Jonathan Romain is a rabbi whom I greatly respect. He wrote an article in the Guardian in 2010 asking whether Jews For Jesus leader Moishe Rosen died as a Jew or a Christian. The obvious question immediately, is whether “Jew” and “Christian” are contradictory terms.

If a Jew is someone whose mother is Jewish, then regardless of whether that Jew has beliefs widely seen as heretical, he is still a Jew. A Christian is anyone from any background or race, Jew or Gentile, who believes that Yeshua of Nazareth is the Christ or Messiah.

Here is Romain on Rosen’s apparent “crime” (he hesitates to use the word “sin”!):

His “crime” was not that he attempted to convert Jews to Christianity – the church had been doing that for centuries – but that he added a new and subversive element to the missionary campaign by asserting that those who did so were not reneging on their Jewishness but fulfilling it.

It meant that he removed one of the great barriers to any Jewish individual contemplating conversion – guilt at denying their roots and rejecting their family. He claimed that they could remain Jews, and even become better Jews, by accepting Jesus as the messiah.

Rosen’s message was given added potency by the fact that he himself had been an Orthodox Jew, and he could speak from personal experience. He sought to negate the position assumed up till that point by both the Jewish and Christian hierarchy that one had a choice between either Judaism or Christianity. Instead, said Rosen, a person could be both.

Now I would say that it is slightly revisionist, to imagine there was no-one before Moishe Rosen challenging the barriers of Jewish and Christian identity.

We have the likes of Paul Philip Levertoff and Isaac Liechtenstein, long before Rosen challenging traditional assumptions. Levertoff even wrote a book Love and the Messianic Age bringing together ideas about the divine love, from the Chabad tradition and from the gospel of John, amongst other fascinating writings.

Before these of course, we could look back to Paul himself, who worshipped in the Temple in Jerusalem for over a decade after his initial experience of believing in Yeshua, and openly, gladly identified as a Pharisaic Jew with Roman citizenship.

In Romain’s mind, however, Paul’s Jewish identity never, ever features relevantly in Christianity:

It was this blurring of the differences between the faiths that so enraged Jewish authorities. Ever since Christianity had begun, it had been recognised that although there was much in common between the two faiths – notably a shared system of ethics based on the teachings of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible – there had been one crystal clear division: acceptance or rejection of Jesus. By calling his new movement “Jews for Jesus”, Rosen undermined that distinction.

In his introduction, Romain describes Rosen as a “hate figure”, writing:

The death of an extraordinary hate-figure has just occurred. Moishe Rosen was one of the most detested figures in recent decades in some Jewish circles – for religious reasons rather than for murderous policies.

Here is Romain’s explanation of said hatred:

What infuriates many, though, is that its adherents still maintain Jewish customs such as observing dietary laws and Jewish festivals as part of their claim to Jewish authenticity

If taken at face value, this means that if Messianic Jews wish to have a Shabbat meal in peace and quiet, we are justifying our relatives or neighbours hating us. Anyone who thinks this is okay, just take a step back and see how it sounds!

Moreover, Romain writes about Rosen as if he represents all Messianic Jews. But this is another case of writers confusing the missionary institution Jews For Jesus with the socio-religious group known as Messianic Jews.

Having dealt inadequately with the Jewishness of Messianic Jews, Romain then gets into the question of Jesus’ Messiahship.

There is an admission of the fact that Jesus has fulfilled many Biblical prophecies:

Rosen may have died, but the challenge he posed still looms large : can a Jew who accepts Jesus still claim to be a Jew? This raises the question of why most Jews do not follow Jesus despite the apparent way in which he is claimed to have fulfilled various biblical prophecies.

Here is Romain’s response:

The answer is that, like statistics, biblical verses can be manipulated to suit one’s own purposes, but they are not enough by themselves. Many people, for instance, have been born in Bethlehem (Micah 5.1) or have ridden into Jerusalem on a donkey (Zechariah 9.9) but that did not mean they were the messiah.

Notice something very subtle here?

Romain admits that Jesus has fulfilled prophecy, but the prophecy he concedes as having been fulfilled, is prophecy regarding superficial details of Jesus’ ministry. By “superficial”, I mean, details which can be seen and appear mundane, and do not seem particularly remarkable.

I agree that it’s not so impressive to ride into Jerusalem in a donkey or be born in Bethlehem. But by only partially quoting these verses, Romain underwrites their power. Zechariah 9.9 states that:

Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion!
Shout aloud, O daughter Jerusalem!
Lo, your king comes to you;
triumphant and victorious is he,
humble and riding on a donkey,
on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

This king is humble, like Jesus, and so to accept that the Messiah will ride into Jerusalem on a donkey, we must also accept that the Messiah does so humbly. Jesus’ humble first coming, and his special love for the meek, should make the light bulbs flash in one’s mind, that his riding humbly on a donkey into Jerusalem is more powerful than it initially seems.

And then, we have the verse in Micah that Rabbi Romain highlights:

But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days.

It is not just that the Messiah, the ruler of Israel, is to be King of Israel. Rather, the Messiah’s coming is from “ancient days”. The Hebrew phrase is מִימֵ֥י עוֹלָֽם – from the days of eternity.

עוֹלָֽם (olam) is frequently used in Hebrew to describe the eternal – the Shema ends with the phrase le’olam va’ed - for ever and ever. לְעוֹלָ֔ם clearly means “forever” in the Bible  -  מִימֵ֥י עוֹלָֽם is “from the days of forever“.

So if Rabbi Romain sees the prophecy of the Messiah being born in Bethlehem as unimpressive, then surely with that prophecy is the concept of Messiah being from the days of eternity – something he could only accomplish were he divine.

Yet this exploration of the text, is lost amongst Romain’s rhetorical devices.

We could also note how Romain has not looked at the more obviously shocking passages like Psalm 22 or Isaiah 53, whose parallels with the death of Yeshua are unavoidable. The life and identity of Yeshua breathes palpably through these verses.

Romain justifies his position that Jesus is not the Messiah, thus:

For Judaism, the litmus test for that title is that on his arrival, peace will descend on the world and a time of universal harmony begin. That is why many Jews prefer to talk about the messianic age, rather than the messiah, emphasising that what is crucial is the era not the person. Peace has not happened and so Jesus failed the test. He was clearly an inspirational preacher, but not the messiah.

According to Romain, Jews care more about the messianic age of peace, than the identity and ministry of Messiah himself. Yet most Jews throughout the ages have believed in a Messiah figure – indeed, entire revolts, cults, and mass-movements have originated out of community belief in Jewish personalities as the Messiah. I think in particular of Shimon bar Kochba and Shabbatei Zevi.

Romain concludes: