A modern Passover Seder without the lamb – See Exodus 12
What was the religion of Jesus Christ? Most Christians will give one or two answers. Those answers are Judaism or Second Temple Judaism. The Muslim will say that Jesus practiced Islam. I believe that all three of these answers are incorrect. I won’t be dealing with the argument that Jesus was a Muslim but I will dispute the fact that Jesus practiced Judaism or Second Temple Judaism.
Jewish apologist Rabbi Tovia Singer often likes to point out that Christians believe that before Jesus and Christianity, Judaism was correct. I fully dispute this. In fact, I would say that the religion of Judaism didn’t come into existence until after the time of Jesus Christ and is based on a rejection of the Messiah.
As Christians we should not say that Jesus practiced Judaism. The religion today known as Judaism is not in any way connected to the OT. The religion of the OT had a Priesthood, a Temple, and sacrifices. It also didn’t have an Oral Law like Judaism believes in. While Jesus Christ affirms that the Torah was written by Moses as modern Jews say, He never believed that an Oral Law was revealed at Sinai.
It should also be pointed out that Judaism, while claiming to keep the Biblical holidays found in the Torah, has changed how every holiday is practiced. The Day of Atonement only contains prayers. Passover has no lamb slaughtered. No food offerings are presented at all for any holiday. No Rabbi had the authority to change the clear commands of the Torah. We can use the word Judaism to describe the religion practiced by Jews today but I will firmly say that it is not the religion of the OT.
Where did Judaism begin? Jesus Christ ushered in the New Covenant that was predicted in the book of Jeremiah. After Jesus leaves the scene, none of the sacrifices were accepted at the Temple. In 70 AD the Temple was destroyed and the last remnants of the Biblical religion were gone.
At this point the Jews were faced with an incredibly important question. They could either accept the Messiah or found a new religion. At this point Jochanan ben Zakkai founded Judaism in the city of Yavne. Dr. E. Michael Jones hits the nail on the head when he says that this new religion was essentially a debating society.
So if Jesus didn’t practice Judaism, what was His religion? His religion was the Mosaic Covenant. The same religion practiced by Moses, Aaron, David, Solomon and all of the other prominent figures of the OT. I can see why one would say that Jesus practiced Judaism, however it is incorrect. In this age of interfaith dialogue, it may be comfortable to please Jewish representatives in dialogue with the claim that Jesus practiced Judaism. However, I believe that this practice has to be stopped. It doesn’t communicate truth.
I may be alone in this. Most of my fellow Christians may not agree. Jews certainly won’t agree. The Muslim won’t agree either since they believe Christ to have been a devout Muslim. However, as someone who cherishes truth and history, I believe that this is the best way to present the data. If you disagree, feel free to dispute this in the comments.
Over the last four months, I’ve really been studying the five books of Moses, which is the core of the Old Testament. Most Catholics sadly don’t know the Old Testament that well. After all, why would most Catholics know the OT if they don’t even know the NT. However, as a Catholic who knows the five books of Moses well, I can firmly say that the religion found in Synagogues today is in firm disobedience to the Torah.
I like to know your response to Romans 11:29 that the gifts and call of God are irrevocable.
Hi Bryan,
Dr. Sungenis wrote a response to that a while back and I agree with everything that he says in it. It’s long just like all of his writings but it can be found online for free.
God Bless,
Allan
This is a rather cryptic argument guys!
I did enjoy how Mr. Ruhl pointed out that there is a difference between what the chosen people of God followed and the religion that the Jews followed after the fullfillment of the prophecies concerning the Messiah.
I see that Bryan does have a point in reminding Mr. Ruhl about the promises of God for His people. But in this particular article I do not see how Mr. Ruhl disregarded any implications of the promises.
I know I am missing something. If you have chance could Bryn or Mr. Ruhl please address this. I do not want to wade through Sungenis at the moment. But if the argument is highly complex and requires lots of typing we take it up in another forum for fun!
Hi Maria,
To put a long story short, there have been ecumenical documents put out by the Church in the last 30 years. They’re not infallible but are opinions of prelates.
The most recent one has been refuted by Sungenis. Basically these people are trying to say that modern Jews have some sort of covenant still which is false. Read the book of Hebrews if you want to know about the covenant. That’s a lot shorter than the 60 page paper written by Sungenis.
God Bless,
Allan
Very interesting Allan.
You intrigued me when you wrote along similar lines previously (i.e. comparing OT practices with modern Jewish ones). I look forward to learning a bit more about this. Perhaps subsequent comments to this might reveal a bit more.
Hi Christopher,
Thanks for commenting. Hopefully an Orthodox Jew comments on this page and we can see where they take issue. A good book to read on Judaism is “To be a Jew” by Rabbi Donin. I finished it about a month ago. Apparently it’s required reading for most conversion programs to Orthodox Judaism.
God Bless,
Allan
The obvious Jewish response to this argument is that it has been impossible for Jews to keep the Mosaic Covenant since 70 AD, since there has been no Temple at which to offer sacrifice, and to perform other Temple-related obligations, since that time. They would offer the example of the Babylonian Captivity, during which the First Temple was destroyed, which made it impossible to obey the Mosaic Covenant. Despite this, faithful Jews remained Jews, despite not being able to keep to whole Torah.
Or, to put it more philosophically, how is modern Judaism *anti*-Biblical when it is literally impossible to keep the full Torah? What is *anti*-Biblical about following those parts of the Torah that one *can* follow in the absence of the Temple? Why doesn’t this preserve the Mosaic Covenant?
Hello Thomas,
Why wasn’t the Tabernacle used? They used it while they were wondering in the desert before the Temple. Also, what about the passover lamb? The passover lamb is to be slaughtered in the home and a priest is not needed. It originated in Exodus 12 before the Priesthood even existed. Shortly after the destruction of the second Temple, this tradition disappeared.
Also, why weren’t the Priests preserved even though they didn’t have a Temple? There was no anointing of the Priests so the line has been permanently severed. Even if the Jews were to build a Temple tomorrow and even identify the sons of Aaron, they could not be ordained since there are no Priests to ordain them.
Many people point to 1 Kings 8:46-50 that Jews in exile and diaspora are to pray to Jerusalem and their sins will be forgiven. However, if you read it carefully, it says that prayers have to be directed toward the Temple, which no longer exists.
This is the difference between the Biblical Mosaic Covenant and the anti-Biblical religion of Jochanan ben Zakkai.
Let me know if you have any other questions.
God Bless,
Allan
This is a loaded question but do you think criticizing modern day Judaism for having oral law is akin to Protestants criticizing Catholics for not relying on scripture alone?
Hi Norcal,
No it isn’t because Sola Scripturia specifically condemned in the NT. The OT gives no hint of an oral law.
God Bless,
Allan