[Continued ...] In Judaism, Christ's very absence makes Him all the more conspicuous. Personally, I was raised Jewish. But if I had been raised Muslim I would've been taught that Jesus was the 2nd greatest prophet who ever lived and that He was returning to judge the world in righteousness. If I had been raised Hindu, I would've been taught that Christ was an "avatar", a reincarnation of Krishna and one of the most enlightened men in history. If I had been raised Buddhist, I would've been taught He was an enlightened wise teacher and someone to be emulated.� Yet In Judaism, it's not who He was that's important: it's who He wasn't. And to me, Jesus was too important an historic figure for that kind of obscurity and obfuscation.
�
For one thing, the world dates time from His birth; not just the "Christian" world; the world world!� Yes, I know it's the year 1440 on the Islamic calendar, and the year 5780 on the Jewish calendar, and� the year 108 in North Korea. But the universally-accepted legal calendar used in all commerce and business between nations today still dates time from His birth.
�
So Jesus predicted (and bewailed!) the destruction of the City and temple which Jews mourn at Tisha B'Av.� But he wasn't the only one. So did Jeremiah. And Daniel did so as well.
�
Daniel 9:24-27: Few Old Testament prophesies have sparked�as much controversy�as this one. 600 years before Christ, Daniel's given a vision of the coming of the Messiah, and what was to happen to his people, his temple and� to Jerusalem. He gave such a precise timeline of events, with the particulars so thoroughly spelled out that it almost sounds fabricated, so much so that liberal Christian theologians have downplayed Daniel's credibility, Christian dispensationalists�have broken�the timeline into parts separated by thousands of years, and Jewish scholars consistently reject any interpretation that�involves Jesus of Nazareth in the mix.
�
According to the prophet Daniel, during the rise of the fourth of four world empires, the Messiah shall come, shall visit Israel, and be "cut off" (i.e. "killed). Here's Rashi's "take" on that: (from Daniel 2:1-45, specifically Daniel 2:44 ...)
�
" 'And in the days of these kings'; [meaning ... ] in the days of these kings, when the kingdom of Rome is still in existence, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom, The Kingdom of the Holy One, blessed be He, which will never be destroyed, is the Kingdom of the Messiah."[Talmud tractate "Avoda Zara 2b", as quoted in Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Vol. 3, Michael L. Brown, Baker.]
�
Rashi, who lived in the 11th Century AD, believed the Messiah had to have been Herod Agrippa (of all people!), since Rashi's faith precluded any belief in Jesus. But here's the point: according to one of the greatest Jewish scholars of post-Biblical history, the Messiah had to have lived at the time that Jesus of Nazareth lived!
�
Daniel and Jeremiah weren't the only ones who spoke of those times. Isaiah did as well: he portrayed, 700 years before it happened a two-fold messianic "coming"; first, the Messiah's coming as a suffering servant, then as a conquering king.
�
But just as Judaism has had an historic "disconnect" with Scriptures' two portrayals of the Messiah (the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 and the conquering king of Psalm 110), so also has it had a "disconnect" with the Messianic Age at its beginning, vs. the Messianic Age at its completion. Jews have seized upon the choicest portrayal of the Messiah and His Kingdom to suit a preconceived theology: of the Messiah as glorious ruler in an age of sinless perfection and universal peace. But the argument's circular: it pre-supposes its conclusion. Their argument really isn't: "Jesus failed to set up the Messianic Kingdom (or Messianic Age)," but it's: "Jesus failed to set up the Kingdom according to OUR understanding of it." So what's Judaism's understanding? Unhappily, it's like the Christian dispensationalists' understanding of it as well, only without the "Jesus" part. In other words, the Kingdom in its glorious final form only, and the Kingdom as in "not here yet."
The Hebrew prophets spoke extensively of the glories of the Kingdom: There will be "peace to her like a river" (Isaiah 66:12); "the wolf also shall dwell with the lamb" (Isaiah 11:6), "they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4). But the prophets also spoke of that Kingdom as coming progressively and gradationally: growing even in the midst of conflict, and contending with evil before its final glorious conquest. Consider Daniel 2:35 & 2:44, for example. Indeed, the whole of chapter 2, and it's "mirror-image" chapter, chapter 7 (particularly 7:13-18) speaks of that kingdom in this way. The Messiah comes in His kingdom during the reign of the fourth world empire from Daniel's time. Daniel's time was Babylon, the one afterwards was Media-Persia's time, the third was Greece (Dan. 8:20,21). The fourth could only be Rome.
Tisha B'Av is indeed a time of mourning. Jesus himself wept for what was prophesied to happen to His people and His city. And before him, so did Jeremiah (Jer. 9:1). But the lesson from Jewish history calls for more than re-doubled resolve and determination that it "never happen again". It calls for a reconsideration of the words of the Hebrew prophets, and especially those of Christ.�
�
�
For one thing, the world dates time from His birth; not just the "Christian" world; the world world!� Yes, I know it's the year 1440 on the Islamic calendar, and the year 5780 on the Jewish calendar, and� the year 108 in North Korea. But the universally-accepted legal calendar used in all commerce and business between nations today still dates time from His birth.
�
So Jesus predicted (and bewailed!) the destruction of the City and temple which Jews mourn at Tisha B'Av.� But he wasn't the only one. So did Jeremiah. And Daniel did so as well.
�
Daniel 9:24-27: Few Old Testament prophesies have sparked�as much controversy�as this one. 600 years before Christ, Daniel's given a vision of the coming of the Messiah, and what was to happen to his people, his temple and� to Jerusalem. He gave such a precise timeline of events, with the particulars so thoroughly spelled out that it almost sounds fabricated, so much so that liberal Christian theologians have downplayed Daniel's credibility, Christian dispensationalists�have broken�the timeline into parts separated by thousands of years, and Jewish scholars consistently reject any interpretation that�involves Jesus of Nazareth in the mix.
�
According to the prophet Daniel, during the rise of the fourth of four world empires, the Messiah shall come, shall visit Israel, and be "cut off" (i.e. "killed). Here's Rashi's "take" on that: (from Daniel 2:1-45, specifically Daniel 2:44 ...)
�
" 'And in the days of these kings'; [meaning ... ] in the days of these kings, when the kingdom of Rome is still in existence, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom, The Kingdom of the Holy One, blessed be He, which will never be destroyed, is the Kingdom of the Messiah."[Talmud tractate "Avoda Zara 2b", as quoted in Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Vol. 3, Michael L. Brown, Baker.]
�
Rashi, who lived in the 11th Century AD, believed the Messiah had to have been Herod Agrippa (of all people!), since Rashi's faith precluded any belief in Jesus. But here's the point: according to one of the greatest Jewish scholars of post-Biblical history, the Messiah had to have lived at the time that Jesus of Nazareth lived!
�
Daniel and Jeremiah weren't the only ones who spoke of those times. Isaiah did as well: he portrayed, 700 years before it happened a two-fold messianic "coming"; first, the Messiah's coming as a suffering servant, then as a conquering king.
�
But just as Judaism has had an historic "disconnect" with Scriptures' two portrayals of the Messiah (the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 and the conquering king of Psalm 110), so also has it had a "disconnect" with the Messianic Age at its beginning, vs. the Messianic Age at its completion. Jews have seized upon the choicest portrayal of the Messiah and His Kingdom to suit a preconceived theology: of the Messiah as glorious ruler in an age of sinless perfection and universal peace. But the argument's circular: it pre-supposes its conclusion. Their argument really isn't: "Jesus failed to set up the Messianic Kingdom (or Messianic Age)," but it's: "Jesus failed to set up the Kingdom according to OUR understanding of it." So what's Judaism's understanding? Unhappily, it's like the Christian dispensationalists' understanding of it as well, only without the "Jesus" part. In other words, the Kingdom in its glorious final form only, and the Kingdom as in "not here yet."
The Hebrew prophets spoke extensively of the glories of the Kingdom: There will be "peace to her like a river" (Isaiah 66:12); "the wolf also shall dwell with the lamb" (Isaiah 11:6), "they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4). But the prophets also spoke of that Kingdom as coming progressively and gradationally: growing even in the midst of conflict, and contending with evil before its final glorious conquest. Consider Daniel 2:35 & 2:44, for example. Indeed, the whole of chapter 2, and it's "mirror-image" chapter, chapter 7 (particularly 7:13-18) speaks of that kingdom in this way. The Messiah comes in His kingdom during the reign of the fourth world empire from Daniel's time. Daniel's time was Babylon, the one afterwards was Media-Persia's time, the third was Greece (Dan. 8:20,21). The fourth could only be Rome.
Tisha B'Av is indeed a time of mourning. Jesus himself wept for what was prophesied to happen to His people and His city. And before him, so did Jeremiah (Jer. 9:1). But the lesson from Jewish history calls for more than re-doubled resolve and determination that it "never happen again". It calls for a reconsideration of the words of the Hebrew prophets, and especially those of Christ.�
�
