Letter 1

Rabbi David Horowitz,
Editor, The United Israel Bulletin,
New York City.

Sir:---Thank you for your reply to my communication (which appeared in this column, May 1, 1954). In it you make an acknowledgment which may, with God's grace, be a step toward the realization of the error of your assumption that present-day Judaism is the Judaism of God, recorded in the Old Testament, which it ceased to be with the coming of the Messianic Son of God, Jesus Christ, and His causing Judaism to blossom forth into Catholic Christianity.

I was pleased to note your acknowledgment of the fact that the God concept of "many" American Rabbis is of a modernistic, pantheistic, rather than an Old Testament nature; when I confronted you with this fact, as statistically set forth by Rabbi Joseph Zeitlin, Ph.D., in his "Disciples of the Wise." That evidence prompted you to say, "I do not deny that such an attitude (exists) on the part of many Rabbis and Jews"; which "many" happens to be a majority of the "Rabbis and Jews" in our country.

This above quoted acknowledgment ought to prompt an endeavor on your part to wean "Rabbis and Jews" from their Spinoza-Einstein-Freud concept of God, to belief in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Whom all Catholics worship in His Triunity, as the Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier.

You say that your "objective research has convinced" you that "the Nazarene" was "a Messiah, as was Cyrus and every prince and priest in Israel," but not "The Messiah." If that be so, pray tell me why "The Nazarene" was the only one of those Messiahs to be brought before the High Priest and Sanhedrin on the charge of blasphemy, and condemned to death for claiming to be "The Messiah"? My "objective research has convinced me, beyond a shadow of doubt, that this trial and conviction of Jesus, was because He claimed to be The Messianic Son of God, of which there could only be one. This Messianic nature of Jesus manifested in the manner, time and place of His birth, His teachings, and the part He played in the fulfillment of the Law and prophecies.

In view of the "sublimity of the ethical code" and personality of Jesus, as recognized by Prof. Joseph Klausner of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, in his "Jesus of Nazareth"; and His designation by the late Rabbi Stephen S. Wise as "the radiant Jewish teacher in Palestine," the probity and exactitude of such a personage cannot be reasonably questioned, when He claimed to be The Messianic Son of God.

Many evidences of the claim of Jesus, that He is the Messiah, have been known throughout the Christian ages. For instance, in the story of the Samaritan woman at the well (St. John 4), which contains the answer to her declaration, "I know the Messiah is coming, and when He comes He will tell all things." To this Jesus replied, "I Who speak to thee am He." Also in the story of the pre-existence of Jesus before Abraham, who died a thousand years before the following question was put to Jesus by the Jews, "Thou are not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?" The answer of Jesus, was, ". . . before Abraham came to be, I Am" (St. John 8:48-59), for which He was stoned. The "I Am," as you know, is God's designation of Himself to Moses (Exod. 3:14).

The story of the trial of Jesus on the charge of blasphemy (St. Matt. 26) is sufficient to warrant calling Him The Messiah. In answer to the question of High Priest Caiphas, "I adjure thee in the name of the living God that You tell me whether Thou art The Messiah (not a Messiah), the Son of God?" to which query Jesus made the positive declaration, "I Am." The reply of the High Priest was the death sentence, which the Jews had a Mosaic right to impose upon a blasphemer (that ended with the crucifixion of the greatest Jew that ever trod the sacred soil of Palestine), viz. "We have a law, and by our law He ought to die, because He made Himself the Son of God" (St. John 19:7).

Pray, tell me, are you of the minority of present-day Rabbis in our country who look forward for the coming of the Old Testament predicted Messiah? If so, then must you believe that He will be born in the House of David, that existed in the Tribe of Judah, as foretold in the Old Testament (Gen.49; Isaiah 11:1; Jeremiah 23:5; 1 Par. 17:10-11). Surely that is a vain expectancy, as there is no existing House of David, or Tribe of Judah, from which anyone can come forth. This is said because, as the Jewish Encyclopedia says, "The very division of Israel into 'houses' presupposes the existence among them of well authenticated genealogies," which "were scrupulously kept" (Vol. V. p. 597). These were destroyed during the first century of the Christian era. In the same volume and page, the Jewish Encyclopedia records the "loss of official genealogies (as being) deeply deplored as a calamity." Still further, on page 577 there is recorded the fact that "very few Jews can trace their descent further back than a couple of hundred years."

 "Nothing is accidental with God," as Longfellow said; therefore right reasoning compels the conclusion that the non-existence of the House of David and Tribe of Judah, in which the Messiah was predicted to be born, evidences that God's predicted promise of the coming of The Messiah had been fulfilled.
The Messiah came in the manner Isaiah said He would be miraculously born (7:14).

The Messiah was born in the time Daniel foretold nearly five
centuries before the lily of Israel brought Him forth in the City of David (9 :6).

The Messiah was born during the predicted time when the "sceptre," that is the authority, the political power, shall have been taken away from Israel, as it was by Rome (Gen. 49:10).

The Messiah was to be betrayed; sold for 30 pieces of silver; led like a sheep to slaughter; suffer His hands and feet to be pierced; and thereafter to rise from the dead, as foretold in Zacharias 11:12-13; Isaiah 53:7; Psalm 21; and Isaiah 11:10.