith.”[xxx] Since then, a handful of Jewish scholars have made extensive studies of the person and the teachings of Jesus.[xxxi] The study of Shalom Ben-Chorin, in particular, captures both the affinity and the strangeness that most Jews experience when making contact with Jesus through the Christian Scriptures:

I feel his brotherly hand which gasps mine, so that I can follow him. . . . It is not the hand of the Messiah, this hand marked with scars. It is certainly not a divine, but a human hand, in the lines of which are engraved the most profound suffering. . . . The faith of Jesus unites us, but faith in Jesus divides us.[xxxii]

Rabbi Pinchas Lapide met with Jürgen Moltmann in a small parish church in Germany and, quite unexpectedly, a very intense and open dialogue took place. During this exchange, Lapide acknowledged some things that must have sent shudders of delight in the hearts of the Christians present. For beginners, he said, “I accept the resurrection of Easter Sunday not as an invention of the community of disciples, but as a historical event.”[xxxiii] Next, he explained that, for him, “Jesus is immortal.”[xxxiv] Furthermore, Lapide allowed that Jesus is truly “son of God”[xxxv] and that “the Christ event leads to a way of salvation which God has opened up to bring the Gentile world into the community of God’s Israel.”[xxxvi] Having come so far, Lapide then took the bold final step of characterizing the success of Christianity in converting the Gentile world as a “messianic event.”[xxxvii] Having said all these heart-warming things about Jesus and the movement he left behind, R. Lapide then baffled his Christian hearers by admitting that he was, never the less, unable to say with certainty that Jesus is the Moshiach. Why so? He explained:

No Jew knows who the coming moshiach is [with certainty], but you [Christians] believe to know his identity with certitude. I cannot contrapose your certainty with a no, but merely with a humble question mark. Thus I am happily prepared to wait until the Coming One comes, and if he should show himself to be Jesus of Nazareth, I cannot imagine that even a single Jew[xxxviii] who believes in God would have the least thing against that.[xxxix]

This is baffling. Rabbi Lapide clearly entertains a wait and see attitude. In so doing, he graciously puts aside all his terrible memories of what has been done to Jews in the name of Jesus. One might think that he is playing a game with his audience by way of sugarcoating his quiet “no” to Jesus. Possible. From my reading of the entire dialogue, however, my hunch is that Lapide trusts God to make the right choice for Israel—even if it entails his choice for Jesus. In the end, consequently, Rabbi Lapide humbly professes a messianic faith that allows God to be God! Would that Christians would learn from him how to moderate the absolute certainties surrounding their own messianic faith.

What unites Jews and Christians

Given our differences on so many points, it seems important to close this chapter by remembering what unites us—that we all anticipate the coming of the kingdom, the resurrection of the dead, the final judgment, and life everlasting. A dialogue group composed of rabbis and priests in Los Angeles summarized their findings as follows:

The concept of the Kingdom of God serves as a source of comfort and hope in both Judaism and Christianity. God is King so good will ultimately prevail, thus the human struggle against evil is meaningful. Our roots give us security and strength, but it is our vision of the future promised by God that enlightens our minds and gladdens our hearts.[xl]

Thus, because the Moshiach of Israel is not the Messiah of Christians, the anticipation of the Kingdom of God has much to divide us. On the other hand, since the God of David is coming on behalf of Israel and those Gentiles who have been grafted onto the root of Israel thanks to Jesus, there is much to `enlighten our minds and gladden our hearts.’

Conclusion

At the end of this chapter, many things come into focus: (a) that the core of Jesus’ ministry was his heralding of the coming of the Kingdom of God; (b) that Jesus did not fulfill many of the Jewish expectations regarding the expected Moshiach; and (c) that Christians must ponder whether the long history of Christian harassment, intimidation, and torture of Jews combined with the Church’s persistent pejorative theology of God and of Judaism does not entirely preclude that God would assign Jesus any significant role when it comes to the future of Israel.

[i] Marrow (1999) represents an excellent example of a Jesuit who systematically explored the biblical records and came to the firm conclusion that the “immortal soul” was never part of the teaching of Jesus.  Likewise, within Evangelical Protestant circles, The Carson Center for Theological Renewal under the direction of Dr. Benjamin L. Gladd  has arrived at similar findings.  See “Why We Won’t Spend Eternity in Heaven” (24 October 2024).  URL=<https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/wont-spend-eternity-heaven/>   A popular pastor, Rev. Jacob Prahlow, gets to the heart of our future life, with his “Life after Life after Death,” Conciliar Post, 04 Oct 2024.  URL=<https://conciliarpost.com/theology-spirituality/life-after-life-after-death/>

[ii] The expectation of God coming to gather the exiles and to establish his reign was first sounded in the synagogue Sabbath prayer: “Hurry, Loved One, the holy day [of our deliverance] has come: show us grace as [you did] long ago.” Next, it showed up in our analysis of the Jewish character of the opening phrases of the Lord’s Prayer. Finally, it was spelled out in detail in the section entitled, The Priority of Israel’s Salvation in the Message of Jesus, in Chapter Three.

[iii] Norman Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (New York: Harper & Row, 1967) 54.

[iv] In Acts 19:8, for instance, only the kingdom preaching is mentioned. In Acts 8:12 & 28:31, the kingdom preaching is named first and, only then, “teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ.” A detailed analysis of the sermons in Acts would also show this same relationship, but it is beyond the scope of this book to work this all out. For a detailed and highly readable study of how the expectation of God’s coming as Savior gets gradually overlayed with the saving acts of the Messiah, see John A.T. Robinson, Jesus and his Coming (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979).

[v] Joachim Jeremias, New Testament Theology: The Proclamation of Jesus. Tr. John Bowden from the 1971 German orig. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1971) 198.

[vi] James D.G. Dunn, The Partings of the Ways Between Christianity and Judaism and their Significance for the Character of Christianity (London: SCM Press, 1991) 38.

[vii] Paul F. Bradshaw, in his Search for the Origins of Christian Worship (Oxford: University Press, 1991), makes the point that most scholars in the last century had “a considerable degree of assurance what Jewish worship was like in the first century” (1) but that this assurance had almost entirely evaporated by the turn of the century. To begin with, Bradshaw draws attention to the fact that no surviving synagogue prayer book goes back earlier than the ninth century (1). Moreover, instead of assuming that the rabbis shaped daily prayers thereby ensuring a degree of uniformity, Bradshaw demonstrates that recent scholars have concluded that “diversity and variety” characterized this development and that the rabbis, by the end of the second century, had only partially succeeded in bringing a degree of standardization to the prayer life of their followers (6). In brief, Bradshaw concludes that a survey of all the relevant documents leads to the conclusion that three regular prayers were used by many ordinary Jews during the first century: the Shema, the Tefillah, and grace at meals. The Kaddish only developed later, hence, it is extremely unlikely that the Lord’s Prayer was shaped by first-century prayers used in the synagogue as scholars such as Jeremias and Dunn have supposed.

[viii] Cited in Dunn, The Partings of the Ways, 38.

[ix] Sometimes Judaism can be presented in such a way as to mimic Protestant or Catholic ways of thinking.  Here is an example of this: author undisclosed, “Belief in Heaven is Fundamental to Judaism,” Jews for Judaism  URL=https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/belief-in-heaven-is-fundamental-to-judaism  Quite early the author attributes King Solomon with the doctrine of Socrates:

At death the soul and body separate. King Solomon said, “The dust will return to the ground as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it” (Ecclesiastes 12:7).  This means the soul returns to heaven, back to God, where it is enveloped in the Oneness of the Divine.

The author mistranslates his own self-chosen text.  When he says “the soul returns to heaven,” this hints at the transmigration of souls that is a standard Socratic assumption.  Later, however, the author clearly speaks of judgment and rewards when talking about heaven:

After we die we are judged by God, since He is the only true judge who knows our actions as well as our motives. Our place in heaven is determined by a merit system based on God’s accounting of all our actions and motives.

While the author here suggests that everyone is given a rank in heaven due to our actions and motives, at another point the author flatly opposes acting to gain favor with God:

We perform the mitzvot [good deed] because it is our privilege and our sacred obligation to do so. We perform them out of a sense of love and duty, not out of a desire to get something in return. There is a practical reason for this. If we lived a righteous life for the sake of a monetary or heavenly reward it would be serving God for an ulterior motive.

For further examination of this, go to URL=<https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/belief-in-heaven-is-fundamental-to-judaism>

[x] Tracy R. Rich, “Moshiach: The Messiah,” URL=<http://www.jewfaq.org/moshiach.htm>

[xi] The Catechism of the Catholic Church [abbr: CCC] followed the schema used in the Roman Catechism produced following the Council of Trent. Thus, the atoning death stands as the primary metaphor for understanding Jesus’ mission and forms the horizon of understanding for making sense of how Jesus is the “Christ” (especially par. 440). All the biblical material cited above regarding the centrality of the Kingdom of God in the mission of Jesus finds occasional references here and there. The citations from Vatican II offered above are grouped together under the heading, “The Hope for the New Heaven and the New Earth” (sec. 1042-1050) but show little evidence of having been integrated into Jesus’ role as Messiah.  Thus, in general terms, the CCC is a very fragmented production.  The atoning death is taken out of the medieval ST and serves to specify the “redemption” that Jesus brought.  The CCC entirely overlooks the Synoptics and Acts wherein Jesus refused to present himself as “the Messiah.”  Jesus anticipated the coming of the Kingdom of God that the Father would bring. At no point does the Catechism deal with (a) the thousand-year reign of the Messianic Kingdom and (b) the coming of the Father to “wipe away every tear” (Rev 7:17, 21:4).  To discover “why the Messianic Kingdom is omitted from the Catechism,” I did a search on <www.magisteriumai.com>.  Here are the results:

• The Catholic Church has historically rejected the idea of a literal, earthly thousand-year reign of Christ and the saints, known as “millenarianism” or “chiliasm.” This view was held by some early Christian groups like the Cerinthians and Ebionites, but was rejected by the mainstream Church.

• The Catholic understanding is that the “thousand years” mentioned in the Book of Revelation refers symbolically to the entire period between Christ’s first and second comings, not a literal millennium. St. Augustine, a prominent early Church Father, interpreted the thousand years as representing the perfection and completeness of the Church’s reign, not a specific temporal period.

• The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms that the Church will receive her “perfection only in the glory of heaven” at the end of time, when “the universe itself will be renewed” and the righteous will reign forever with Christ. This final, eternal kingdom is the fulfillment of the Messianic kingdom, not a literal thousand-year reign on earth.

References  1.= Catholic Encyclopedia  2.= CCC sec. 1042

In sum, the Catholic Church has entirely removed itself from our Lord’s faith that “your [our Father’s] kingdom come on earth.”  Perfection, for individuals and for the Church itself, ultimately takes place in Heaven where God dwells.  Thus, Socrates has won out over the historical Jesus.  Only in the afterlife is perfection available because, only there (in Heaven), the body does not hinder the eternal longing of our immortal souls.  Here then is the doctrine of Socrates:

It has been proved to us by experience that if we would have pure [i.e., certain and unchanging] knowledge of anything we must be quit of the body. . . . If while in company with the body, the soul cannot have pure knowledge, one or two things follows—either [pure] knowledge is not to be attained at all, or, if at all, [pure knowledge can be attained only] after death. For then, and not till then, the soul will be parted from the body and exist in herself alone.

In this present life, I reckon that we make the nearest approach to knowledge when we have the least possible intercourse or communion with the body, and are not surfeited with the bodily nature [which is unreliable because it is continually changing], but keep ourselves pure until the hour when God himself is pleased to release us. And thus having got rid of the foolishness of the body we shall be pure and hold converse with the pure . . . (Phaedo, 1022).

I did research on the Catholic Church’s new super site on the coming of the Lord to “wipe away every tear” (Rev 7:17, 21:4).  I did this because the Book of Revelation (Rev 21:2-5) makes it absolutely clear (a) that God is coming to us for this event [we do not need to die in order to get to God in heaven] and (b) that God aspires to spend his entire future on earth [as opposed to taking us to be with him in heaven].  Here are the results of my search:

• The Book of Revelation describes the ultimate goal of our Christian pilgrimage – the heavenly Jerusalem [that is “coming down out of heaven from God” (Rev 21:3)] where God will dwell with humanity and wipe away all tears, mourning, and pain.[^1] This vision of the new heaven and new earth represents the fullness of God’s kingdom, where the righteous will reign forever with Christ in glorified bodies and souls.[^2] [Notice that “the heavenly Jerusalem” remains “heavenly” whereas, according to Rev 21:2, the “new” Jerusalem is “coming down out of heaven from God.”  The phrase, “the heavenly Jerusalem” never appears in the entire Book of Revelation.  Has the Catechism distorted the bible?  Quite possibly.]
• The Church is the Bride of Christ, awaiting the day when He will return [to earth as in Rev 21:2-4] and complete the “recapitulation” – the final restoration of all things under His lordship.[^3] At that time, the Church and the redeemed community will no longer be wounded by sin, stains, or self-love, but will experience the beatific vision and eternal communion with God [in heaven].[^4] [Notice that “Bride of Christ” never appears in the Book of Revelation.  Nor does “the Church.” Rather, it is the “new Jerusalem” that has been “prepared as a bride adorned for her husband” (Rev 2:2) that is the focal point of the eschaton.  God and Jesus show up, not as endorsing a particular “Church,” but as “light” for the nations:

And the city [“the new Jerusalem that comes down out of heaven” (Rev 21:10)] has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God is its light, and its lamp is the Lamb. The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it. Its gates will never be shut by day‑‑and there will be no night there. People will bring into it the glory and the honor of the nations (Rev 21:23-26).

• This eschatological hope is not a mere utopia, but a reality that God is already bringing about through Christ’s Paschal mystery.[^5] The newness of God is already present in the world, inspiring the Church and renewing human history.[^6] The Church, with the Spirit, continues to pray “Marana tha” – “Come, Lord Jesus!” (Rev 22:20), longing for the day when every tear will be wiped away.[^3]
• [Notice that the Catholic Church prays “Come, Lord Jesus!” (Rev 22:20).  In so doing, they short-circuit the eschatology of the Book of Revelation that anticipates “the Lord God” as also coming shortly: “See, the home of God is among mortals. He will dwell with them as their God; they will be his peoples, and God himself will be with them” (Rev 21:3).  The Catholic Church has no sufficient cause to promote God’s coming.  In fact, the Church implies that Jesus will be the one to wipe away tears when he returns and that, in Heaven, we will live with Jesus “as our God.”  Thus, Almighty God is again upstaged by Jesus in yet another significant biblical alteration.]

[^1] [General Audience of 28 June 2000](https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/audiences/2000/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_20000628.html)

[^2] [CCC 1044](http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2Q.HTM)

[^3] [General Audience of 14 February 2001 5](https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/audiences/2001/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_20010214.html)

[^4] [Amoris Laetitia 22] (https://www.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia_en.pdf)

[^5] [CCC 1042](http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2Q.HTM)

[^6] [Ecclesia in Europa 106](https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_20030628_ecclesia-in-europa.html)

Again and again, it might appear that the Catholic Church has subverted the Scriptures in order to proclaim its own message at the expense of an honest and informed examination of the Scriptures.  Thus, by expanding “blood guilt” to include all Jews in all future generations, my Catholic teachers denigrated Judaism and caused me needless anxiety regarding Mr. Martin’s risk of being tormented in eternal hellfire.  Next, by portraying God as unable to forgive sins prior to the atoning sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, Catholics had to tamper with the apostolic teaching and to overturn the teachings of Rabbi Jesus regarding the supreme readiness of God to forgive sins at all times and in all places where teshuvah was operative. Next, the Catholic Church of the second and third centuries gave priority to the Socratic doctrine of the naturally immortal soul by way of altering the when and how of the afterlife. Catholics are thereby bound to think that (a) Jesus came to save their souls from eternal punishment and that (b) Jesus assured good Catholics that making use of the Sacraments would assure them of receiving the “beatific vision” when they die and go to Heaven.

Still other Catholics in my generation still believe that, if they faithfully wear a brown scapular, they would be assured of going to Heaven on the first Saturday after their death.  See “Sabbatine Privilege” at the URL=<https://ogdensburgcatholics.org/the-brown-scapular-promises> [Note: Please exercise caution on this site–spiritual advice is being offered that gets close to “borderline superstition”?  Why did the intelligent and kind Sisters teach me about the supreme benefits of the brown scapular?  For a more balanced presentation of the devotion to Our Lady of Mt. Carmel that stands behind the use of the scapular, see URL=<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnOviWvWDg8>

[xii] One can see, from this first instance, that the hidden meanings found in Gen 3:15 go way beyond the literal meaning of the text within its original context. It is even a stretch of the imagination to regard Gen 3:15 as a messianic text. Don Juel, in his excellent book, Messianic Exegesis (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) notes that one finds in Christian exegesis of the Jewish Scriptures something akin to rabbinic midrash—it was a “highly artful, even fanciful, history of interpretation” (13). Catholic biblical scholars such as Bruce Vawter pose serious problems to the continued use of Gen 3:15 as the “protoevangelium” of salvation (On Genesis: A New Reading, 83-84).

[xiii] Both the Aqedah (the binding of Isaac) and the atoning death of Jesus serve to transform events of horror into events of honor. Just as Jews could speak of the unfathomable blessings that emerged due to the “sacrifice” of Isaac, Christians on their part claimed that no sin ever gets forgiven without the merits of Christ’s passion and death. These merits bedazzle the onlooker and cover over the implied cruelty of God hidden in the wings. See, for example, Elie Wiesel, Messengers of God: Biblical Portraits and Legends (New York: Random House, 1976) & Philip Borenstein, “Sermon for Second Day of Rosh Hashannah 5757 (1996),” URL=<http://www.rjca.rog/5757rh2akedah.html>

[xiv] Juel, Messianic Exegesis, 13.

[xv] William Horbury, Jews and Christians: In Contact and in Controversy (Edinburg: T&T Clark, 1998) 227.

[xvi] This form of misguided proselytism seldom works for various reasons: (a) because it operates in ignorance of the Jewish history of interpretation of the text, (b) because it arrogantly presupposes that the “Christian interpretation” represents the only true meaning that could possibly be applied to the text, and (c) because it promotes an image of the Messiah that runs counter to the moshiach of every informed Jew. It is one thing for the early Christians to find in their Hebrew Scriptures allegorical interpretations that supported their continued adherence to Jesus and his Judaism; it is quite another thing for later Christians to use these same allegorical interpretations by way of uprooting and destroying the foundations of Judaism.

The most common list of messianic predictions fulfilled by Jesus are the following:

 Messiah would be a descendant of King David: 2 Samuel 7:12-16

 Messiah was to be born at Bethlehem: Micah 5:1

 Messiah would arrive before the destruction of the Second Temple: Daniel 9:24-27

 Messiah would present himself by riding on a donkey: Zechariah 9:9

 Messiah would be tortured to death: Psalm 22:1-31

 Messiah’s life would match a particular description, including suffering, silence at his arrest and trial, death and burial in a rich man’s tomb, and resurrection: Isaiah 52:13-53:12

[xviii] Pontifical Biblical Commission, “The Jewish People and their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible,” published with a preface from Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Rome: Vatican Press, 2001) sec. 22.

[xix] Ibid.

[xx] Ibid.

[xxi] Texts such as Phil 2:10 deserve a cautionary footnote in Catholic bibles that might read something like this: “The Jews remain very dear to God . . . and should not be spoken of as rejected or accursed” (Nostra Aetate 4); hence, we can be certain that God will respect their rightful beliefs and religious liberty in the world to come. Given the enormity of crimes inflicted upon Jews in the name of Jesus, it remains doubtful whether, following the general resurrection, these same Jews will be inclined to bend their knees “at the name of Jesus.” If God returns to “wipe away every tear” (Rev 21:4), then there might be some prospect that Jesus might eventually gain some recognition among the people of Israel. For the moment, however, Christians should recognize that it would be cruel and inhumane for God to impose Jesus upon the Jews in any capacity whatsoever in the world to come. Texts such as Phil 2:10 must therefore be understood as representing a prophetic prospect that has been subverted by the conduct of Christians in the course of history.

[xxii] Karl Rahner, “The Hermeneutics of Eschatological Assertions,” Theological Investigations IV (Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1966) 335.

[xxiii] Launched in 1995, the Left Behind series authored by the retired Fundamentalist pastor, Tim LaHaye, in collaboration with the fiction writer, Jerry B. Jenkins, has sold fifty million copies and spawned three New York Times best-sellers (as of late 2002). According to LaHaye, “the enormous success of our books indicate that there are still millions of people in our country who believe that the bible has the answer to the problems of life and bible prophecy reveals what the future holds for our troubled world” (Time Magazine). In the first volume of this ten-volume series, flight attendants aboard a 747 bound for Heathrow suddenly find half the seat empty save for the clothes, rings, and dental fillings of believers who were suddenly raptured. Down on the ground, great numbers of cars and trucks on the highways suddenly go out of control because their drivers have been likewise raptured.

[xxiv] In 2001, the Vatican noted the following: “It would be wrong to consider the prophecies of the Old Testament as some kind of photographic anticipations of future events. All the texts, including those which later were read as messianic prophecies, already had an immediate import and meaning for their contemporaries before attaining a fuller meaning for future hearers” (Pontifical Biblical Commission, “The Jewish People,” sec. 21).

[xxv] A few pages earlier, I vehemently objected to the literal fulfillment of Phil 2:10 (see n. 18 above). Now I endeavor to examine the Jewish expectation of the ingathering of the exiles in the face of ecological, sociological, and political realities of which the Jewish prophets were ignorant. My hope is that Jews might learn from this that they can and must challenge those Israelis who use the Hebrew Scriptures to support the view that not an inch of land (conquered by recent wars) can legitimately be returned to the goyim. My hope earlier was to demonstrate that Christians can and must challenge those bible thumpers who imagine that Phil 2:10 gives them the right to trample the religious sensibilities and legitimate practices of the Jews (or the Muslims) here and now because God himself holds out a future when he himself will trample any Jew who does not bend his knee at the name of Jesus. All in all, Christian-Jewish dialogue can (and sometimes does) empower believers to go home and clean up the mess made by their own co-religionists in their own houses. I, for one, have been empowered within this dialogue to prepare the topics in this book in such a way that I directly and immediately challenge cherished Catholic positions. I do this because most Catholics are blissfully ignorant of how deep the poison of anti-Judaism goes within the routine attitudes and sanctioned literature of their Church. I will scandalize many in speaking as I do. On the other hand, those who continue to support a polite and inoffensive Catholic-Jewish dialogue also scandalize by what they are afraid to reconsider and afraid to challenge in their own faith. The same thing, of course, can be said of Jewish participants.

[xxvi] I, for one, have been empowered within this dialogue to prepare the topics in this book in such a way that I directly and immediately challenge cherished Catholic positions. I do this because most Catholics are blissfully ignorant of how deep the poison of anti-Judaism goes within the routine attitudes and sanctioned literature of their Church. I will scandalize many in speaking as I do. On the other hand, those who continue to support a polite and inoffensive Catholic-Jewish dialogue also scandalize by what they are afraid to reconsider and afraid to challenge in their own faith. The same thing, of course, can be said of Jewish participants.

[xxvii] Elie Wiesel, The Oath (New York: Random House, 1973) 138.

[xxviii] Elie Wiesel, “Art and Culture after the Holocaust,” Auschwitz‑-Beginning of a New Era? Ed. Eva Fleischner (New York: KTAV, 1977) 406.

[xxix] Cited in Hans Küng, On Being a Christian (Garden City: Doubleday, 1976) 173.

[xxx] Martin Buber, Two Types of Faith (New York: Harper & Row, 1975) 12f.

[xxxi] Among the better known Jewish studies of Jesus that have appeared in English are the following: David Flusser, Jesus (New York: Herder & Herder, 1969); Joseph Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth (New York: Macmillan, 1925); Pinchas Lapide (with Jürgen Moltmann), Jewish Monotheism and Christian Trinitarian Doctrine (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970); C.G. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels (London: Macmillan, 1927); Samuel Sandmel, We Jews and Jesus (Oxford: University Press, 1965); Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew (New York: Macmillan, 1973). For an excellent overview and analysis, see Donald A. Hagner, The Jewish Reclamation of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984).

[xxxii] Shalom Ben-Chorin, Bruder Jesus (München: Verlag, 1967) 14.

[xxxiii] Pinchas Lapide and Jürgen Moltmann, Jewish Monotheism and Christian Trinitarian Doctrine (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981) 59.

[xxxiv] Lapide and Moltmann, Jewish Monotheism, 60.

[xxxv] Lapide and Moltmann, Jewish Monotheism, 67.

[xxxvi] Lapide and Moltmann, Jewish Monotheism, 69.

[xxxvii] Lapide and Moltmann, Jewish Monotheism, 71.

[xxxviii] At this moment, R. Lapide obviously wasn’t thinking of the hundreds of thousands of Jews that very much think like R. Borowitz.

[xxxix] Lapide and Moltmann, Jewish Monotheism, 79.

[xl] The Los Angeles Priest-Rabbi Committee offers this conclusion to its dialogue on the importance, the nature, and the contemporary implications of the Kingdom of God.