Customer Reviews

Jews and Jewish Christianity

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

The back cover of this 1978 book states, "David Berger is a historian and Michael Wyschogrod is a philosopher."

In "A Note to the Reader," the authors state, "This booklet has been written for two purposes: first, to persuade Jews who have been attracted by 'Jewish Christianity' to take another look at the issues; second, to familiarize other readers with a Jewish approach to what has become a controversial and hotly debated topic."

Here are some quotations from the book:

"The purpose of this booklet is therefore to explain why Jews ought not to become Christians or Jewish Christians, but it is not directed at anyone who is not Jewish." (Pg. 13)
"In other words, the only way to define 'the Messiah' is as the king who will rule during what we call the Messianic age. The central criterion for evaluating a Messiah must therefore be a single question: Has the Messianic age come? It is only in terms of this question that 'the Messiah' means anything." (Pg. 19)
"Nevertheless, we cannot escape the fact that classical Christianity asserts that Jesus was God. And it is this claim that makes it so serious for a Jew to embrace Christianity." (Pg. 28)
"Another way is to examine Isaiah 53 itself and see whether or not the descriptions of the 'servant' there give us any reason to identify him with the Messiah.... we are rather lucky, because a servant of the Lord is mentioned in eight chapters between Isaiah 41 and 50. In five of the chapters, the servant is clearly and unambiguously the people of Israel (41:8-9; 44:1, 2, 21, 26; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3)... One reference is probably to the prophet (50:10); the references in the other two chapters are uncertain ... but they can easily refer to Israel (compare 42:19 with 43:8). What all this means is that when we get to Isaiah 52-53, we should be strongly predisposed to regard any 'servant of the Lord' as the people of Israel. To say that the servant in Isaiah 53 is the Messiah, we would need extraordinarily persuasive reasons. Instead of such persuasive reasons, we have no reasons at all." (Pg. 48)

A very good book and thought provoking. This book helps dispels the myth that one can be both Jewish and Christian at the same time.For those considering converting from Judaism to Christianity, it sets the record straight as to the real interpretations of text and how Christianity projects there own spin on Judaism to attract possible converts. It is a very useful and honest guide that is written to help folks consider the Jewish perspective before converting however, I find it useful in dealing with my non-Jewish friends who consistently question me about Judaism and Christianity. It is very easy to read and follow and good to have on hand as a reference.

This book is the most subtle and sympathetic of the various books written to stem the tide of Jewish young people becoming "Messianic Jews" or "Christians". It is exceptionally well written and runs counter to the typical gutter-propaganda which insinuates that Jews who become Christians are necessarily emotionally unstable or ignorant or acting out of self-interest.

The authors [B&W] demonstrate a serious attempt to understand foundational Christian teaching, unusual in Jewish polemical literature. All credit is due to them for trying to present as accurately and sympathetically as possible the viewpoints of those with whom they disagree. The Jewish Community Relations Council of New York was concerned about attempts by Christians to encourage the Jewish people of New York to embrace Jesus as their Messiah. In order to counter this, the Council sent up a Task Force on Missionary Activity. It was this "task force" under the chairmanship of Seymour P. Lachman which commissioned this book.

However, a clash of viewpoints is inevitable. The nub is the Talmudic redefinition of Judaism vis-à-vis its Mosaic roots in such a way as to hinder Jewish people from embracing Jesus of Nazareth as their Messiah.

Unlike most polemical Jewish writers, B&W concede that the threefold nature of God, as accepted by Christians, allows Christians to hold to "a oneness in God which makes the Christian triune God continuous with the one God of the Hebrew Bible". They add that "the Christian insistence on the oneness of God, in spite of the three co-equal persons in God, is a source of satisfaction to Jews because it keeps Christianity within a monotheistic framework". However, they go on to say that "Judaism finds a `three that are one' doctrine virtually impossible to understand, especially in the light of the teaching that only one of these persons became man" (p.29).

This is not surprising: all people have this same difficulty. Nothing less would be expected since the knowledge of God as He is in His essence can come only through personal revelation. I realize that this statement will either irritate or amuse Jewish people who have not yet come to know the spiritual redemption available though union with Messiah Jesus, but that is how things stand. B&W take the view that "such teachings must be intelligible if they are to be believed, and it is precisely this that is questionable in the teaching of the trinity" (p.29). However, each person has to say to God, "Show me the Truth. I want to believe about You what You want me to believe. I just can't accept this doctrine, but, if it's true, open my eyes." No-one will change his beliefs about issues like this unless God intervenes.

In at least two places, B&W change the TaNaKh's translation to fit in with their argument. In regard to the Shema, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one" (Deuteronomy 6:4), B&W state dogmatically: "In fact, this is a mistranslation" and that "the correct translation is, `Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one'" (p.38). Now I agree that this is a possible translation, but I know of no other Jewish writer who has translated it this way. For example, the Koren Tenakh translates it in the usual way: "Hear, O Yisra'el: The LORD our God; the Lord is one." The Septuagint, translated by Jewish scholars in Alexandria (285-246BC) from Hebrew into Greek as a service to the many Greek-speaking Jews there, rendered the Shema as: "Akoue Israel, Kurios ho Theos heemoon, Kurios heis esti" [= "Hear, Israel, the Lord our God; the Lord is one"]. Therefore, to call the traditional rendering a "mistranslation" is not warranted.
In another place, they use a similar tactic to escape from the Messianic implications of this statement: "The Lord said to my lord, `Sit at My right hand until I make your enemies your footstool'" (Psalm 110:1). Jesus of Nazareth took this as showing that that King David was speaking (under the prophetic Spirit), of a dialogue between the LORD (God the Father) and David's Lord (the Son of God) (Matthew 22:41-45; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44). Davidic authorship must have been accepted at that time without question otherwise Jesus' question has no bite. However, B&W suggest instead that this Psalm's author is someone other than David and is, therefore, describing a dialogue between God and the Psalmist's own lord, whom they re-identify as the king of Judah. This leaves B&W with a problem, because King David himself did write this psalm, as its heading tells us. However, B&W claim: "`To David' in the heading of the Psalm means `dedicated to David' and not `by David'" (p.39). But there is still a problem in that every Psalm known to have been written by David has exactly this word ["l'David"] in its heading, and this is reflected in various Jewish translations. The phrase "l'David mizmor" occurs also in Psalms 40, 68, 101, 109 and 139 where "l'David" is consistently translated either as "by David" or "of David". So why change the translation only in Psalm 110?

This is important because Jewish antiChristian polemicists so often argue that Christians misuse the TaNaKh in order to demonstrate references to Jesus in it. Here we find Jewish scholars having to argue that other Jewish scholars have (in effect) mistranslated parts of TaNaKh because the natural, traditional translation does not suit their arguments.

The following points are also noteworthy:-

1. In one place, B&W make an important admission, which other Jewish polemicists tend to play down: "It is plain to any reader of the Pentateuch that God commanded a whole system of sacrifices to play a role in the atonement of sin" (p.55). However, they contradict the culmination of this system in Jesus as God's Lamb on the grounds that human sacrifice is forbidden in the Torah. In fact, they fail to take into account two important reasons for this prohibition:
1. The sacrificial victim must be innocent. Human beings are sinners and hence guilty before God. Animals are morally innocent, hence ritually clean animals (sheep, goats, cattle) are used as prophetic pictures of a sinless sacrifice;
2. The sacrifice of "God's Lamb" was provided intentionally offered by God, not by guilty humans.
These reasons are, of course, perfectly compatible with a prohibition against corrupted human beings sacrificing others of their kind.

2. B&W argue that repentance without sacrifice is good enough for a Jew, but fail to understand the legal basis for this forgiveness under the Mosaic Covenant which was consecrated by blood. But if that Covenant has been superseded by the New Covenant which Jesus consecrated by his own blood, as the New Testament states (Luke 22:20), then clearly the legal ground for repentance has been shifted from animal sacrifices to Jesus' ultimate Sacrifice.

3. B&W accept the theory that the full range of commandments are not only written down in the Pentateuch, but are also elaborated in the Oral Law (p.61). The only evidence adduced for this claim is the Talmud itself which is also said to be the written record of the Oral Law. Thus the Talmud seeks to validate itself by claiming that it corresponds to the Oral Law. This is a circular argument.

4. B&W agree with discouraging converts to Judaism because the obligation to fulfil all 613 commandments of the Torah "is a difficult thing to do" (p.63). Their solution is for Gentiles to stick to the "Noachide Covenant, under which it is easier to please God." However, they fail to point out that this view of God's Covenant with Noah is derived not from the Torah, but from only the Talmud.

5. B&W deduce from the early Church conference, reported in Acts 15:20-21, that there must have been "unanimous agreement that Jews who believed in Jesus were obligated to continue obeying the Law" (p.64). But the apostle Peter made it clear at that very conference that both Jews and Gentiles are actually saved on the same basis as each other, namely by faith, just as were the apostles themselves and all the other Jewish Christians (vss.7-12). In fact, the resultant recommendations were not intended as a basis for salvation, but to enable a lifestyle which Jews and Gentiles can share.

6. B&W express a fear of assimilation, asking this question of "Messianic Jews": "do they believe that it is the will of God that the seed of Abraham remain in the world as an identifiable people chosen by God?" (p.65). However, it is also God's will that all people, especially Jews, should openly embrace Jesus of Nazareth as their Messiah. If all Jews did this, it would revolutionize the world over night! But have no fear, God has promised that there will be a substantial Jewish presence until and even beyond the return of the Messiah at the end of the age (Romans 11:11-36).

7. B&W believe that adhering to the Christian faith constitutes idolatry for Jews, but not for Gentiles (p.33). Hence the standard of what constitutes idolatry is higher for the Jew than the Gentile, thus the Gentile is allowed more leeway in this matter. Yet, on the other hand, the ethical standards of the New Covenant (as taught by Jesus) are far higher than the ethical standards in the Torah if its text is taken exactly as it is written. If idolatry is the worst possible sin, as the Rabbis teach, then why would the ethical standards for Gentiles be higher, while the image of God is lowered to make things easier? Furthermore, Jews worship the God of Israel, while the New Testament reaches that Gentiles should worship *this same God* because He is the Creator of the world. There is no other God to worship. So the notion of a differential standard does not make sense.

The real problem throughout is that Talmudic Judaism has put a fence around the Law by converting God into a simple Unity (Jachid). "Idolatry" has been redefined to rule out teaching which the majority of rabbis have agreed to reject. But this fails to exclude the real idolatry which has entered Judaism through the Trojan Horse of "Jewish mysticism". This book is well written and pleasant to read, but its seemingly reasonable tone is not matched by a corresponding reasonableness of its logic.