Σάββατο 15 Δεκεμβρίου 2018

Judaism and Orthodox Church (2)


The Life of Jesus as the Fulfillment of Prophecy
We continue with our apologetic project of commending the Christian Faith to our Jewish neighbours, and today look at the life of Jesus as the fulfillment of the prophetic elements in the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms (compare Luke 24:44-47).
Right at the outset a problem confronts us in dealing with the notion of an ancient literature containing prophetic intimations of the future life of Jesus—namely, the modern prejudice against the very notion of prophecy. Ancient peoples had no problem with the idea that men’s words could be inspired by God/ the gods and so predict things which had not yet come to pass. Pagans had recourse to all kinds of divination, such as visits to shrines like the one at Delphi and to the venerable prophecies of the Sibyl. The Jews believed that their own prophets had knowledge of the things to come, and so had no difficulty in principle with the idea that their Scriptures could predict details from the life of the Messiah. They found in the prophets intimations of events in their own day (such as the famous application the prophecy in Numbers 24:17 about a star coming forth out of Jacob to the Messianic pretender in the second century, styled Bar Kochba, “son of a star” after this prophecy). But most moderns reject the very possibility of such prophecy, along with all hint of the supernatural. For most moderns (including many modern Jews) the Bible is a collection of ancient books containing human wisdom, but with no divine supernatural elements. We therefore confront a prejudice against the very possibility of genuine prophecy. What are we to do?
For those who admit the possibility of the prophetic—like Orthodox Jews—there is no problem, and we can proceed immediately to lay before them the evidence. For others the best we can do is lay out the evidence and ask whether the amassed abundance of co-incidences of ancient poetry with the life of Jesus isn’t just a little too coincidental to be simply a series of coincidences. One or two coincidences might be reasonably discounted, but after a while, when the coincidences begin to pile up, a reasonable person will be open to rethinking secular dogmas and prejudices.
In making the case, it is important to state what we are suggesting and what we are not suggesting. In particular we are not suggesting that the writers of the ancient oracles had as full a knowledge of Christ as we do. We are not suggesting that they knew all the facts of the life of Jesus and entertained a full and complete understanding of His life and ministry. We do not suggest that they were in all respects like Christians after the day of Pentecost with the sole difference that Christians knew by hindsight and history while they knew by prophetic revelation. The New Testament itself shuts the door to such a possibility: “The prophets who prophesied of the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired about this salvation. They inquired what person or time was indicated by the Spirit of Christ within them when predicting the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glory. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves, but you, in the things which have now been announced to you” (1 Peter 1:10-12). In other words, the prophets were in the dark about the details of Christ’s life and how it would all fit together. They were told that these prophecies were for a time far in the future, and not for their own day. The prophets and psalmists, for all their inspired words, were not Christian theologians. The case for Christianity allows them to remain men of their own time. 

In speaking of the prophetic element in the ancient prophets and the Psalter, we must resist the temptation to treat this ancient literature as if it were a collection of predictions like those of Nostradamus. A sound and scholarly exegesis demands that we first treat the texts as grounded in their original historical context, and only then begin to mine them for second meanings and prophetic content. This is particularly true when dealing with the Psalms, which must be first regarded as poetry and only then as prophecy. The Psalms were dealing with the hopes and aspirations of the House of David and the people of Israel, both of which had been promised a glorious destiny by God. These poems expressed this hope for future glory, and so it is not unreasonable to insist that the full meaning of the poems be found in events after their time of writing.
We turn now to several examples of poetry from the Psalms. In Psalm 69:7-9 we read of the psalmist getting into trouble for the zeal he shows in the Temple of God, so that he becomes a stranger even to his own family and friends. 
In Psalm 78:2 we read of the psalmist teaching in parables. In Psalm 89:26 the psalmist cries to God and addresses Him as “my Father”. In Psalm 31:13 the psalmist complains of enemies who scheme together and plot to kill him. In Psalm 41:9 we hear how the psalmist’s close friend who ate his bread lifted up his heel against him. In Psalm 55:20-21 we read of the psalmist and his friends being betrayed by his companion, whose loyal words were hypocritical. In Psalm 27:12 the psalmist is surrounded by false witnesses who breathe out violence. In Psalm 35:11 malicious witnesses rise up who requite the psalmist evil for the good he has done. In Psalm 109:3 the psalmist finds himself beset with lying tongues who attack him without cause. 
In Psalm 2:2 we read of the kings of the earth and rulers taking counsel together against Yahweh and His Messianic king. In Psalm 118:22 the king from the House of David is rejected by all the rulers but later glorified by God, even as builders reject a stone as worthless only to find that later it becomes the valuable cornerstone. In Psalm 22 we read how the Davidic psalmist is forsaken by God (v. 1), scorned and despised (v.6), mocked and derided by the people who taunt him saying, “He committed his cause to Yahweh; let Him deliver him, for He delights in him!” (v. 7-8). In Psalm 69:21 we read of the psalmist abandoned by all and being given vinegar to drink when he is thirsty. He is surrounded by a band of evil-doers, his hands and feet are pierced (Psalm 22:16), and even his clothes are divided among his enemies (v. 18). Yet after all this he will be saved with the final result that all the nations will turn to God (v. 24-27). In Psalm 110:1-4 the king from the House of David sits at God’s right hand, as serves Him as a priest as did Melchizedek. 

We may quote also from some of the prophets. In Isaiah 7:14 we read of a child whose life means “God is with us” being born of a virgin. In Micah 5:2 we read that the ruler of Israel will come forth from Bethlehem, the hometown of David. In Isaiah 9:6 we read of a son is given to Israel who will be called “Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace”. In Hosea 11:1 we read of God bringing His son out of Egypt. In Isaiah 11:1-2 we read of the Spirit of God resting upon the king from the House of David, and in Isaiah 61:1-3 of him being anointed to bring good news to the afflicted and to bind up the broken hearted. In Isaiah 35:5-6 we read of blind eyes being opened, deaf ears unstopped, the lame leaping up, and mute speaking. In Isaiah 42:1-4 we read of the Messianic Servant not lifting up his voice, but establishing justice in lowly humility. In Zechariah 9:9 we read of the Messianic King coming to Jerusalem, riding on a donkey. 
In Isaiah 49:7 we read of the Messianic King being abhorred and despised by the Gentiles. In Isaiah 50:6 we read of the Lord’s servant giving his back to the smiters, his cheeks to those who pulled out the beard, and his face for shameful spitting. In Isaiah 52:14 we read of the Messianic King as being marred beyond human semblance; in Isaiah 53 we read of him being despised and rejected, smitten and wounded, of him being bruised for the people’s iniquities and beaten with stripes that they may be healed; of him being oppressed and denied justice, but never protesting; of him being led like a lamb to the slaughter, and of being buried in the grave of a rich man, and of making himself an offering for sin. In Hosea 6:2 we read of Israel finding resurrection after three days. In Daniel 7:13-14 we read of the Son of Man being presented to God and receiving universal dominion from Him. In Jeremiah 31:31 read of God making a new covenant with Israel, one different from the covenant of Moses, and in Jeremiah 3:16 we read that in that day the Ark of the old covenant will not even be missed. In Joel 2:28 we read of the Spirit being poured out upon all flesh, even the most humble of the land. 


The saints of the Judaic Holy Scripture (Old Testament), Prophets & Patriarchs (Orthodox Christian holy icon)
 
Those familiar with the life of Jesus will recognize the narrative of that life in the disparate images scattered throughout the Psalms and the Prophets. But these details are not present in the Hebrew Scriptures as parts of a single coherent portrayal of a single individual—and that is the point. The prophetic elements in the Old Testament were not given to fully describe an individual so that he could be recognized in advance. The Old Testament does not present us with a single fully integrated picture, so that the Messiah could be immediately recognized as the Messiah as soon as he emerged. The prophetic elements were deliberately diffused throughout the texts to allow for a free response from the people. The Messiah would be recognized and valued by those whose hearts were tender and open, while the hard-hearted would stumble and refuse to recognize him. This arrangement was the judgment of God, meant both to reward the humble and recompense the proud. As St. Paul would later observe: “Those in Jerusalem and their rulers, because they did not recognize Him nor understand the utterances of the prophets which are read every Sabbath, fulfilled these by condemning Him” (Acts 13:27). The prophetic utterances had to be ambiguous enough for allow for freedom of response.
It is also important to recognize that these utterances were never intended to be received in vacuo, or apart from an experience of Jesus of Nazareth. It was never envisioned that someone would read the Hebrews Scriptures never having heard of Jesus, and then accept Him as the Messiah because certain biographical details of His life coincided with details in the Old Testament. Rather these details were hidden throughout the Scriptures to tip the scales as thoughtful humble men pondered whether Jesus could really be the Messiah.
For there was not one single authoritative version of what the Messiah would be like, but a number of different ones. One who resolutely refused to open his heart to the possibility that the Messiah would notcome as a conquering revolutionary whose task it was to exalt Israel to a place of international supremacy, but might come in humility to offer a spiritual Kingdom to all, will find these prophetic details unconvincing. But a heart which experienced the love of Jesus, heard of His claims to divinity, His miracles, His power to raise the dead, and the news of the empty tomb might well ponder whether the military picture of the Messiah was correct after all. Impressed with the majesty of Jesus’ person and His obvious divine power, such an open heart will find the wealth of Old Testament images which coincided with the life of Jesus not simply coincidental, but prophetic.
Whether or not one finds the prophecies of Jesus in the Hebrew Scriptures convincing therefore depends upon the heart of the one reading those Scriptures and pondering the question. For one who refuses to budge from the concept of a military Messiah bringing a Jewish Kingdom, but who accepts this as a first principle, of course such a person will not find the Old Testament prophecies convincing. But if someone is open to rethinking such a concept, the reflection of the life of Jesus in the Old Testament will prove more compelling. A stubborn heart will refuse to be convinced. To quote Paul, a veil lies over such a heart (2 Corinthians 3:14). It is only when one turns to God in openness and humility that the veil is taken away.

The Lessons of History

    
Finally in our dialogue with our Jewish neighbours we look to the patterns and lessons from Jewish history as interpreted by the Hebrew Scriptures. Thinking about the catastrophe that befell Israel in 70 A.D. when the Temple was destroyed and the people of Judea scattered through all the world, I would like to make two points.
The first point involves the promises of God made to Israel through the prophets. The promise was made over and over again that God would bring Israel back from the lands of their captivity after the disaster of 586 B.C., and would raise up the Davidic Messiah under whom they would finally find peace and security. Thus Isaiah 51:11f: “The ransomed of Yahweh shall return and come to Zion with singing; everlasting joy shall be upon their heads; they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away…Behold, I have taken from your hand the cup of staggering; the bowl of My wrath you shall drink no more, and I will put it into the hand your tormentors”. Thus Isaiah 60:9f: “The coastlands shall wait for Me, the ships of Tarshish first, to bring your sons from far, their silver and gold with them, for the Name of Yahweh your God, and for the Holy One of Israel, for He has glorified you. Foreigners shall build up your walls, and their kings shall serve you, for in My wrath I smote you, but in My favour I have had mercy on you.” Thus Jeremiah 3:14f: “Return, O faithless children, says Yahweh, for I am your master. I will take you, one from a city and two from a family, and I will bring you to Zion. And I will give you a shepherd after My own heart who will feed you with knowledge and understanding. At that time Jerusalem shall be called the throne of Yahweh, and all nations shall gather to it”. Thus Jeremiah 30:3f: “Behold, days are coming, says Yahweh, when I will restore the fortunes of My people Israel and Judah, and I will bring them back to the land which I gave to their fathers, and they shall take possession of it. Strangers shall no more make servants of them, but they shall serve Yahweh their God and David their king whom I will raise up for them”. Thus Ezekiel 37:21: “Thus says the Lord Yahweh: Behold I will take the people of Israel from the nations among which they have gone and will gather them from all sides and bring them to their own land and one king shall be king over them all…My servant David shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd…They shall dwell in the land where your fathers dwelt that I gave to my servant Jacob; they and they and their children and their children’s children shall dwell there forever, and David My servant shall be their prince forever”. 

The promise, plan, and progression are clear—after the return from the Babylonian exile Israel is regathered to the Promised Land, where the Davidic King Messiah reigns over them, and under his rule Israel is finally safe from future threat. Note: the return from the Babylonian exile forms the background for this regathering and Messianic safety. If Jesus was the promised Messiah and if the Kingdom of God was not of this world (as He taught), then all was fulfilled as the prophets foretold: after the Babylonian exile, Israel returned to their land, the Messiah came on time, and established a Kingdom of transcendent spiritual peace. But if Jesus was not the Messiah—if the Messiah is still yet to come—then the words of the prophets proved false, for the Messiah did not come on time after the Babylonian exile. After the Babylonian exile, Israel was indeed regathered after the catastrophe of 586 B.C. but then yet was again scattered after the even greater catastrophe of 70 A.D. This post-70 A.D. thus represents the terminus ad quem for the coming of the Messiah. For the prophets did not simply promise that God would send the Messiah, but them He would send the Messiah after the return from the Babylonian captivity.
The second point involves the cause of the catastrophe of 70 A.D. when the Temple was razed, Jewish nationhood lost, and its people led captive to all nations (Luke 21:23-24). The Law of Moses contains God’s covenant with Israel, and in this covenant God promised to bless His people with prosperity, security, victory, and peace if they would obey Him (Deuteronomy 28:1-14). He also promised that if they disobeyed Him and broke His covenant, He would curse them, sending upon them drought, famine, pestilence, and defeat, culminating in the scattering of the nation to the four corners of the earth (Deuteronomy 28:15-68)—indeed, God would “scatter them among all peoples, from one end of the earth to the other” (v. 64). This theme and threat was the constant theme of the prophets: obedience would bring prosperity and security, while disobedience would bring disaster and exile. 

The events of 586 B.C. proved the truth of the prophets’ words and the reality of the divine threat. Israel disobeyed God, filling the land with injustice and turning from God to idols, and for these sins God allowed the Babylonians to destroy the Temple, destroy their nation, and take the majority of the people into exile. This exile lasted until 538 B.C., when under Cyrus the Persian as many as wanted to could return home to begin to rebuild the shattered nation and its Temple.
Given this covenant with its cause-and-effect of obedience leading to victory, and disobedience leading to defeat the question arises regarding the cause of the unprecedented defeat of 70 A.D.—specifically what disobedience, rebellion, and sin could have caused that catastrophic defeat. A view of history which excludes the cause-and-effect promised in the Mosaic covenant will not seek any spiritual cause at all, but will root the disaster solely in political and military concerns. But as we have seen, Israel was not like the other nations, and its fortunes were determined by their obedience or disobedience to their covenant Lord. So, the question remains: what disobedience in Israel prior to 70 A.D. could have caused that disaster?
The Christian answer, based on the words of Jesus, is clear: Israel suffered such a disaster because it rejected its Messiah, both at the time of the crucifixion and in the generation following when Israel had a chance to repent of its national repudiation of Christ. The Lord said so plainly: “The days will come upon you when your enemies will cast up a bank about you, and surround you and hem you in on every side, and dash you to the ground, you and your children within you, and they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation” (Luke 19:43-44). If this Christian answer is rejected, what other answer is left? The disaster that befell Israel in 70 A.D. was much greater than the disaster of 586 B.C., for after the latter disaster the Temple was rebuilt within a hundred years, while even now the Temple which was destroyed in 70 A.D. has not been rebuilt. Accordingly, the sin which led to the disaster of 70 A.D. must have been much greater than Israel’s pre-exilic idolatry. If one takes seriously the words of the Mosaic Law then one must conclude that Israel did something of unprecedented enormity to warrant such a disaster. Only the Christian answer fits: Israel rejected its Messiah and paid the terrible penalty.
When one situates the disaster of 70 A.D. within the covenantal framework of the Law and the Prophets, the lessons of history are clear: Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah. He came on time as the prophets said, and His rejection caused the greatest disaster ever to befall the Jewish people. 

JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN ORTHODOX DIALOGUE 
 
 

Ελληνικά: Διάλογος μεταξύ Ιουδαίων και χριστιανών (π. Ι. Ρωμανίδης)
 

Romanity.org [1] & here

Bucharest, Romania, October 29-31.1979, a follow-up of the dialogue held in March of 1977 in Lucerne, Switzerland. Under the Sponsorship of
Patriarch Justinian of Romania
and Chief Rabbi Moses Rosen of Romania

The meeting was chaired jointly by
H.E. Metropolitan Damaskinos of Tranoupolis, [2] Director of the Orthodox Center of the Ecumenical Patriarchate at Chambesy, Switzerland
and
Prof. Shemaryahu Talmon, Chairman of the Jewish Council for Inter-religious Consultations in Israel, Professor of Bible, Institute of Jewish Studies and Dean of the Faculty of Humanities, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

© John S. Romanides


The papers presented during the sessions of the first day had been prepared and presented by Prof. Michael Wyschogrod of the City University of New York entitled "Tradition and Society in Judaism" and the Orthodox paper had been prepared by Deacon Elie Jones Golitzin of the Institut Des Sciences Bibliques, Faculte de Theologie; Suisse entitled "The role of the Bible in Orthodox Tradition". [3]

Before the meeting began I had distributed a study about the Logos* in the Old Testament according to the Fathers of the Nine Orthodox Ecumenical Councils. [4] The Jewish representatives reacted by pointing out that is was the first time that they encountered Christians who could point out Who the Logos is in the Old Testament and also asked permission to reproduce this little paper and distribute it. (*The Son of God, Jesus Christ).

The two conference papers on "Bible and Tradition" had essentially such similar positions which made it possible to terminate discussion early. In the light of this I asked whether I may pose a question to the Jewish chairman in the light of the paper I had distributed before the meeting began. My question was, "Is the Angel of the Lord Who appeared to Moses in the burning bush a manifestation of God?" "Of course it is!" came the rapid answer.


 Image result for moses and the burning bush
Icon from here


I reacted with the following question, "Is He created or uncreated?" Then the reply shot back, "Of course uncreated! We Jews do not believe that God reveals Himself by means of creatures!"

I quickly retorted, "That is our Orthodox doctrine of the Holy Trinity".

Then the Jewish chairman reacted with, "then why all the philosophical terms like "one essence," " three hypostasies" and "homoousion"?

I replied that "These terms were reactions to heretics who had been transforming the Church’s doctrine into philosophical systems, whereas," I continued, "the only purpose of such terms was to guarantee the cure of the center of the human personality by means of the purification of the heart, its illumination and the glorification of the whole person".

The Jews reacted with the information that this is the Hassidim tradition. Then I asked whether this is also that of the modern Hassidim. They answered that, "as far as we know it probably is".

But this is not only the tradition of the Hassidim. It was and has been the very foundation of prophethood and apostleship of both the Old and New Testaments and the ongoing life of the Church since Pentecost. The only way one becomes a member of the Body of Christ is by means of the purification of the heart completed by its illumination and glorification both in this life and the next.

I have been a member of WCC General Assemblies since Nairobi 1975 and of Central Committee since Vancouver 1983. I have heard a lot of Protestant claims of being moved by God’s Holy Spirit. However, the only sign of being really moved by the uncreated Holy Spirit of God is this purification and illumination of the heart and glorification which is the foundation of the Nine Ecumenical Councils sponsored by New Rome. This therapy cures fantasies among which religions are capable of being extremely dangerous. This is why the tradition of the Old and New Testaments and the Nine Ecumenical Councils sponsored by New Rome is not at all a religion. On the contrary this tradition is the cure of the sickness of Religion. [5]

Although the Jews at this meeting pointed out to us that our Orthodox tradition of the cure of the human personality by means of the purification and illumination of the heart and glorification was that of Old Testament Hasidim, this did not become part of the résumé of our discussions which follows.

"The center of discussion was the relation between Scripture and Tradition with a focus on the interpretation of Scripture in Tradition. It was found that both sides agree that the interpretation that the interpretation of Scripture was always inextricably bound to the text of Scripture since tradition is first and foremost the tradition of revelation. Furthermore, both sides stressed that Scripture and Tradition came into existence in a faithful community which preserves them but also, which interprets and applies them to its ongoing life, as the authority and source of its identity".


"The text of Scripture and its interpretation are both the result of or part of revelation at whose center is God’s revelation to Moses on Mt Sinai.

"The Jewish tradition of the revelation of the written and oral Torah on Mt. Sinai was found to have a parallel in the Orthodox Christian tradition whereby God revealed on Sinai His uncreated Torah and thus inspired Mosses to give His chosen people the created or written Torah".

"The centrality of God’s revelation of Himself to Moses for Jewish and Orthodox Christian understandings of faith and spirituality became evident from the discussions".

"It was found that in spite of the well known differences in belief there are nevertheless areas of identity and similarity which would be worthwhile to explore in an ongoing dialogue".

"It was therefore decided that the subject of investigation for the next meeting would be the subject of the law in the spiritual and social life of the Jewish and Orthodox Christian tradition".


E N D

FOOTNOTES
 

Image result for ρωμανιδης
fr John Romanides
[1] A) Jewish Participants: 1. Rabbi Balfour Brickner, Union of American Hebrew Congregations: 2. Dr. Andre Chouraqui, Jewish Committee for Inter-religious Consultations of Israel; 3. Michael J. Klein, World Jewish Congress; 4. Dr. Moses Rosen, Chief Rabbi of Romania; 5. Rabbi Elie Sabetal, Central Board of Jewish Communities in Greece; 6. Zachariah Shuster, American Jewish Committee; 7. Israel Singer, World Jewish Congress; 8. Prof. Shemaryahu Talmon, Jewish Committee for Inter-religious Consultations; 9. Prof. Michael Wyschogrod, Synagogue Council of America.

B) Orthodox Participants: Father Dumitru, Prof. of Old Testament at the Theological Institute of Sibiu, Romania; Bishop Anthony, Vicar of the Patriarchate of Romania, Bucharest; Father Cyril Argenti, Marseilles, France; Prof. Ion Bria, World Council of Churches; Deacon Emilian Conritescu, Theological Institute of Bucharest; Metropolitan Damaskinos of Tranoupolis, Director of the Orthodox Center of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, Chambesy, Switzerland; Deacon Elie Jones Golitzin, Institute des Sciences Bibliques, The Faculty of Theology, Lausanne, Switzerland; Deacon Vassilios Karayannis, Orthodox Center, Chambesy, Geneva; Prof. John S. Romanides, University of Thessaloniki, Greece; Slavco Valcanov Slavov, The Theological Academy of Sofia, Bulgaria.  


[2] Currently also Metropolitan of Switzerland.  

[3] Papers evidently not originally programmed but read at this conference were as follows: "Tradition and the Bible in the Orthodox Church," by Rev. Cyril Argenti from Marseilles, France: "Le role des diversses traditions dans la vie de l’Eglise Orhodoxe," by Rev. Dumitru, of the Theological Institute of Sibiu, Romania: "Peace and Justice in Biblical Tradition, " by Cand. theol. Slavco Valcanov Slavov: "Jewish Community in the Light of Jewish Tradition," by Israel Singer of the City University of New York and The World Jewish Congress.  

[4] 1) Nicea 325, 2) Constantinople 381, 3) Ephesus 431, 4) Chalcedon 451, 5) Constantinople 553, 6) Constantinople 680, 7) Nicea 786/7, 8) Constantinople 879, 9) Constantinople 1341.  

[5] See http://www.romanity.org (THE SICKNESS OF RELIGION AND ITS CURE) 
 
Please, see also:
 

Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:

Δημοσίευση σχολίου