Jews Reject or Replace?

Throughout the narrative of the first five books of the New Testament, we see the hive mind of two powerful groups of the BCE Jewish people at work, the Pharisees and Sadducees.

The Lord Jesus Christ presented Himself to the Jews as the promised Messiah through His life and His works, and yet the two most learned groups of people among them rejected Him.

Sadducees were responsible for maintenance of the Temple, including overseeing and ensuring protocols for the various sacrifices executed therein.
Pharisees were the guardians of interpretation of Jewish Law.
They both had to know the Torah, both in general as well as the specifics.

Curious, in my mind at least, that not once in their rejection of the Lord Jesus Christ as 'their Messiah' do we find a single one within either group cite even a solitary Scriptural reference for their objection.
I would think that at least someone would have denounced His ministry on the basis of authority--- especially the authority which bequeathed them their power among their own people.
'He can't be the Messiah, because of x...' or some such qualified/quantified argument.

Instead, they rejected Him on the basis of their ignorance of the holiness of God.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Instead, they rejected Him on the basis of their ignorance of the holiness of God.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Throughout the narrative of the first five books of the New Testament, we see the hive mind of two powerful groups of the BCE Jewish people at work, the Pharisees and Sadducees.

The Lord Jesus Christ presented Himself to the Jews as the promised Messiah through His life and His works, and yet the two most learned groups of people among them rejected Him ...[text shortened]... argument.

Instead, they rejected Him on the basis of their ignorance of the holiness of God.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Throughout the narrative of the first five books of the New Testament, we see the hive mind of two powerful groups of the BCE Jewish people at work, the Pharisees and Sadducees.

The Lord Jesus Christ presented Himself to the Jews as the promised Messiah through His life and His works, and yet the two most learned groups of people among them rejected Him ...[text shortened]... argument.

Instead, they rejected Him on the basis of their ignorance of the holiness of God.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Throughout the narrative of the first five books of the New Testament, we see the hive mind of two powerful groups of the BCE Jewish people at work, the Pharisees and Sadducees.

The Lord Jesus Christ presented Himself to the Jews as the promised Messiah through His life and His works, and yet the two most learned groups of people among them rejected Him ...[text shortened]... argument.

Instead, they rejected Him on the basis of their ignorance of the holiness of God.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Throughout the narrative of the first five books of the New Testament, we see the hive mind of two powerful groups of the BCE Jewish people at work, the Pharisees and Sadducees.

The Lord Jesus Christ presented Himself to the Jews as the promised Messiah through His life and His works, and yet the two most learned groups of people among them rejected Him ...[text shortened]... argument.

Instead, they rejected Him on the basis of their ignorance of the holiness of God.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
The presence of the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Jews long awaited Prophesied Messiah, threatened the authority structure and Old Testament Law practices of record; imagine the heat the high profile disciples took for breaking rank.

Originally posted by JS357
Lyrics: This Jesus Must Die
{"This Jesus Must Die" was written by Andrew Lloyd Webber; Timothy Miles Bindon Rice.}

Good Caiaphas, the council waits for you
The Pharisees and priests are here for you
Ah gentlemen, you know why we are here
We've not much time, and quite a problem here.
...

Listen to that howling mob of blockheads in the street
A tric ...[text shortened]... before Him, this Jesus must die
Must die, must die, this Jesus must, Jesus must, Jesus must die

Remarkably there was a seamless conversion through Mary, along with Elizabeth, of the chosen line from Judaism into a prenatal Christianity, while amid all the early paganisms. Both youthful women were from a Jewish home of believers outside the Pharisee or Sadducee "political" groups. They represented a personal theology closer to the Lord's heart.

After Jesus arrived on the scene, he ransomed his people but matter still needs to be ironed out. From what I recall Peter was hesitant at first to bring the message to all gentiles, but later got on board with Paul. Their fellow Jews had to give up the legal traditions of men that went against the Holy Spirit, and began worshiping and having communion together with the uncircumcised and new converts.

It really isn’t puzzling—except for those who might err by analyzing Judaism (then or now) through the lenses of Christian understanding. Jews did not have/do not have a central (let alone doctrinal) belief about what it means to be “messiah”—no central understanding to which the Hebrew Scriptures could unequivocally point to. Hence, there is no reason to assume that Jews, then or now, would all recognize the same criteria—in either the written or oral Torahs, or in experience.

Even in the scriptures, Saul is called messiah (Greek: Christos), as is King Cyrus (in Isaiah 45:1), just for example. Rabbi Hillel (died circa 7 C.E.) believed that King Hezekiah had been messiah, and there was no need to look for another. But multiple messiahs is clearly a possibility. Someone might be the messiah for this time, for this place, for this purpose, etc. Again there is not/was not any universally accepted (let alone doctrinal) criteria for who/what is “the messiah”—though there are many rabbinical views and opinions (some of which do not see the messiah as an individual).

Of the various “Judaisms” (Jacob Neusner’s term) at play in the 1st century C.E., two groups survived and evolved into what became Christianity and Rabbinical Judaism. They are such differing religious paradigms (though based, in part, on the written Torah—Christians also read the New Testament; Jews also continue to expound and expand the Oral Torah, a historical part of which was eventually written down in the Talmuds and the Midrash) that they don’t even necessarily hear the same religious terms in the same way—and “messiah” is a good example of that.

[It reminds me a bit of the “Great Schism” of 1054 between Rome and the Eastern Churches: although there were doctrinal and ecclesiastical arguments, at least part of the problem appears to be that most in the Western church could no longer read Greek well, and most in the Eastern church could not read Latin well—there was little chance of their coming to a mutually understood agreement because they no longer understood each other’s language well enough to parse essential detail.]

As a result, outside of scholars and rabbis who are involved in inter-faith dialogue—and who have made the effort to understand the different ways in which they hear and understand even the same religious terms and texts—most Jews likely do not understand the question. And most of the estimated 700,000 Jews living in Judea/Galilee then (let alone the other roughly 4 million living around the Roman world) likely didn’t even know there was a special messianic claim being presented—they were not all Pharisees or Sadducees, or members of any particular sect: most were am ha’aretz, country-folk who were illiterate and had little religious study, and who lived on the precarious margin of survival. Further, communication was slow and sporadic.

Again, although there are numerous theories about what “messiah” might be in Judaism (then as now), and although the concept, broadly, may be native to Judaism, it just isn’t in any way as central to Jewish religious thought as it is to Christians—or, in Judaism itself, as is the oneness/wholenesss of God, or the Oral Torah, say.

In sum, to assume that all Jews would understand the Hebrew Scriptures the same way (let alone the same way that Christians did/do)—which would violate their whole hermeneutical approach, then and now—or understand the same thing by the term “messiah”, or see “messiah” as being as central to their faith as Christians did/do, etc., etc.—and then to declaim on “why ‘the Jews’ rejected Jesus”, would be a bit presumptuous. It would be just as presumptuous if the shoe were on the other foot (say, vis-à-vis the Oral Torah, and how it works).

Those Jews who came to a particular understanding of “messiah” followed Jesus as that messiah; those who did not have (could not be expected to have) that particular understanding did not (could not be expected to). Blame is in no way called for (and has had pernicious—even atrocious—consequences in the past).

Personally, I am lately revisiting my “Christic” roots (for reasons I shall not go into)—but I have no interest in whatever people think the “True Christians™” might be, or need to think is true (i.e., “believe” )—nor do I need to claim the label.

___________________________________________________________

NOTE: Even the term “the Jews”, in reference to the first century C.E., is a bit problematic. Sometimes (e.g., in the Gospel of John) the term referred, not to a religious group, but to simply the Semitic residents of Judea (as opposed to, say, Galilee).

Originally posted by JS357
From my reading, it seems that Jesus, if he claimed to be the messiah, would not have been the first to do so. The Jews might have said to themselves, "Oh look, another claimant," and not bothered objecting to it in a qualified/quantified argument, whatever that is.

Originally posted by vistesd
It really isn’t puzzling—except for those who might err by analyzing Judaism (then or now) through the lenses of Christian understanding. [b]Jews did not have/do not have a central (let alone doctrinal) belief about what it means to be “messiah”—no central understanding to which the Hebrew Scriptures could unequivocally point to. Hence, there is ...[text shortened]... o a religious group, but to simply the Semitic residents of Judea (as opposed to, say, Galilee).[/b]

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Actually, didn't they cite the Law? No work on the sabbath? Including healing?

Bear in mind that the account in the NT was not written by the Jews, so we do not have their view of what the Jewish authorities thought of Jesus and his claim to be the messiah. As another poster has pointed out, there were many claimants at that time; one more great pretender in a long line of them probably did not merit any special notice from contemporary Jewish chroniclers.

Originally posted by vistesd
It really isn’t puzzling—except for those who might err by analyzing Judaism (then or now) through the lenses of Christian understanding. [b]Jews did not have/do not have a central (let alone doctrinal) belief about what it means to be “messiah”—no central understanding to which the Hebrew Scriptures could unequivocally point to. Hence, there is ...[text shortened]... o a religious group, but to simply the Semitic residents of Judea (as opposed to, say, Galilee).[/b]