JESUS WAS NOT A JEW By the late W.G. Finlay “Who do men say that I, the Son of man, am? And they said, Some [say that thou art] John the Baptist, some, Elijah, and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets He saith unto them, But who say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” – (Matthew 16:13-16) The controversy concerning the identity of the Lord Jesus Christ has raged down, the centuries and today, 2,000 years after His Birth, the subject remains the area of more than a little confusion. In Protestant evangelical circles He is held to be a Jew, in Roman Catholic thinking He appears to be an enigma which, if the accompanying photograph of the Pope’s celebration of pontifical Mass in Warsaw’s Victory Square is anything to go on, would suggest that both Madonna and Child were of the Black or Coloured race. In the leftist political arena of Christianity as exemplified by the World Council of Churches He is held as Universal Man – totally raceless and wholly committed to the ideal of the brotherhood of man. In Jewish circles, He is still said to be an impostor and concerning His Birth, the Jewish Encyclopaedia (1904 Ed, Vol 7, page 170) comments on the prevailing thought that He was the illegitimate son of Panthera, a Roman soldier. Over recent years a new trend has developed which has given substance to the question asked by the Lord Jesus Christ and as posed in the quotation which prefaces this article – “Whom say ye that I am?” In those days and despite the religious fanaticism of the Pharisees, people were still entitled to their own views, but today it would appear that unless one conforms with prescribed identity norms, State machinery is invoked which curtails the publishing of views other than those prescribed. In South Africa, the July 1979 edition of the S.A. Observer was banned and among the reasons given for this banning was that the Editor contended that Jesus was not a Jew. It should be stated that this was only one of several reasons, but it surely calls into question the Christian liberty in a professed Christian country. Who Was Jesus of Nazareth? Unless one is prepared to discount the Gospel accounts, one must provide the unequivocal answer to this question with the confession – The Christ, the Son of the living God – just as Peter did. It would not be a digression to continue with Matthew’s account of the Lord’s reaction to this confession, for as with His Identity, much confusion has arisen because of theological interpretation of His response. He said: “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father, who is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:17-18). Pope John Paul II celebrates pontifical Mass under a giant Cross in Warsaw’s Victory Square. There is obviously something amiss here for in one breath the Lord calls him “Simon Barjona” and in the next, “Peter.” In John 1:42, ie, when Simon Barjona was called to follow the Lord, Jesus had him nicknamed him “Cephas” or more correctly “Petros” which of course, means a stone. In Isaiah 51:12, Abraham and Sarah are referred to as a “rock” from whence the Israel family was hewn and Peter, because he was a chip of that “rock” was renamed as “Petros” a stone chipped from that rock. Thus, in the Lord’s reaction, one is directed to the national family of the Old Testament – the family whose commitment was totally to the accomplishment of God’s oath-bound Covenant in the earth. Here was one of the Covenant family which acknowledged that He, Jesus, was THE Anointed: One as God the Father had promised through His servants the prophets Who would Redeem Israel, make an end of sin and bring in everlasting righteousness (Dan. 9:24). It was on this confession that the Lord stated that He would “build” or “confirm” (Greek: oikodomeo) His “church.” It is of course, a matter of history that theologians prefer the word “church” to the Greek word ecclesia for while the Greek word means “a called out assembly” which in the days when it was used was an exclusive term precluding slaves and aliens, the Greek kuriakos (belonging to the Lord) preferred because it suits the doctrines of men. If the Lord Christ intended to build or inaugurate a “church” on Peter’s confession, why did He not use the Greek word kuriakos which was the etymon of the modern English word “church” – why did He use the word ecclesia, a word understood by the disciples as having an exclusively national sense? He Shall Be Called a Nazarene In Matthew 2:23 which deals with the sequel to the death of Herod who had ordered the massacre of all children under the age of two years, it will be noted that Joseph, having sought safety in Egypt, now decided to return home. “And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the proph...