18. Jews Uninterested in Genealogies

Letter#18 Jews Uninterested in Genealogies
My dear Mr. Isaacs:
No one can successfully dispute your statement, that "the Jews of today are not interested in genealogies as were their forefathers." That is true, but may it not be due to their declining interest in the faith of their forefathers? Judaism today is a community of fate rather than of faith, due partly to the persecutions to which they have been and still are subject, which have driven them together as a means of defense. It is also due to rationalism having displaced supernaturalism in Judaism. There is no disputing your further statement, that, "assuming there are no Davidic and Aaronic genealogical tables, Jews can go ahead without them, as they have been doing." The Reform Jews can "go ahead, as they have been doing," but with religious principles and practices that are as foreign to the faith of their forefathers as Unitarianism is to the faith of the early Christians. Both the Reform and Orthodox Jews can "go ahead, as they have been doing," but without worshipping according to the Torah, which their forefathers believed "contains absolute truth," being "not the work of Moses, but the Word of God." The Orthodox Jews can "go ahead, as they have been doing," but without priests, or the possibility of the birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem, for which they pray. If the Jews of today are not interested in the genealogies of the houses in the tribes of Judah and Levi, the Jews were greatly interested in them during the days when Judaism was the religion of Almighty God. Josephus, whose history of Judaism has won the commendation of learned Jews, deemed the "annals," the genealogies of the Jews, to be of vital import. In "Contra Apion," the Alexandrian anti-Semite, Josephus wrote as follows about the "annals" of the priests, being himself of the House of Aaron - "Our forefathers provided for the order and regulation of the annals (genealogies). - These records have been handed down to our times with the utmost accuracy; and I dare pronounce that the future annals will bear the same stamp of authority. Care was taken from the beginning - to make provision for preserving the sacerdotal race pure and untainted, as no man is qualified for the office of priest, whose mother was not of priestly extraction; and therefore without regard to wealth and honor, whoever pretends to the priesthood, must prove his descent in the right line by a multitude of witnesses. This is the practice not only in Judea, but wherever our people are dispersed -, for our iets make it a kind of conscience only to intermarry with their own tribes. In this case, they send from the father to Jerusalem the name of the woman they intend to marry, with her pedigree well duly attested. "In time of war, - the surviving priests compose new tables of genealogy out of all records,-As an incontrovertible proof of their purity, the names of all our priests, in an uninterrupted succession, have stood upon record through a space of two thousand years. If any of them prevaricate, they are forbidden the altar, and deposed from the exercise of the sacred function." If the genealogical tables are not of interest to the Jews of our day, as they were in the days of Josephus, they are of interest to the Catholic Church insofar as the claim that Jesus is the Son of David is concerned, as I said in a former letter. That is why the Church arranaed the Books in the New Testament to begin with the genealogy of the Messiah. The opening words are, to repeat - "THE BOOKS OF THE ORIGIN OF JESUS CHRIST, THE SON OF DAVID." It is certainly in order to ask, "What evidence is there to prove that Jesus came from the house of David?" The same question came to my mind at one time, knowing that the prophets of Israel declared that the Messiah had to be born in the house of David. The Christian claim that Jesus is the Son of David, recorded on the first and the last pages of the New Testament, and on many pages between them, impressed me favorably after discovering that the claim had not been questioned until the fourth century of the Christian era. It was then that the bitter hostility towards Jesus on the part of the Roman Emperor Julian, who had apostasized from Christianity to Pa-anism prompted, not only his denial that Jesus was the Son of David, but also his attempt to set at naught the prophesy of Jesus that the Temple would be destroyed, by attempting to rebuild it. His work was frustrated by the miraculous burst of flames that destroyed the foundation that had been built. Tradition, including the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch (67-107 A.D.), St. Justin (103-167 A.D.) and other fathers of the church, attests to an unbroken record of claims that Jesus is the Son of David. In the Dialogue of St. Justin, the great Christian apologist, with Tryphon, one of the leading authorities on the oral law of the Jews, contains strong evidence, though of a negative character. Therein, St. Justin speaks of Mary, mother of Jesus, as "of the race of David" (12:1). This was not questioned by Tryphon, who denied that Jesus is the Messiah. The positive, and most convincing evidence, that Jesus came from the house of David, is in the New Testament, which would have been questioned by the Jews of the first century, who were keen and skeptical, if it were not true. Here are some texts, which cannot be reasonably questioned. Zachary, in his canticle, thanks the God of Israel for having "raised up a horn (symbol of power and strength) of salvation for us in the house of David" (St. Luke 1:68-69). St. Luke tells of Joseph going "to the town of David, which is Bethlehem - because he was of the house and family of David-to register, together with Mary his espoused wife, who was with child," Jesus (2:1-4). St. Paul told Timothy to "Remember that Jesus Christ - was descended from David" (2 Tim. 2:8). In the Acts of the Apostles, we read that "God according to the promise brought Israel a Saviour, Jesus, from the offspring of David" (13:23-24). St. John exclaims, "Behold the lion (symbol of the house of David) of the tribe of Judah, the root of David" (Apoc. 5:5). The Canaanite women (St. Matt. 15:22); the blind men (St. Matt. 9:27-28) cried out "Jesus Son of David"; "have pity on us Son of David." All four Evangelists record the great multitude of Jews who joyously hailed Jesus as the "Son of David," as He drove throu(yh the streets of Jerusalem, the royal city of Jewry, with these Messianic words: Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest! (St. Matt. 21:9) The acceptation of this royal greeting on the part of Jesus. is evidence that He considered Himself to be the Son of David. When questionino- the Pharisees, Jesus laid claim to being the "Lord" David called 'my Lord," his Son (St. Matt. 22:41-44). The claim that He is of David was revealed by Jesus to St. John in these words: "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to testify to you - I am the root and offspring of David" (Apoc. 22:16). If this evidence does not convince you that Jesus is the Son of David, then are you left to continue in that spiritual darkness that denies belief in a personal Messiah. Then has God made a promise that has not been fulfilled, and that cannot be fulfilled, as no house of David exists in which a Messiah can be born. As for your Orthodox friends, this evidence proves that they must either accept Jesus as the Messianic Son of David, or like the child running after the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, keep on looking for the impossible, the coming of the Son of David from a non-existing house of David.
	Sincerely in the Messiah D.... G........
Previous \| Table of Contents \| Next