Other Religions

How to Speak to a Jew

Mark Bonocore spells out the Catholic approach in dialoguing with our Jewish brethren.

John and Paul's comments are in blue.

I am a member of the Catholic Church - by the grace of God! - for 9 years now (was Evangelical Protestant). Anyways, Paul, a Jewish apologist who has challenged me to prove to him that Jesus is the true Messiah. Raising three boys 6 and under plus work keeps my wife and I very busy. Can you help me help this Jewish man see the truth? Thanks, John.

Well, the typical problem with convincing an educated Jew that Jesus is the Messiah is that Christians often fail to appreciate the nature of the Messianic prophecies found in the Old Testament. What I mean by this is that Christians (most often Evangelical Christians) fail to recognize that the Messianic prophecies have both a primary historical meaning and a more far-reaching theological meaning. So, when a Christian cites something like Isaiah 7:14 ( "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call Him Immanuel") and argues that this is fulfilled in the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ (Matt 1:23), an educated Jew dismisses this idea because he knows (quite correctly) that the prophecy primarily refers to something else -- that it's primary meaning is that the royal House of David would not be destroyed in the days of King Ahaz (when it looked like that Assyrians were going to destroy Jerusalem and wipe out the kingly line of David), but that the House of David will have a kingly heir -- that Ahaz will not be the last Davidic king to rule, but that his line would continue and survive the Assyrian threat, and his heir would show that "God is with us" -- that is, with the Davidic line of kings (as God promised David), which is what the name "Immanuel" means ("God is with us"). For the Jews, this prophecy is fulfilled by the birth of the great Jewish king, Hezekiah. And that is a valid, primary interpretation of the prophecy. But, that doesn't mean it's the only interpretation of the prophecy. For, what cannot be denied is that ancient Jews saw in this prophecy a more far-reaching meaning. And this is the meaning that St. Matthew (a 1st Century Jew) puts forward in Matt 1:23 when he says that Isaiah 7:14 is fulfilled by the birth of Jesus. For, understood in context, Isaiah's prophecy is declaring that the kingly line of David would continue --that it would not be wiped out, but that "a son" would arise to show that God is faithful to it -- that is, faithful to the promise of a Messiah (Anointed King) Who would descend from David and rule for all eternity. Well, when the Kingdom of Judah finally did fall to the Babylonians, and no kingly successor to David actually reigned any more, the Jews began to understand this prophecy as a promise of the coming of a future king -- of someone from the house of David (which did survive, as God promised it would) who would eventually restore the Kingdom and reign as an actual king. What St. Matthew is saying in his Gospel is that this prophecy is fulfilled totally and completely in Y'shua ha-Moshiach (Jesus Christ). For, Jesus is a son of the House of David; and He represents the ultimate fulfillment of this prophecy in that He Personifies and is the ultimate purpose of the House of David -- that is, He is the Messianic King Who was promised, thus showing that God is faithful to His promise that the House of David would not die out, but would produce the ultimate King. And Matthew is saying that this Jesus fulfills this prophecy so totally and completely that He is even literally born of a virgin, which gives even deeper Divine significance to Isaiah's intended statement (more on this below).

So, even though Isaiah 7:14 is primarily about the continuation of the Davidic line of kings in the days of King Ahaz, what one cannot deny is that Jews of later generations (including the first Christians, who were all Jews) saw in this prophecy a future and more far-reaching promise that would be literally and specifically fulfilled by the actual Messiah. And, if we look deeply at the Hebrew Scriptures, we see that such ancient Jews had good reason for reading Isaiah 7:14 in this way. For, as is typically argued (with some validity), the promised "son" of Isaiah 7:14 is King Hezekiah, who will succeed his father King Ahaz, thus showing that the Davidic line of kings would continue, and not be wiped out by the Assyrians, thus proving that "God is with" (i.e., "Immanual") the House of David. However, if you look at the kingly timeline in 2 Kings 15:27, 16:2-3 and 18:1-2, and do the math, Scripture shows us that the "son" who "will be" (future tense) born to the virgin cannot be Hezekiah himself. This is because Hezekiah was already 8 years old when his father Ahaz started his reign. So, this creates a significant problem for someone who wishes to apply the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 to Hezekiah literally. And this is why ancient Jews came to believe that Isaiah 7:14 must ultimately refer to some future king -- to the ultimate, promised Messiah. And the Catholic Church (whose original forefathers were all Jews) is heir to this ancient Jewish understanding.

Now, above I mentioned St. Matthew's connection of Isaiah 7:14 to the literal reality of Jesus' virgin birth -- something which shows that God fulfilled the prophecy in a way that is even more powerful and specific than most Jews (including perhaps Isaiah himself) ever expected. As you may know, this association between Isaiah 7:14 and the virgin birth is often criticized by modern Jews on the grounds that the original Hebrew does not use the term "virgin" (which is "bethulah" in Hebrew) but rather uses the term for "maiden" ("almah" in Hebrew) and reads: "...the maiden will be with child ..." Because of this, modern Jews tend to argue that there is nothing in the prophecy about a miraculous virgin birth, but it's merely about a young woman (a maiden) who will get pregnant by natural means. Well, there are two main problems with this argument. The first is that, despite what modern Jews tend to assume, St. Matthew himself (who wrote in Greek) did not make the decision to use the Greek word for "virgin" ("parthanos") in place of the original Hebrew word for "maiden" ("almah"). Rather, in Matt 1:23, the New Testament is merely quoting from the Jewish Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint), in which Isaiah 7:14 was translated by Jews into Greek over 200 years before Jesus was born. So, this understanding of "virgin" is not a Christian innovation, but is based upon an ancient Jewish understanding. And this brings us to our second point, which is that of the proscriptive understanding of Isaiah 7:14 in ancient, pre-Christian Judaism. In other words, when the Hebrew speaks of a pregnant "maiden" as being the promised mother of the Messiah, how did ancient Jews understand this reference? For, if one bothers to think about it, a "maiden" is a young, unmarried woman. And this means that there are only two possible interpretations of the prophecy. Either the Messiah would be born as a bastard to a sinful woman who had sex outside of wedlock, or His mother would be a righteous unmarried woman who will be pregnant in some mysterious, paradoxical sense. For, in the ancient word, and especially in Jewish society, a young, unmarried woman (a "maiden") better damn well be a virgin, or she would be stoned to death as a whore. It's for this reason that ancient Jews began to understand Isaiah 7:14 as a mysterious, rabbinical paradox. How can a girl be both a righteous maiden/virgin and also a mother? It is a mystery. And the Greek Septuagint Bible --a translation made in 200 B.C. by pre-Christian Jews -- preserves this implicit understanding in Judaism by intentionally translating "almah," not as "maiden," but as "virgin." In other words, the Greek translation illustrates an expressed intention (on the part of pre-Christian Jews) to preserve their implicit understanding of the passage. The promised Messiah will be born to a woman who is both a virgin and a mother -- a mystery; a paradox, but a Divine revelation all the same. This is how our Jewish ancestors saw this passage. St. Matthew merely reveals that the ancient Jewish understanding has been revealed in a way that is more powerful and more literal than anyone ever expected. God literally manifested the paradox by causing a young Jewish maiden to become pregnant miraculously. And, in doing so, He shows that He is "with us" -- that is, with the Jewish people -- in a way that is far more profound and intimate than they every expected. For, not only is God faithful to the Davidic line, but He Himself becomes physically united to it in the Person of Jesus Christ (God Incarnate); and He does this through a virgin of the House of David, who represents the Scriptural "Daughter of Zion," who literally personifies Israel itself, to show the one-Flesh union between God and Israel (spoken of by the Prophets), and to manifest this in the most profound and intimate way possible -- through the literal birth of a Child, Who is Himself.

And the same complex and multi-dimensional understanding applies to all the Messianic prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures which we Christians say are fulfilled in the Person of Jesus Christ. But, all too often, modern Jews reject these claims out of hand because they are only presented with the Fundamentalist Protestant understanding of them, and not the deeper and far more mature understanding of the Catholic Church -- an understanding the recognizes and preserves the traditional Jewish understanding, and which is very Jewish in and of itself. This is the common ground which Jews and Catholics can build upon to, hopefully, reach a faithful consensus about Who the Messiah is.

Needless to say, Jesus' identity as the Messiah cannot be "proven" by simply throwing proof texts at an educated Jew. This is the all-too-common mistake made by Protestant Fundamentalists, and it only makes the problem worse. Rather, for a Jew to see why we believe that Jesus is the promised Messiah, it requires long and very mature analysis of the Scriptures and an appreciation of the historical and theological reasons why we read Scripture in the way we Catholic Christians do. If a Jew is willing to engage us on this basis, then a fruitful exchange can be achieved. But, if this "Jewish apologist" is merely interested in "debunking" the Christian claims (especially when he assumes that the Christian claims are represented by the silly and 2-dimensional arguments of Protestant Fundamentalists), then discussing the subject with such a person is a waste of time. For centuries, many Jews have attacked the true Christian understanding of the Messianic prophecies using arguments which are just as silly and ignorant as the Protestant arguments against non-Christian Judaism. So, I'd be happy to help you with your Jewish friend (the apologist), but one must first establish where this guy is "coming from."

Thanks so much for your helpful reply. I will try to put those helpful ideas to use with my friend Paul (yes, his name is Paul, ironically). Some quick background and then you can see our latest exchange below to see where Paul is coming from (by the way he was raised Jewish and his parents just gave him that name due to a friend they liked so he says he is stuck with the name). I met him on an Evangelical Protestant chat room. He references www.realmessiah.com a lot.

That's a bit unfortunate, since such Messianic Jews tend to be Evangelical Protestant in their theology. A better organization for him to consult and interact with are my friends at the Association of Hebrew Catholics (http://hebrewcatholic.org/), who are Jewish members of the Catholic Church. I should mention that I myself have a few disagreements with the AHC, since many of them tend to be strong Zionists and think that there is a religious significance to the modern, secular (socialist) state of Israel. This is of course an Evangelical idea, and it comes from the fact that many AHC members are themselves former Messianic Jews/Evangelicals who have entered into communion with the Catholic Church. But, overall, the AHC is the best and most reliable Jewish-Christian organization right now. They well understand that the Catholic Church is the new and true Israel --that is, that remnant of Israel which accepted Jesus as its Messianic King (i.e., the Apostles and all the other earliest Christians), along with the Gentiles who were welcomed into full communion with them.

Think I will lead into that with how Micah 5 mentions childbirth which I can then go to Isaiah and the virgin birth as you discussed and then mention Malachi 1 and the universal sacrifice and how all everything points to a restoration of true Judaism with the Messiah and how God is so far above our ways and ideas as proven in Christ, etc.

What I said above applies to this too. If you quote Malachi, as did St. Justin Martyr c. 155 in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew, a modern Jew can just point to the primary historical meaning of Malachi's prophecy (which simply refers to righteousness among the Gentiles) and dispute that it refers to the Sacrifice of the Eucharist. For, even while St. Justin connected Malachi to the universal Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Church, he did so knowing that the Eucharist is merely a deeper fulfillment of what Malachi was talking about, not necessarily what Malachi was specifically talking about. This reality gives Jews enough "wiggle room" to dismiss our understanding ...that is UNTIL we maturely explore the overall mystery, which has to do with the true significance of the Temple sacrifices as they related to true righteousness, and how the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the Church perfectly and universally fulfills the righteousness intended by the old Temple sacrifices in the context of the New Covenant. This must be appreciated properly and deeply before a Jew can accept any connection between Malachi and the Catholic Mass. Just pointing him to Malachi or using the prophet as a proof text is not enough ...not for an educated Jew.

As for your friend Paul's comments, please find my response to him below. You might want to send my responses to him as written, and tell him that they come from me so that he will know that the issues run far deeper than he obviously assumes.

He writes ...

John, my frustration grows with each exchange with you. Instead of addressing the points I make, you brush them aside and throw a Talmudic verse at me as if what I stated was erroneous.

This is significant. You need to tell him that you understand and agree --that proof-texting is not enough, and that your exchange needs to go deeper and become more substantial.

Let me ask you something John...do you know what Berakhot means? Do you know the difference between the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud? Do you know what the tractate Berachot is even about? Have you read either Talmud? The Mishna? The Gemara? The Torah? The Tanakh? The Zohar? Have you read them in Hebrew or Aramaic? Have you read accurate translations?

The correct response to this is to admit that you have not. However, the scholars of the Catholics Church have long studied both Torah, Tanakh, and Talmud (especially the Mishna, which contains many things that both Jewish oral Tradition and Catholic oral Tradition share in common, via our ancient Jewish heritage); and because of this, you do not need to be a Scripture scholar personally, but can speak from the point of view of our Traditional Catholic understanding.

I venture to say you would answer no to most of these questions. I stand corrected if mistaken. I don't know where you got that quote but it's likely from, yet again, a christian source. Some facts for you: The Jerusalem Talmud or Palestinian Talmud as it's sometimes referred to is not as revered as the Babylonian.

This is true. But, it is a valid and accepted Jewish document, and it bears witness to Jewish belief ...at least in regard to the belief of some Jews; and our Catholic Christian ancestors would be included among such Jews. Now, as the old rabbinical expression goes, "When you have three Jews in a room, you get four opinions." :-) So, no one is saying that any one Jewish source speaks for all Jews everywhere. As Paul must know, the Jewish faith is far from monolithic; and has lacked any true and binding "Magisterium" (a final teaching authority) since the destruction of the Temple and the dissolution of the Jerusalem Sanhedrin in A.D. 70. So, what we have in Judaism (and we may count the first Christians in this) is a case where different Jewish groups stressed or emphasized different aspects or truths of the Mosaic tradition. The difference between the Babylonian Talmud and the Palestinian Talmud represent part of this; as does the difference between contemporary Jewish tradition (which is based primarily on the Pharisaic school of Jamnia) and the very early Christian tradition (that is, the beliefs of the Jewish followers of Jesus who established the Catholic Church throughout the Greco-Roman world).

The Talmud is rabbinic commentary. It's not Law.

We agree. However, one can argue (and most Orthodox Jews would agree with this) that the Mishna (the heart of the Talmud) has the force of Law, since it is the so-called oral Torah, representing or illustrating the oral Traditions of Mosaic Judaism, and with content possibly dating in part from the very time of Moses.

The Jerusalem Talmud was compiled in 368 C.E.There are 6 orders of the Mishna.? Zeraim? Moed? Nashim? Nezikin? Kodashim? Tohorot? Within each of these six orders is between 7 and 12 tractates. Berakhot is the first tractate in Zeraim which means "SEEDS". Berakhot is about agricultural laws that apply in Israel and also those that apply outside of Isreal.Berakhot is also about prayers particularly the Shema and the Amidah (standing prayer.)

Yes. All this is true.

There is no mention of the Messiah in Berakhot 5a.

Well, ... That is debatable. :-) It is true that there certainly is no explicit reference to the Messiah in Berakhot 5a. But, some Jews see in the quote an implicit reference to the Messiah's righteousness.

>>>>>>>Berakhot 5a ?"Man should always incite the yetzer tov (good impulse in man) against the yetzer hara (evil impulse in man) [i.e., to wage battle against the yetzer hara], as it is written "Tremble (incite) and sin not (or: and you will not sin.)'"

Again, this is a standard of righteousness that is typified by the promised Messiah, who will fulfill it. In certain Jewish circles, the "yetzer tov" is seen as a personification of the Messiah. In certain Reformed Jewish theology, as Paul may know, this has even led to speculation that any righteous Jew --an man who lives according to the "good impulse" or "interior witness of God" is himself (or herself) the promised Messiah. Of course, Orthodox Judaism would never take it that far, and maintains (correctly) that the Messiah is and will be an actual person --a true King of Israel, the successor of David.

John, please reveal your source for the quote you provided. I'd also appreciate if you'd address the points I made in my most recent email response to you regarding Micah 5.

Well, I'm not sure what you are sending to Paul, or where you are getting it, so I can't comment. But, if we argue for Truth, we must always be in accord with the Truth, which means that our sources must always be accurate and that we must follow the Truth wherever it (read: He) leads us. Otherwise, we make problems far worse.

The King Messiah... from where does he come forth? From the royal city ofBethlehem in Judah. " - Jerusalem Talmud, Berakoth 5apaul-net writes:> John,First of all, you yet again bring me a CHRISTIAN (this time CATHOLIC) interpretation of HEBREW scripture and expect me to be swayed from its original HEBREW meaning and context. How the catholic church interprets Micah is immaterial.

Well, given that we are in a Catholic-Jewish exchange, this is essentially true. We do not expect our Jewish brethren to automatically accept our Catholic understanding. Rather, all we expect of them is to acknowledge the viability of our understanding as a matter of our common Jewish heritage. For, our reading of Micah 5 comes from a time when the Catholic Church was a sect within Judaism. In other words, our reading is a Jewish reading --a viable and permissible interpretation of the passage within the context of 1st Century Judaism. Paul must (if he is honest) at least give us that, and admit that much. What he is complaining about, however, is your failure to acknowledge a more primary historical interpretation of Micah's prophecy, and your (faulty) presumption that just citing Micah 5 should be enough to convince an educated Jew that Jesus is the Messiah. It is not enough, however. There is more to this; and we Catholics appreciate that fact. Playing a game of proof texting is not helpful to this conversation.

Ironically, I don't disagree with much of what you say here. It's when you make that stretch of the "house of lechem" and "bread of life" comparison that irks me. If Bethlehem meant "bearded man" you would say that applies to "him" as well. Any similarity is latched onto and pointed to as a "proof text."

Yes. We should admit that. The fact that Bethlehem means "House of Bread" (and Ephrathah means "Fruitful One" --a reference to grape vines) is not conclusive proof of any Christian or Eucharistic connection. All we can say is that 1st Century Jewish believers in Jesus saw such a connection, and this connection is part of our Christian heritage coming from a segment of 1st Century Judaism. And the connection runs very deep within Judaism in regard to the commonly-presumed priestly character of the promised Messiah, in which the name of King David's home town connects him to the priestly offering of Melchizedek in Genesis (a priest who offered bread and wine); and Melchizedek was seen as a kind of prefigurement of the Messiah in that he was the predecessor of David himself as king of Salem (Jerusalem); and David, in a mysterious way, succeeded to this "kingly priesthood" by becoming the first Jewish King of Salem (Jerusalem); and that Jesus, as David's Kingly and Messianic successor (so we Christians believe) is the ultimate fulfillment of this, as exemplified by the Sacrificial offering of Eucharistic Bread and Wine. For the first Jewish Christians, ancient rabbinical speculation that the Messiah would be both king and priest (which was considered a mysterious paradox for the Jews, since David was not a Levite, and the priesthood belonged to Levi, not Judah, from which the Messiah would come) was brought to light in this overall understanding of Jesus and His Kingly identity via Bethlehem. But, again, this just represents the view and the belief of some 1st Century Jews (the first Christians). It cannot "prove" our belief epistemologically to a Jew who does not believe this. But, what Paul must admit is that it is a viable and potentially valid understanding within the context of ancient Judaism. We should at least be able to agree on that.

It's a ridiculous analogy John and I don't buy it for a second. Micah 5:2(1) states that the Messiah's ancestors originate from Bethlehem....NOT WHERE THE MESSIAH HIMSELF WILL BE BORN. You said: "Since Micah refers to "Bethlehem Ephrathah, and not just Bethlehem, and clans, a fair case can be made that Micah was also referring to the line of descent.

Again, Paul is essentially correct. The primary meaning of Micah's passage is that the Messiah would come from the house of Jesse (David's paternal line), with its seat in and around Bethlehem. But, with that said, an additional truth must also be appreciated; for the Christian interpretation of Micah is connected intimately to this truth --namely, that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (and, also, implicitly the Gospel of John in 7:42) identify Bethlehem as the place of Jesus' birth in order to prove to their non-Christian Jewish opponents that Jesus is indeed the promised Messiah. The very fact that the earliest Christians felt the need to do this screams the fact that 1st Century Jews commonly took Micah 5 to mean that the Messiah would literally be born in or around Bethlehem itself. Indeed, many liberal scholars assume that the infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke were made up to make Jesus' Messiahship more convincing. :-) But, whether they were made up or not (I myself of course believe that they bear witness to historical reality) the fact remains that there would be no reason to place Jesus' birth at Bethlehem if contemporary Jews did not read Micah with the understanding that the Messiah would literally be born there. For this is all that the New Testament witness is speaking to. Indeed, in John 7:42, the Jews who deny Jesus are made to say:

"Does not Scripture say that the Messiah will be of David's family and come from Bethlehem, the village where David lived?"

Now, granting that this is a Christian source (and so of course biased), one still needs to admit that the question (which is rhetorical and never answered in John's Gospel, because it obviously did not require an answer for John's audience) testifies to the contemporary historical reality viz. the non-Christian Jewish rejection of Jesus. Indeed, if you notice, John 7:42 presents both the primary and historically intended meaning of Micah 5 (that the Messiah would come from David's family) as well as the common contemporary Jewish understanding of the passage, which was that the Messiah would not only come from David's family, but literally from Bethlehem itself. Now, one can always say that the ancient Jews who took this common understanding from Micah were wrong --that they did not read the text carefully or consider what Micah actually said. But, whether they were mistaken or not, one cannot deny that this was the common understanding of ancient, non-Christian Jews at the time --so much so that the New Testament took special care to associate Jesus' birth with Bethlehem in order to convince these Jews that Jesus is, in fact, the promised Messiah..

So, both interpretations can be argued fairly."A fair case cannot be made because where you err here is with the CONTEXT of Micah 5:2(1). What does it specifically say? 5:1. "And you, Bethlehem Ephrathah-you should have been the lowest of the CLANS of Judah..." I totally agree that Bethlehem Ephrathah can either refer to the city of Bethlehem or a CLAN from Bethlehem and I made that point to you in a previous email. This verse specifically addresses a CLAN. NOT THE CITY. PAY ATTENTION TO THE CONTEXT.

We do acknowledge the context. And John 7:42 certainly does (see above). But, Paul himself needs to pay attention to our common, Jewish historical experience; and what cannot be denied is that 1st Century Jews commonly interpreted Micah 5 to mean that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem itself. This was the implicit understanding among Paul's ancient Jewish ancestors. So, if he wishes to reject that implicit understanding, he must point to his source of authority for doing so. If he disputes how ancient Jews commonly understood and interpreted Micah 5, then he is the one rejecting ancient Jewish Tradition, not us.

But, even if we were to grant Paul's argument. Even if we were to say that there is nothing in Micah (implicit or otherwise) which connects the Messiah's literal birthplace with Bethlehem, the fact still remains that Micah says that the Messiah will come from the clan of David, and Jesus is from that clan. So, the primary interpretation of Micah's expression does not disqualify Jesus, but supports His Messianic candidacy. So, if the liberal-modernists are right and Jesus was not really born in Bethlehem at all, but up north in Nazareth, He could still be the Messiah because He comes from the House of David, both biologically through His mother and legally through his foster father St. Joseph. So, Paul's primary interpretation still (though not exclusively) supports the Christian view; and if Paul's Jewish ancestors interpreted Micah 5 as he does (which they apparently did not), the first Christians could have made the same argument that I am making right now --that is, they could have appealed to the primary interpretation of Micah, and said, "Sure. Jesus was born in Nazareth (or Jericho, or Shechem, or Hebron, or Joppa), but he was born into the clan of David, and so still fulfills the prophecy of Micah." This argument would have worked just as well, IF contemporary Jews did not believe that the Messiah had to literally be born in Bethlehem, and IF Jesus was not literally born there. But, as we can see from the historical record, such an argument was never made, nor did it need to be made.

And, this realization brings us to the real point, and the very nature of why ancient Jews read Micah to mean that the Messiah would literally be born in Bethlehem itself. For, while Paul is correct, and all that Micah is really saying is that the Messiah would come from the tribe and clan of David, how on earth would this prophecy bear any significance at all in a situation in which families from the House of David were scattered all over the place??? There were sons of David in Judea, in the Galilee, and in Babylon, and all throughout the Jewish Diaspora. So, if the Messiah could come from any of these families, how would one ever know the true Messiah when He appears??? Or, more to the point, how could the prophecy of Micah be significant in the face of the dispersion or world Jewry??? The answer (as the ancient rabbis obviously concluded) was that Micah's prophecy has a geographic connection. Yes, the Messiah would come from the tribe and family of David; but we will know when He appears because He will come from the very seat of that tribe and clan --from Bethlehem itself. For only that sign would serve to fulfill the intention of Micah's prophecy. This was clearly the mindset and understanding of 1st Century Judaism; and it is the mindset and understanding which the Christian Gospels are addressing. If Paul is reasonable and honest, he simply must admit this fact.

So your "bread of life" proof falls flat and does not apply.

Right. Not on it's own and independent from deeper substance. Paul is correct about that. It only works as we look deeper. This is the sort of thing which, sadly, Paul has not be exposed to.

Your analogy reminds me of a conversation I had with a christian who said that since the blood on the doorposts dripped from the horizontal part of the door way in a vertical fashion it formed the shape of the cross foreshadowing christ as the Pascal lamb. I almost fell out of my chair.

Well, again ... Even if that were true, it is certainly not "proof" of anything, and we should not expect such things to convince an educated Jew. Such Fundamentalist musings are not helpful.

Your "bread of life-house of bread" scenario is almost as amusing.

Only because it has not be explained correctly or deeply enough, and because Paul is (justifiably) "turned off" by Fundamentalist proof-texting.

I'm amazed at the lengths taken with our Hebrew text to make the case for "him." On top of all this, the word Messiah means "ANOINTED ONE." "He" was never anointed, hence he could not be the Messiah among several other reasons.

Here, Paul is clearly ignorant of Christian theology, and especially the ancient Catholic (read: very Jewish) understanding of it. Like David before Him at the hands of the prophet Samuel, Jesus was anointed at the time of His Baptism in the Jordan at the hands of John the Baptist, who we believe was the last prophet of the Old Testament. Anointing with oil under the Law was, and is, a sign of Spiritual anointing from God. Jesus' anointing was this kind of anointing, when the Holy Spirit (Ruach ha-Kadosh) came down upon Him at the time of His Baptism. The Traditional and Apostolic understanding of this event runs like this: The Baptism of John the Baptist was not Christian Sacramental Baptism. Rather, it was a Baptism of repentance within the context of Judaism --that is, it was the mikveh ritual of conversion to Judaism, still practiced by Orthodox Jews today. As I'm sure Paul knows, when a Gentile wishes to convert to Orthodox Judaism, the Gentile is circumcised (if he is not circumcised already); and, in addition to this, the rabbis will shave his head and cut his fingernails and toenails as short as possible, so that the convert looks like a newborn baby. The convert will then be immersed completely in a mikveh (ritual bath), and when he comes up again out of the water, he is recognized to be "re-born" as a Jew --that is, pledged to the Mosaic Covenant. This is what John the Baptist was doing in the Jordan River at the spot where Joshua first led the Israelites into the Promised Land by passing through the river (an image of birth). The only amazing difference is that St. John was performing the ritual of conversion, not on Gentiles, but on Jews! In doing this, what St. John was saying is that all Jews have failed to live by the Covenant --that all have broken faith with the Lord (and are like Gentiles because of it), and they need to repent of this and come back to the Mosaic Covenant and live by it faithfully in preparation for the appearance of the Messiah. Now, as John was preaching this message to Israel, Jesus appears and asks to be Baptized --that is, Jesus offers to submit Himself to a Baptism of repentance for sin. The only problem with this (so we believe) is that Jesus was totally without sin: the Word of God Incarnate, and so the very Personification of the Torah. Thus, His submission to a Baptism of repentance was done to express solidarity with the rest of (sinful) Israel and all mankind. For, though He Himself was sinless, Jesus came to stand with sinners and eventually do die for them. And, so, when this Son of David Who is a Perfect Jew submits to John's Baptism of repentance for the sake of all Israel and all mankind, it was an act that was so outrageous and so disordered that the Heavens themselves were forced to open, and the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus in the form of a dove (a dove symbolizing the establishment of peace between God and man, as in the days of Noah) and God spoke from Heaven and declared: "You are my beloved Son, with Whom I Am well pleased." ..."Pleased" because Jesus had embraced His Messianic destiny and received His Messianic Anointing (an Anointing of the Holy Spirit) through His free choice to associate Himself with sinners and redeem them. This is why we call Jesus "the Messiah." He was anointed, like the kings of old, through the ministry of a prophet; and His anointing was more than the symbolic application of oil; it was with the Spirit of God itself, which is what the oil of the old kingly rite merely symbolized.

I urge you to seek JEWISH sources when researching JEWISH scripture...not catholic scripture for heaven's sake.

And by what right does Paul asset that the Catholic Scriptures are not "Jewish sources"? :-) They are very Jewish. They (with the sole exception of Luke and Acts) were all written by 1st Century Jews. The problem that Paul has here (and it is a recurrent problem, unfortunately) is that he fails to appreciate the Jewish origins of the Christian Faith, and most especially that of ancient Catholic Christianity. Modern Jews do not represent the totality of ancient Jewish heritage. Rather, they represent one dominate school of ancient Judaism (the Pharisaic school ...and only a rabbinical version of that). They do not speak for the other schools or sects of Judaism which died out: the Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots, and all of the sub-sects among them. Nor do they speak for the other sect of Mosaic Judaism that does survive: the Catholic Church. For, in reality, and viewed from the overall scope of history, Paul is not a generic Jew. Rather, he is a Rabbinical Jew --a religion that developed based on Pharisaic theology in the wake of the destruction of the Temple and the Levitical priesthood after A.D. 70 The religion that preceeded this is called Mosaic Judaism, and we Catholics are just as much an heir to it (if not more so ...which is what we believe) as Rabbinical Jews are.

The one any old reason that Catholicism is not readily perceived as a form of Judaism is that it extends the Covenant to Gentiles (which is and always was the true purpose of Israel) and now expresses itself through the cultural trappings of the Gentiles who represent the majority of its members. But, as a matter of substance and theology, Catholicism is profoundly Jewish and a valid expression and continuation of Mosaic Judaism, just as (and, we would argue, even more than) Rabbinical Judaism is.

So, if Paul is going to engage us properly and honestly, he needs to acknowledge our equal footing in historical and theological relationship to the Mosaic Judaism of our 1st Century forefathers. The failure to do this is sheer prejudice and bigotry, and tantamount to anti-Semitism practiced by Gentiles against Jews.

Again, John, please share these responses with Paul. The mistake he is making is that his understanding of Catholic Christianity is merely a popular understanding, not a scholarly or profound one; and no one should judge any religion based on its popular or commonly-perceived expression. Clearly, we should not treat Paul's Rabbinical Jewish faith this way ...which is how he (justifiably) feels he is being treated when he is presented with mere proof texts that insult his (largely correct) understanding of Scripture, and with no theological or historical substance to contextualize our claims or back them up. But, he should not treat the Catholic Faith this way either (e.g. his presumption that Jesus was never anointed) ; for if we do this, we are merely wasting each other's time and energy and talking past each other. Unlike Fundamentalist Protestantism, both Rabbinical Judaism and Catholic Christianity have very ancient, deep, and rich intellectual traditions. We make a grave mistake (and actually sin against God and His revelation) when we underestimate each other this way. God is at work here. We should show reverence, awe, and respect for the things of God as they have been handed down in our two parallel Covenantal Traditions.

Mark Bonocore
The Catholic Legate
November 16, 2007