(edited for publication)
Dr. John Ankerberg: We’re talking with
world-famous Dr. Pinchas Lapide, an Orthodox Jewish
theologian, who is one of only four Jewish scholars of
the New Testament in the world today. And also we have
Dr. Walter Kaiser, Dean of Trinity Seminary and
Professor of Semitic Languages there. Dr. Kaiser is
representing Orthodox Christianity, and Dr. Lapide is
representing Orthodox Judaism.
Dr. Kaiser, we ended last time with a question that
Dr. Lapide brought up concerning the statement that was
given to Jesus from Peter, when Peter made his
"Messianic interpretation," if you want, apply to the
fact that He ought to conquer, He ought to not go in and
go to Jerusalem and suffer and die on the cross. Jesus
turned around after He had just, in your own words said,
"Peter, before when you said I am the Messiah, I am the
Christ, you go to the head of the class." Now he needs
to go to the back of the class when he says this other
statement. Document that. Is there anything in Scripture
that leads you to suggest that Jesus was right in saying
that, or was Peter actually right and Jesus was wrong?
Dr. Walter Kaiser: Well, at that point I think
Peter is expressing the general hoi polloi concern
within the community, whether it be Jewish or non-Jewish
at that point. How can you have one person suffer, and
how can you have that same person come as a king? If he
suffers and dies, that’s it. It’s all over, unless you
know of some way of getting him back again. And if he
comes back, then is he going to be a king? And even if
he is a king, will he bring peace? And if he brings
peace, will this enter and bring us into the grand hope
that all of the peoples of the world have ever had?
Ankerberg: Okay, for the people that didn’t hear
last week, though, and before Dr. Lapide gets in here,
the thing is, that you’ve got to admit that the Jews had
a lot of verses that supported their idea of exactly
what Peter was saying. They were looking for the Messiah
to come and conquer. Okay? Give us the verse that shows
the other side that, if you want, should be the balance
there, from your position.
Kaiser: The word "Messiah" doesn’t occur that
frequently within the biblical text, and especially as
it applies to our topic. We may be talking about a very,
very limited number, maybe less than 40 examples, and
out of those 40, perhaps only nine or ten apply to our
particular topic here.
But Daniel 9, I think, in the famous 70-Week
Prophecies, which is a very complicated prophecy, but
this much is clear. There is a discussion of Mashiach,
of Messiah, "The Anointed One," and the Messiah will be
"cut off." That’s clear. He will be cut off. So, the
connection of a Messiah being cut off is found here.
But yet there are so many other passages where He
comes triumphant: [e.g.,] Zechariah 14—He touches down
on the Mount of Olives and the mountain splits, north
and south, and He sets up a rule of everlasting peace.
Now, how do you make these two fit together? And my
answer, which I think is the Christian answer, and it is
Jeshua’s claim—Jesus’ claim—that they are put
together in one Person. For He died, but He rose again,
as Dr. Lapide has so brilliantly documented that you do
have the resurrection, and it did take place. It is
factual, and I am indebted to my good brother for the
brilliant piece of work that he did on documenting the
fact that Jesus died and indeed He did come back. He was
resurrected.
Ankerberg: And did it historically.
Dr. Lapide, in your response to Dr. Kaiser, let me
come your direction and say, I asked him, "Was Peter
wrong?" Obviously there are a lot of verses that show
the Messiah will come and conquer. At the same time,
does the Jewish community recognize its own verses in
the Old Testament that show that the Messiah will also
come and suffer?
Dr. Pinchas Lapide: I’m afraid it’s a little bit
more complicated.
Ankerberg: Okay.
Lapide: At the time of Jesus, as far as
documentation in Judaism can prove it, we have 14
different distinguishable Messianic expectations, which
are all children of the fervent Messianic hope of Israel
and the pluralism which has been in-built in my creed.
Take pluralism on one leg and the fervent hope on the
other and what do you get? Fourteen different
expectations. The two prevalent ones are the reigning,
winning, victorious Messiah, who chases the Romans
out—whose yoke hangs heavily on Israel’s neck—and then
establishes in Jerusalem the Kingdom of God; and a
suffering Messiah, who is almost the antithesis, has
been prevalent also in many circles of contemporary
Judaism in the first century.
Peter, who is called "the Rock-man"—and the name
implies the mentality of a guy who, well, a "go-getter,"
I would say today in America—He couldn’t possibly fall
in love with the idea of a suffering Messiah, therefore
he wanted none of it to happen to his beloved Master,
Jesus. But I have a suspicion, after reading through the
Gospels for 30 years, that Jesus’ self-understanding,
for the $64,000 question of all theology, was, at least
in the last two weeks in His life, a combination of the
suffering servant of God, who has to go through
death in order to come back as Daniel’s Son of Man on
the clouds of heaven to bring the Kingdom of Heaven.
That alone explains to me the tormenting puzzle of
the headlong flight of the Apostles at Golgotha. What’s
the matter with them? He chose them each. They must have
been perfect, fine people, stout in belief if not Nobel
Prize winners, at least, in intelligence. But certainly
stout in belief. But why did they flee when their Master
died in a most cruel manner, after He had pre-announced
His suffering three times to them? Were they deaf? No
they were not.
The only explanation for their flight, to me, is that
they imagined the course of events to be a quick,
two-act drama. His Passion, His crucifixion, His death
and immediately followed by His return upon the clouds
of heaven. Good Friday passes, Saturday drags on. They
scan the heavens, they look into their heart, despair
grows, and then the flight begins as an almost
abandonment of all the Messianic hope Jesus had
instilled in them in three years.
That’s the way I think it happened. Otherwise, it
doesn’t make sense that these 12 Apostles flee like
frightened chickens.
Kaiser: I think that’s a possible scenario. Yet,
on the other hand, I really think that even as they are
gathered in the Upper Room some days later on, the
events of Easter Sunday morning have already taken
place. These individuals are normal people, they’re
regular. We don’t have super-plastic saints here. We
have normal people, with all of the fears and
intimidations.
And I think the great hope was that...I don’t see
where it really ever did figure with the suffering and
the dying part. This wasn’t true when the mother of
James and the other disciple came up and said, "Can my
two boys be up high up in the government here when they
set it up. I’d like them to be treasurer and secretary.
Can they really get in on this?"
And the concept all the time was the Kingdom of God.
"Bring your rule in! Bring your reign in! None of this
"cross" talk, none of this suffering." They never
connected. The whole theology of the tabernacle and the
temple has now been lost now that we’ve gone into the
Exile. We’ve forgotten atonement theology and we’re
talking about only kingly theology.
And because of that disparity, the Disciples are only
thinking "kingly" theology. They are not thinking at all
about the suffering mode of it. And when Jesus appears,
they still can’t believe it. They think it’s a ghost.
And when the women tell them, they say, "Oh, that can’t
be right!" They are totally unprepared for it.
But this is not to say that there were no people in
Israel like that. Why, even when Anna was there in Luke
2, and Simeon, they bring Jesus in, just as a baby only
a few days old, and Simeon will take him up and say that
famous, "Nune Dimittis"—"Now lettest thy
servant depart in peace," he said, "Because my eyes have
seen your salvation." He was among those who were
waiting for the consolation of Israel.
There was a cadre, a "sheerith," a remnant.
God always has had a remnant. You can’t go by the
majority—How many are raising your hands? If you ask,
"How many were for this in Israel?," it’s an abysmal
thing. The Gallup Poll would have all been on one side.
But there was a remnant here, a few, Simeon and Anna and
the others, who were waiting for the consolation of
Israel.
But in the election of God, He took that which was
simple to confound the wise, as the New Testament way of
saying it. He took that where people who didn’t have
skills or ordinarily were not those who would catch on
the fastest within Israel. I’m sure that there were
brighter and more adept people. But in order to magnify
the grace of God, He took that which was weak in order
to make it strong.
Ankerberg: All right, I’m going to ask both of
you, Dr. Lapide, first of all, for you to respond to
what we have been taking about. But then I want you also
to give me more evidence from the Hebrew Scriptures
concerning the Messiah and does it apply to Jesus or
not. All right?
Lapide: Well, to put it bluntly, over 33 Old
Testament prophecies usually mentioned by Evangelical
people which "prove," so to say, that Jesus was the
Messiah, are, to say the least, ambivalent. They are
not, God forbid, lies or falsehoods. They could very
well point to Jesus, but they could also point to
others. There is no one prophecy in the entire Old
Testament which indubitably and beyond any shadow of a
doubt say[s], "This Jesus and no other one is the
Messiah of Israel." That’s the first point.
The second point is that you, as an American, Dr.
Kaiser, living in this free, blessed country which
hasn’t known wars, no torment, no tyranny in human
recollection, you probably have difficulty envisaging
the psychological situation of the Twelve Apostles and
Jesus living under the brutal yoke of a Roman Empire
which didn’t care a bit what happened to them. All they
wanted was to exact maximum of taxes and keep peace
under their terms. Under such conditions, to
expect the Messiah only to suffer, without
getting rid of the Roman yoke, as the expectation had
been for several generations before Jesus, is a tall
order which only a very few Jews—some did—were able to
fill.
So, the suffering Messiah—which has a long history in
Jewish thought, beginning from Isaiah 53, half a
millennium before Jesus—was prevalent in smaller
circles, while the reigning and winning Messiah was the
hope of the masses, to put it bluntly.
But there is a point in Acts 1 when The Resurrected
appears to His Disciples, there is only one single
question they put to Him: "Will you at this very time
establish the Kingdom for Israel?" A question which in
its wording is undoubtedly political, certainly royal
and kingly, and leaves no space for speculation about
any thing spiritual or unbodily.
And if Jesus answers, according to Acts Chapter 1,
"Yours is not to know, nor does the Son know, but only
the Father in His own sovereignty, when the Kingdom will
be established." He does not say "No" to their
monarchic, political expectation. He only says, "Nobody
knows. Even I, Jesus, do not know."
He doesn’t say, "You stupid hillbillies! What do you
expect—a political kingdom?" He doesn’t say that. He
says clearly, "Yes," by not gainsaying their political
hope, only as to the time, He, Jesus—and that makes Him
to me an extremely appealing person—"I don’t know
myself," says Jesus. "Only my Father in heaven does." So
their political hopes of a ruling Messiah couldn’t have
been totally amiss. Jesus must have shared them to some
extent.
Kaiser: Yes. And that’s my point. I think we’re
in total agreement there, and that’s where I think the
Evangelicals are the friends of the Jewish understanding
and cause. Because I find no difficulty with that
explanation.
As a matter of fact, that’s exactly why I said that
the community was only concerned about, "Get that Roman
eagle out of town!" and "We’ve got to get out of these
galley ships—why should we be rowing away? Why must we
be paying the price of the heavy taxes...carrying the
pack to the next mile-marker? This is unfair! It’s just
unconscionable! We’ve got to get out from under this
heavy yoke."
And Jesus does not rebuke them and say, "That’s
wrong! You’ve misunderstood it totally." They have an
aspect, but they have missed, I think, a parallel
and that is still the discussion in the
Jewish-Evangelical dialogue to this day. That’s
precisely the point that is under discussion. It’s
different from the Jewish-Christian dialogue on all
other fronts.
We shift the basis for it here, because our basis is
that there’s a priestly aspect to the Messiah as well as
the kingly aspect. And it is the priestly part of the
dialogue that the Evangelical wants to pick up. "He died
for our sin. There must be a trespass offering"—the "asham"
of Isaiah 53. Who is this Servant that comes and gives
His life as a trespass offering? And that is not usually
discussed in the whole spread.
But one other thing, if I can get another thing in
here, and that is the whole "plurality" concept. You
have mentioned this several times. And while I recognize
that the meaning spread can be very, very wide, yet it
seems to me that just as in our conversation,
ultimately, if there is to be any kind of communication
or "common-cation," common coinage between us, somehow
we’re going to have to come back to the meaning of the
author.
If I’m going to understand you properly, I could put
sixty different constructions on what you have said. But
I won’t be fair to you as a human, much less as a person
in the theological community, unless I hear you and try
to appreciate adequately what you are intending to say.
I can’t maybe comprehend in everything, but I
should be able to apprehend it and be able to get some
close correspondence to what you have said.
So, I think that’s our job with the writers of
Scripture. And I don’t like the distinction made between
Greek thought and Hebrew thought, as if Hebrew thought
was just paratactic and you have, "Vuv, Vuv,
Vuv..., and, and, and," and you’re just putting
"truth, truth, truth," and they’re out there like a
cafeteria. Just because you do not have, as in Greek
thought, a thesis and you have opposed to that in a
dialectic, out of which comes a synthesis or some other
type of movement where you have a logical construction,
does not mean that within the Hebrew thinking they were
not after truth or that they didn’t have a singular
truth.
As a matter of fact, that’s the distinction drawn
between the false prophet and the true prophet. One gets
his word from God—[e.g.,] Jeremiah, in his discussion.
The other one is shooting from the hip, and is saying
what appears to him. And therefore I do think that we do
have something by which we can monitor what is adequate
and what is inadequate as far as approximating the
understandings, even on the topic of Messiah.
Ankerberg: Can I cut in right here? Let me cut to
the outline of your book. In the book, we’re talking
about Hebrew thought, what I liked about the book was
that you [Dr. Lapide] took the Hebrew Scriptures and you
said that the Hebrew promises themselves given, starting
in Genesis 3:15...it narrows it down. It’s coming to be
one who is a man—a He-person—to the woman. The seed will
come. And then it goes to Abraham, to his line, and it
keeps narrowing down as you go through Abraham, David
and then things are added on as you get into Isaiah and
Zechariah and so on down the line. Okay?
So that it seems to me, Dr. Lapide, that if you take
this progression, that it doesn’t just apply to
everybody, as far as I see the Hebrew Scriptures. Would
you agree? That the Messiah just can’t be anybody that
is Jewish?
Lapide: Certainly not. But He has to be a
Jew.
Ankerberg: Okay. He’s got to be a Jew, but then
there are qualification....
Lapide: In other words, if the message of the One
God who cares for mankind would have been brought into
the entire Occident by a Greek philosopher or a Roman
priest, I would have great difficulties understanding
Jesus as a chosen tool of God. But since this message
came to the Occident by means of a devout, pious Jew
named Jesus, I cannot help but consider the Church and
all its developments, with all the mistakes the Church
has committed and it goes on committing—By golly! A very
fallible institution just like my synagogue....
Ankerberg: Let me push both of you, though, and
I’ll do something that’s really tricky. I’ll give you 45
seconds each. If there are, in your estimation, in the
Messianic Scriptures qualifications, what are the
qualifications that apply to somebody called the Messiah
that is coming?
Lapide: Yeah. In Jewish understanding, only the
results of his coming count and not where he was born,
nor his name, nor whatever he may have suffered. If he
brings about a world without strife, war, and atomic
insanity, he will be the Messiah. If he fails to do
that, he cannot claim Messiahship.
Ankerberg: So the words of Scripture itself in
the Old Testament, in the Hebrew Scriptures concerning
the person himself...you’re just looking at the result.
What do you do with the qualifications for the person
himself?
Lapide: You Christians are a typical "Who"
religion, always centralizing your attention on the "who
it is." We Jews are interested in the "What."
Ankerberg: I’m interested in what the Scriptures
said.
Lapide: You believe in the Redeemer; I put first
"Redemption." You believe in the King; to me the
"Kingdom" is far more important. The "who" and the
"what" is what mainly divides us. It’s a matter of
mentality and not philosophy nor theology.
Ankerberg: Friends can be friends and we can
disagree, and that’s why I’m going to push you on
your verses. Not the ones the Christians wrote, but
your verses are the ones that give us that data. Are you
saying that that data in your Scriptures does not
matter?
Lapide: Oh yes, they matter very much. But they
are all pointless without an address and number and a
phone number to it. It doesn’t say "Jesus Christ,
Nazareth, Highway 61, telephone so and so." No point in
my Scripture says that.
Ankerberg: I sure appreciate this conversation.
Dr. Kaiser, I’ll give you the 45 seconds.
Kaiser: I like the "what" part of it too as well.
I think it’s not only "who" but it is "what." And the
great part of the "what" is not only peace, and I like
that and I’m looking forward to that. And not only
Israel, and I think that’s important and significant and
you don’t drop that out of Scripture. That’s at the
heart.
But I do think it is "what," too, in terms of
redemption. He died for my sin. I do need the sin
question taken care of if I’m going to have peace. I
can’t have a whitewash job and just sort of say, "That’s
that! Let’s start all over again," and by some magic....
No. Everything in the Tabernacle and everything in the
Temple looked forward to a substitute who was to come. I
do need that substitute or someone who is going to pay
it because we’re in hock. We’re in worse debt than what
the United States is, and we’ve got a debt. And
this is even a greater one.
