Ever heard this before?

Im reading a book that details the history of Christian doctrines called Early Christian Doctrines, its written by J.N.D. Kelly and quite interesting. Im only starting and already feel it will be very beneficial in my learning. The first pages are a general introduction on the background and today I read a part about Manichaeism. He didnt go into depth but what he related sounded very familiar…

Apparently, Manichaeism was a gnostic movement that combined some Christian beliefs, with Zoroastrian and parts of Buddhism. Their central ideas were defined by a heavy dualism, which characterizes most gnostic movements, in which reality consists of two opposing forces. Good being associated with God (but also Truth and Light), and Evil & Darkness mainly with matter.

By living on planet earth mankind was bound to the material and as such fallen and lost. But not only in that sense was salvation necessary, interestingly, man’s soul was thought of as a part of God, of the same substance!

For those who have read some Chassidic texts or stories with a leaning to Lurianic Kabbalah, the idea of sparks could to mind.

Thus not only was man fallen and lost (hence in need of salvation), but God actually Himself (!) was in need of redemption.

Or as J.N.D. Kelly put it:

[...] in the process of salvation, paradoxically, God is at once redeemer and redeemed.(14)

I thought that sounded quite familiar.

In Your light we will see light

The title of this post comes from Psalm 36:9 which reads:

For with You is the source of life; in Your light we will see light.

The reason I like this verse is because I think you can build a worldview on basis of it. Allow me to explain.

In our age of post-modernism the idea of universal truth is seen by some as old-fashioned and representing narrowness, things that were once thought of as universally true are now being framed as being true for you while not necessarily true for me.

And there is some truth:P to this, as, whilte I think there are absolute and universal truths, it is obvious that all things and issues we approach are framed and looked into from a certain paradigm. This paradigm has been formed over the years, some parts of it unconsciously, through our environment and some of it consciously through the input we choose to receive. But in the end there is often more than one way of looking at something and arriving at a reliable conclusion.

Naturally if this is the case the question becomes, what is the right way or valid paradigm through which to approach the world?

An example would be the human being, do we look at it from a perspective that considers life to be the product of mere chance? Or do we look at it from the perspective that considers it to be the product of divine will?

This makes a huge difference, as when you look at life from the perspective that its mere chance, then what value can you assign to ‘being’? Can you say its valuable? It seems that consistent with that paradigm would be the phrase used by the ancient Epicureans: “I was not, I am, I am not, I care not”.

However when life is seen as the product of divine will, ‘being’ takes on a very different value, divine will desired to create life and called it good, thus it is intrinsically valuable and not something that we can treat carelessly.

Hence we see that the paradigm that is adopted makes a very big difference, but how does one choose? Assuming one can distance him or herself from preconceived notions and ideas and is actually able to make a choice?

On what basis does one choose? It seems difficult to separate what comes first, the paradigm, and what follows from it, the ideas. As when one looks at the example I gave, to me at least, the idea of life being valuable is much more appealing than the idea that I am here because of mere chance and so the paradigm of life being the product of divine will appeals more as well… but isnt this kind of circular?

Dealing with Contradictions

I write often on my blog about contradictions (or well things that I think are contradictory:P) and do this perhaps to the frustration of some of my readers. I realize this and am thinking of writing a bit more constructive stuff:) as while being critical is a good thing when it is aimed for getting a better understanding of certain issues, once this aim is lost it can yield bad character traits such as haughtiness, bitterness, not to mention a divisive spirit. And I think I am guilty of this.

That doesnt mean I plan on sticking my head in the sand as there are real contradictions, not only in our life of faith but also in the text of the Bible, that need to be confronted, the question just is in what way. In the past I often resorted to apologetics, I held to certain ideas and the text had to conform to these, naturally I felt like I was conforming to the text but when looking back dont think that was the case.

This is however not something that can just be turned off, we all operate from a paradigm that has been formed over the years and cant approach a situation without any presuppositions. But I do think that realizing our own paradigm can make us more aware of our own biases and assist in approaching the text in a more balanced way.

A while ago while discussing one of those contradictions, it being the discrepancy between the first chapters of Genesis and modern cosmology, a friend pointed me towards an amazing footnote in R. Soloveitchik’s Halakhic Man, in which he dealt with contradictions, here it is:

One of the thirteen rules for interpreting the Torah is the contradiction between two verses and their harmonization by a third verse. Therefore, it is not for naught that the Midrash (Gen. Rabbah 56:8 [cited in Rashi in on Gen. 22:12]) informs us that after the angel told Abraham, “Lay not they hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him” (Gen 22:12), Abraham arose and asked: Yesterday You told me “Take now, thy son, thine only son…and offer him there for a burnt-offering” (Gen 22:2), etc., etc. – i.e., the exalted drama of the Akedah, of the binding of Isaac, is reflected not only in the act of self-sacrifice on the part of the father and the son and in the offering up of Isaac as a sacrifice on the altar, but also in the struggle taking place within Abraham’s soul. For it seemed to him as though the words of God were contradictory, heaven forbid; nevertheless, he overcame the pangs and torments of contradiction, rose up early in the morning and saddled his ass. When the angel appeared to him and revealed to him the third verse which harmonized the two contradictory verses, then Abraham rose up and questioned.

And he continues by relating the following story:

I once heard from my father [R. Moses Soloveitchik] in the name of our great master, R. Hayyim of Brisk [R. Soloveitchik's paternal grandfather], that as long as the third harmonizing verse had not yet been revealed, Abraham had no right to question God’s word, and for this reason he contained himself until the end of the epic. The pangs of consciousness of the man of God and the towering and awesome strength of his self-restraint shine forth here in a clear and pure light. [1]

I found this very inspiring and think it exemplifies an appropriate humility in dealing with contradictions. Though this is not easy, especially not for us western readers, who are not used to contradictions remaining unsolved.

And needless to say, a critical attitude is good but at the same time it should know its own boundaries and when appropriate remain silent before Him Who is above all comprehension.

—————————————————————-

[1] R. Joseph Soloveitchik, Halakhic Man (Philadelphia: JPS, 1983), p. 143

Question(s on)(-ing) the divinity of Jesus

Last week I was asked in a short comment exchange on Or Gadol about books helpful in investigating the divinity of Jesus and I did not answer yet. The reason for that is that my answer is a bit complicated. But by means of this post I do would like to give a sort of answer:

There are plenty of books that could be helpful, but in what way do you want them to be helpful? Concerned as I may sound I think you should think carefully about where you would like to end up.

There are various alternatives of where you could end up, but as you are asking me I will only discuss the one in which I ended up: mine is one where I cant talk to people in my community about what I believe, one that is officially denounced by the church councils as heretical and is seen by mainstream Christians as one that endangers salvation, if not renders it impossible.

It is one that has caused me much anguish, alienation and distress. This is of course by and large the result of being theologically shut out of the community but also internally as this is a pillar as fundamental to our faith as it gets hence problems around this impact other areas of faith as well.

And this stresses me and makes me hesitant to suggest books to you as Ive seen the impact they had on me and dont really wish all that for you. That does not mean I regret it and wish for belief in it, its just that I think the social consequences of my position (if I were to speak up) are very hard to be handled and can result easily in negligence in other areas which I dont think is right.

Now lest I sound too depressive: I do feel that hard as it may be at the moment (not that Im persecuted or anything:P) my studies have been very rewarding and have enabled me to appreciate the NT and Jesus in new ways. I still have a lot to study but think its a very exciting area worth of investigation, whatever conclusions you make.

Well… perhaps this is not my best post until now:P but what I just want to say is the following:

As you may see in my title to this post I wrote “questioning”, as I think the reason you asked me is because you question it. And while on the one hand I think its good you are critical about it, my other half is less happy with this and wants you to realize the path you are finding yourself on and the consequences that might follow, hence I give you two options of authors:

1. Safe: Larry Hurtado, Richard Bauckham, these are very prominent scholars in Christology and do, in my opinion, to a great extent justice to the text of the NT and keep you safe from any theologically problematic views.

2. Not so safe: James Dunn, Raymond Brown, James McGrath, these three are favourites of mine. They have a somewhat similar approach which I personally found enlightening but if you are not granting alot of authority to church tradition you may have difficulties retaining the doctrine of the Incarnation.

I realize that it may feel kind of backwards when I suggest you determine first where you [dont] want to end up and then start investigating, and needless to say I dont advocate such an approach (in general). But were you to do this, I would understand that, indeed I do/did it myself as well, I actually think theres hardly anyone free of confirmation bias.

Now obviously there are many other books and approaches to Christology, but I personally favour the more historical-critical approach that is used by these two groups of authors. For more information you could check out this blog that reviews many books about the Trinity and Christology and whose author is very passionate about it.

Hope that helps and do feel free to post your own thoughts, I’d be interested to hear them:)

Tracing my spiritual journey

For some time now I feel like Im wandering around without a clear direction let alone destination. I think alot about where I want to go to, what the next step for me should be, but I cant really find it.

I went through some of my old emails and got a glimpse of my spiritual journey and its quite interesting (at least for me) to see how I developed and in a sense I think by tracing this I may get a better idea of where Im heading to:

Pentecostalism

I was born into Pentecostalism, to be more precise a subsidiary of the Foursquare Church in L.A.

I started out slowly, I always knew about believing and what it entailed and felt a day would come when I would devote myself but just knew I liked being young too much and didnt want to give up on many things:) after some time an event took place which shook my world and made me fall into emptiness, the logical step was to increase my devotion to God because He would be the only One to fill up that space.

Got baptized and began fervently to read the Bible and tried to convert everybody to what I believed:) my teachers in that time were mainly Pentecostal figures like Benny Hinn, but also C.H. Spurgeon, Charles Finney, Derek Prince and although he was too soft for me Philip Yancey.

Fired up

As I said, nearly everywhere I tried to convert people and at one point I started to make flyers to spread these in the train with Bible verses on them to stimulate people to get to know God. I also made a website for this and of course paid for all this myself.

This devotion went on for some time and I longed to serve God so deeply that I was willing to sacrifice anything for it.

I tried to read the Bible on my own as I reasoned that every believer has equal access to the Holy Spirit so theres no real difference between somebody who studied or who didnt study. Besides that the idea of reading something by someone who didnt confirm all tenets of my faith, which for me included things like gifts of the Holy Spirit and the right bible version, never crossed my mind.

Heresy hunting

I dont really know when but someone from my church who saw himself as a heresy hunter started to make me aware of the only true version of the Bible; the Dutch equivalent of the King James Version. And tried to persuade me of how evil the other Bible translators were.

Young and naive as I was, I believed him and started to tell this to other people as well and found myself very focused on having the right translation. Luckily after some time I realised that he was exaggerating at the point of being dangerous so I distanced myself from him.

A new direction

I did retain the motive to find the purest truth and in some way got in touch with the idea that God hadnt given up on the Jewish people. There were various support groups for Israel so I started to read more of their stuff on websites and attended some church sessions. Soon I was completely focused on that and read the Jerusalem Post daily turning into a fervent Zionist.

I found out about churches that were focused on this, as I was missing this in my church and started to enquire about them. Soon I ended up in what is called Hebrew Christianity or by others Messianic Judaism.

If you read up till  now you can imagine what happened next, I devoured everything about it, bought all books tried to learn about everything they thought in a couple of months.

I am wrong?

In some way I learned that the Jews werent abandoned and had some ideas which were really not bad for a group who didnt believe the exact same things as me.

I read more and realized that alot of the things I was taught in church were not true. The most prominent was the idea that the Torah was no longer relevant, that is to say, things like the Sabbath, keeping a kosher diet. I always thought those things belonged to the Old version of believing in God but in the new version which Jesus brought we didnt need any of these things anymore.

Well, I came to the conclusion that that was plain wrong and started to re-interpret all passages in the Bible that seemed to point to the Torah being obsolete. This became my next life goal and as you can imagine I went to the extreme in this as well and couldnt think about anything else anymore.

I got in touch with an organization called First Fruits of Zion and read all they produced in a very short time, I was a big fan and saw them and another organization called TorahResource as the only ones in this planet understanding the Bible.

Thou shalt keep the Sabbath

They taught that to be a good follower of Jesus or Yeshua as they preferred to call him, one needed to observe the Torah, that is, one needed to keep the Shabbat, kosher, etc.

As I was so devoted to following God, I didnt waste any minute and started to do it, to the best of my abilities. My parents of course were less prepared for all this so this led to many arguments. This proceeded for about a year or so after which I was completely immersed in Messianic Judaism, and in particular the teachers of the two organisations I mentioned above.

In the summer of 2007 I went to Israel for the first time and stayed there for 4 weeks, doing volunteering work and learning more about the culture and the religion.

All the while the teachers at FFOZ were becoming more and more orthodox, and I followed them to the point that I was waking up saying traditional Jewish prayers while wearing tefilin and a prayer shawl. Obviously my parents were horrified by all this and my life became more and more secluded. I didnt go out on friday night anymore, I didnt flirt with any girls anymore and saturday was practically sitting at home all day waiting until the evening.

In that period I tried to look for a place with people that had the same ideas and found this little group in The Hague with an quasi-evangelical service and some Jewish decorations. I attended it for about 5 months but as traveling is not allowed on the Shabbat, plus the average age was around 60, I stopped attending.

Research

This led to a difficult period with many discussions with my parents as this Shabbat thing isnt something you do once a year but happens every week!  At some point  I was so tired of the discussions that I decided I wanted to investigate whether this was really the true path, as otherwise I would unnecessarily be causing my parents anguish every week.

The first thing I found out was that besides the teachers at FFOZ and TorahResource nearly noone believed a non-Jew had to do this, but that wasnt enough to ease my conscience  as I just thought the rest of scholars were missing the point, but it awoke me to the possiblity that actually FFOZ and TorahResource might be wrong, so I probed further. There was a certain passage in the Bible I couldnt get around (Acts 15) and I really worked hard to find the right interpretation. This is a passage in which the apostles deal with what is expected from the non-Jews.

One day while browsing the theological section of my university’s library I found this big work by David Flusser and Huub van der Sandt on the Didache. And their interpretation somehow struck the right note with me. They argued that in Acts 15 the apostles were simply directing the non-Jews to the prevailing notion of what was expected from non-Jews; which was at a minimum abstaining from murder, adultery and idolatry and as much as they could keep of the Torah they were encouraged to keep but this would be beyond the requirement. This really rocked my world, because this meant that non-Jews did not need to keep it! They could and it would be great but they didnt have to.

Freedom

In one way this was liberating as I could go out again fridaynight and didnt need to have discussions with my parents anymore. But in another way my world was less defined than before. I used to know exactly what I could and could not do but now it seemed so flexible, as it was no longer a sin if I went to work on the Sabbath or ate pork. So in some sense I lost my clear boundaries.

After this I realized it was important to read work that was more academically founded and as such I came in touch with more critical works.

Shaking my foundations

One name that had a particular influence on me was James D.G. Dunn with his book Christology in the Making. He showed in his book how many of the christological references in the New Testament actually did not imply divinity and how the idea of the incarnation (Jesus being God) was only present in one of the latest documents in the New Testament canon; the Gospel of John (cf. 1:14).

This led to a lot of confusion to me as the doctrine of the incarnation was very dear to me and the idea of it being not in the NT was outright blasphemy to me. But his presentation was so convincing I had to agree with him at some points.

I talked to various professors about my doubts but couldnt find a satisfying answer.

Now any committed Christian understands how big a crisis I was heading for; to reject this meant I would fall out of the fold! As it is one of the things salvation hangs upon! I too realised this and tried to keep my faith in it, but slowly started to see the evidence pile up against it. Until I came to a point that I couldnt possibly maintain my belief in Jesus being the Eternal Son, the second member of the Trinity, anymore, so I slowly let go off it.

In the closet

I didnt tell anyone in my surroundings about this, especially not my parents, as I knew this would be heartbreaking for them and my environment.

In that summer I went for the second time to Israel but this time for a shorter period. Again I had a great time, met a lot of people, learned a lot of new things and was happy to be close to what appealed to me.

Away from home

After that summer I went to study from September until January in Istanbul at its prestigious Bogazici University. It would be the first time I lived on my own and I was really looking forward to it.

My hopes were confirmed I had the most wonderful time overthere and again underwent quite a transformation.

While being there I think I attended church for 3-4 times in 4 months so I didnt have much influence from Christians around me. But the strange thing was that I didnt miss it, I didnt miss going to church and being involved as I didnt really feel at home in church, I felt too different.

In Istanbul a lot of my former boundaries were stretched, well perhaps just simply, crossed. I do not wish to go into details but several things which I would have never done a couple of months before I went, I did overthere. Not terrible things, I didnt use drugs or anything:P but well just different.

During my time overthere I continued to read and explore and the pull towards Judaism increased. During December I went again to Israel (I have a very generous father:D) and stayed there for 10 days, where I again had an exciting period, though this time I felt a bit more akward than before.

I felt this pull towards Judaism and a desire to identify myself with it but at the same time realised that this was not possible. The first reason being that I believed Jesus to be the awaited Messiah, the second for social reasons.

I returned to Istanbul and finished my time overthere. In the mean time I got to know this very special girl, and fell deeply in love with her:) the only complication besides the fact that she lived in Istanbul was that she did not share my beliefs, besides belief in God… but well her beautiful character and pure inner-being attracted me so much (not to mention that she is extremely beautiful:P) that I couldnt let her go anymore.

Back in Holland

So back in Holland, I continued my readings and got in touch with more academic works and at the same time I was reading a lot of Jewish books, but whereas I did so before with the motive of understanding Jesus better, I slowly started to read them for their own sake, that is to say, I read them because I considered them valuable on their own. My view of Judaism shifted from being a means to an end towards being an end in itself.

Academic approach

At the same time the academic works took over the place of the more popular and conservative works I was reading and hence abolished much of my traditional faith in the divinity of the Scriptures.

Naturally this way of approaching the text, I didnt apply only to the Christian reading but also to the Jewish reading and as a result grew skeptical of much of the traditional understanding of the text.

So I think we have arrived after 2326 words to the point I am at today:) which is probably somewhere close to the sign #

Judaism      # |         Christianity

In ideology I identify myself much more with some kind of version of Modern-Orthodox Judaism, but I do maintain the idea of Jesus being the Messiah and because of that I retain a connection to Christianity, though the church councils would probably deem me a heretic.

So looking back on this post what are your thoughts on where I am heading? I personally dont really know, somewhere deep inside I hope for a place of peace, internally as well as externally (i.e. my social environment) but it seems quite remote for now.

Quote on blogging

The term “blog” is short for weblog and covers everything from expert analysis on a particular topic to the amateurish jottings of people who really should get out more.

Tony Harcup, Journalism (London: Sage Publications Ltd, 2009), p. 66

Interesting posts on the net

Here are some posts I found interesting:

• Did Jesus claim to be God by James McGrath @ Exploring our Matrix

He basically puts up the question and makes some preliminary notes.

• Gates of Favor by Aaron Eby @ Messianics for Torah

A translation of a poem for Rosh Hashanah, very interesting how it emphasises the binding of Isaac, and a very good translation as well

And then there are the latest blogposts by FFOZ on their change in stance on Torah observance for non-Jews:

• The Lone Voice of FFOZ by Daniel Lancaster @ FFOZ Blogs

They posted about 6-7 posts which are all quite interesting and remind me a lot of my own journey a bit more than a year ago. In some way I wished they realized this earlier as I was very influenced by them and made some pretty big changes to my life on basis of what they taught me. Some of these things very good but some of these had very bad consequences and in light of that I wish I came in contact with them while having this stance instead of their former stance.

For a preliminary evaluation see this blogpost

• FFOZ’s New Theology of Divine Invitation by Geert ter Horst @ Messianic613

In which he takes a brief look on the categories of Jews and non-Jews in 2nd Temple Judaism, the NT, todays Judaism and relates this to the Divine Invitation concept.

Feathers of a living creature

I saw on the news today that IKEA has stopped buying feathers for their pillows from certain suppliers as these suppliers pluck the feathers from gooses and ducks while they are alive. It was reported in a certain documentary that in China some sellers pluck these animals about three times before they slaughter them.

Now you would think, whats the big deal, we are shearing sheep as well but apparently plucking feathers hurts about as much as plucking hair from human beings and is forbidden when it comes to these animals.

One of the seven laws of Noah (the laws that are encumbent on all mankind) is prohibiting the consumption of a limb of a living creature. And while this is of course not the same as severing a limb I think the practice would fall under this prohibition as these seven laws of Noah are better reckoned as categories of commandments than single commandments.

Short thought on the limits of symbolism

I was thinking about the symbolism of the Lord’s supper:

Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

Now obviously its strictly forbidden to eat a human being’s flesh or consume any living beings blood, in Maimonides list of commandments, it is negative commandment no: 184.

184. Not to consume blood, as [Leviticus 7:26] states: “Do not consume any blood.”

And needless to say Jesus does not mean one should literally consume his blood but only symbologically. Yet I wonder whether this kind of symbolical language is common in Rabbinic Literature. I cant say I really looked out for it so might have overlooked it but dont remember any analogy or symbolical language in which the forbidden was used to make a point.

Any thoughts or insights?

Paul’s Christology

I was planning a post on this for a long time but held back as I expected a big discussion to follow which I didnt (and still dont) have time for.

This post is mainly in response to several posts on Michael Whitenton’s blog, who upon reviewing James McGrath’s The Only True God came to some interesting conclusions.

Interestingly enough he has talked about two passages that have influenced me in the past a lot as well.

The first one being:

1 Cor 3:21-23 So let no one boast in men. For all things are yours, 22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, 23 and you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.

and the second:

1 Cor 8:5-6 “For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Let me start with the second passage:

As you can see I highlighted what I think is important, there is one God = the Father and one Lord = Jesus Christ, in this phrasing it seems implausible that Lord stands for the Divine Name of God, Y/H/V/H, that would just not fit, rather it seems that by distinguishing between the Father and Jesus Christ, the term Lord refers to the hebrew אדון which can be translated by for example “master”.

This too would fit much more within Judaism where it is blasphemous to equate a human being with the God of Israel. I know many dont care much about what Judaism considers blasphemous as its only informative but in no wise authorative. In some sense theres traces of this attitude already within the NT but not to the extent of today or even the 2nd century where Ignatius writes in his epistle to the Romans: “according to the love of Jesus Christ our God”

Although exclusive devotion to one rabbi over against other rabbi’s may be looked upon suspiciously by some branches in Judaism, in Hasidic Judaism it is very common to elevate a particular rabbi and elevate him above other rabbi’s. The Lubavitcher Rebbe is an example but there have been many others as well.

In that sense I think Chabadniks could say there is only one God, our Father, and one Rebbe, Schneerson without compromising their strict monotheism. The idea however of saying there is only one God, the Father, and one Y/H/V/H, Schneerson or whatever rabbi would never occur in a Torah observant Jew’s mind. Which I believe Paul was to some extent too.

I know some will, based on a superficial reading of Hasidic texts, argue that Chabadniks believe the Rebbe to be God, but mainstream understanding within Chabad-Lubavitch and certainly within larger Judaism repeals this notion.

The ending of the verse is also open to more than one interpretation:

“…through whom are all things and through whom we exist.”

One explanation would be to see this in the way that Jesus has divine prerogatives and this then is seen as an indication of his divinity. I would rather argue that this should be read in a sense of: “on account of”.

Which is similar to the statement in Berachot 17b:

“The whole world is sustained by Chanina my son…”

Which in some way leads noone to believe that Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa was divine. As it is simply an expression of Gods appreciation for his merits, a biblical example of this are the 10 righteous persons in Sodom that lead God to turn away from pouring out his wrath. In a sense the people in Sodom were alive on account of their merit.

For some this may be too much creativity and go against the plain sense but I think its important to consider alternative readings.

Feel free to offer alternatives of problems you see with my reading…

Define yourself

People like to know who they are talking to, this often happens in the form of categorization, where on the basis of certain things a person is put into a box. Why this is done, I dont really know, maybe because we prefer simplicity and dont like it when we encounter something that doesnt fit within our preconceived views.

I notice myself that I dont like it when people try that on me but that I myself am doing it as well.

A couple of days ago I was told, “leave the Jewish stuff, just go back to Church, get your New Testament and be a good Christian, dont think too much, religion just isnt logical”.

My friend told me this because to him it didnt make sense that I was in between Judaism and Christianity, you were either a Jew or a Christian but not some sort of mix. He agreed that a complete embrace sometimes doesnt feel good as you know there are things lacking but responded to this by saying that religion just isnt logical.

While I can agree that religion isnt perfectly logical on all accounts, I do disagree with it being totally irrational, and think that at least some forms or expressions do exhibit logic and make a reasonable picture of the world.

But the wish for simplicity is shared, I too long for a peaceful and not complicated inner life but I dont want to discard my mind for the sake of that.

Dont get me wrong, for someone to do so, is perfectly fine, however after all Ive read I can hardly turn back again to how I used to be and pretend I dont know about it.

On the other hand sometimes when I think about the future and a family-life, I come up with the question of how I will teach my children? Am I going to say to them, look its like this, but well you can also look at it from this side and theres also this opinion.. in some way thats probably what I will do and I like the way the Rabbi’s used to comment on a dispute or argument by saying:

אלו ואלו דברי האלקים חיים

“These and these are the words of the living God”

That doesnt mean theres no absolute truth, but in many cases there are multiple interpretations and one doesnt necessarily exclude the other. In a sense you would also teach a child to appreciate diversity in that way and developing a critical mind.

Still my aim is to get as close as I can to truth and I sometimes think God values the effort more than the end-result.

Rabbi Yose and Arius

While studying Rashi I came across an interesting comment of his on Deut 1:13

Provide yourselves men who are wise and understanding and well known to your tribes, and I shall appoint them as your heads.

(WISE) AND UNDERSTANDING – They can logically derive one thing from another. This is what Arius asked the Tanna R’ Yose about, when he asked, “What is the difference between ‘those who are wise’ and ‘those who are understanding’?” R’ Yose answered, ” ‘One who is wise’ is like a moneychanger. When they bring him dinars to examine, he examines. And when they do not bring him money to examine, he sits and wonders, i.e., he bides his time. ‘One who is understanding’ is like an enterprising moneychanger. When they bring him money to examine, he examines. And when they do not bring him money to examine, he goes about and brings in business on his own. Rashi ad loc.

This is quite remarkable, the footnote relates that this is the Arius, one of the great heretics in church history who taught, among other things, that the Son was not of the same substance as the Father and that he was not eternally begotten.

Whether this encounter historically took place can be questioned but lets assume for a moment that an encounter ocurred between Arius and a prominent Rabbi.

What made Arius inquire of the Rabbi? Furthermore why this question? Did encounters like this often take place? And if not, why did he pose a simple question like that and not something more difficult or perhaps something that he could not find an answer to among his Christian colleagues? Did he perhaps have more frequent encounters? If so, could these have influenced his ideas concerning the nature of God and the messiah?

To my knowledge this is the only theologian that is recalled by name in Rashi’s commentary on the Chumash, and not refuted. Could this imply some sort of sympathy for Arius?

While browsing the net I found that the Lubavitcher Rebbe also made some comments on this:

What was special about Rabbi Yose? The Gemara (Gittin 67a) tells us that Rabbi Yose always pursued the logical explanations for his opinions. Throughout Torah his system of study emphasized the need for clear logic and reason. Other Tannaim also pursued the logic of their teachings, but often when the ultimate intellectual explanation of a particular halachic ruling eluded them, they would rely on the principle that “if it is the halachah we accept it” (without understanding).

Rabbi Yose was not satisfied with that approach, and always demanded complete intellectual understanding, therefore, when it is Rabbi Yose who tells us that Moshe had to seek out truly understanding judges, we can understand his particular emphasis on this quality. [And since Rashi quotes the Sifri, it is clear that Rashi is in fact referring to Rabbi Yose the Tanna.]

So, when the sharp student asks why it is necessary to put so much effort into finding truly understanding judges, Rashi responds: First of all take note that this question was raised by a gentile, “Arius asked Rabbi Yose,” for after all, when the Torah says you must find men of understanding how can a Jew possibly think, “Why bother”?! The Jew must seek intellectual justification and rationalization but not harbor the opposite assumption?! This can only stem from “the goy that is within you.”

Nevertheless, since the Sifri considers the question and responds — it legitimatizes even this question. By mentioning the name of the questioner, Arius, Rashi stresses this point. The name Arius includes the letters of the word Or — light — symbolizing wisdom. For wisdom allows an honest question in understanding and being that Rabbi Yose responded and explained the need for understanding men, we realize that his answer is very specific and significant, for Rabbi Yose always sought understanding. Sichos In English, Volume 32, Shabbos Parshas Devorim, 4th Day Of Menachem Av, 5746

Furthermore the Lubavitcher Rebbe thought that this question concerned the Trinity saying that:

The difference between unity and trinity in Arius’s philosophy may be analogous to the difference between secular wisdom and understanding. Unity symbolizes the unitary spark of wisdom, while trinity alludes to the three stages of understanding.Therefore, Arius who represented unity (wisdom) questioned and challenged the “understanding” of trinity. Ibid.

Can you imagine, the Lubavitcher Rebbe during one of the farbrengens expounding on Arius:P

Whatever sparked Arius and Rabbi Yose’s exchange it would have been very interesting to be present during their conversation.

Holidays:)

I wish everybody nice summer holidays, and for those that are going to travel a safe journey.

I am done, thank God, with my bachelors in Economics and am getting ready to fly out tomorrow for a long holiday in Turkey

Blessings!

Daniel

Missionary activity

Yesterday I read an article in the Jerusalem Post, subtitled “Watch out missionaries”, about how Messianic Jews were being harrassed in Arad by local Gerrer Hasidim. The reporter wrote of the hardships the Messianics had to endure, ranging from being threathened and cursed on the street to having their buildings burnt down.

This wasnt the first time I heard about this, when I was in Israel I spoke to a pastor in Beersheva who told me firsthand how they were consistently harrassed and threathened and how one time the congregation was stormed, and he was thrown in the baptismal font!

These stories are disheartening, especially upon hearing how the Police doesnt involve itself very much…

However, there is another side to these stories, which I think should also be taken into account:

While in Israel volunteering in a soupkitchen I got to know a girl who worked there full-time. She was quite desperate for love – which I wasnt going to give her, besides normal friendship – but one day she told me that she went to see the dentist and while sitting in the lobby got to know this very friendly woman that also believed in Jesus but was Jewish.

This made me a bit uncomfortable as many Messianic Jews in Israel were simply Evangelicals with Jewish blood, which is not bad in itself, but in my opinion far from desirable.

I knew the girl was vulnerable, she had lost both of her parents, had problems with her eyes and just longed for friendship and love. Hence I was expecting the woman at the dentist and her fellow congregants to take advantage of her situation by extending her the love and friendship she desired, in order to convert her.

I returned home and came to Israel a couple of months later to hear the rest of the story:

At first it was nice, she was warmly welcomed and felt loved, and after some time she started to believe, but then noticed that they were trying to get her married to a Messianic Jew so that she would stay. That made her uncomfortable and the people werent so friendly anymore when she didnt cooperate, and she resolved to leave behind all this “Jesus-stuff” and never return again.

Though a case in itself, I think its important that this is known, that things like this happen, that counter-missionaries are not making everything up. Needless to say its not true that every Messianic Jew is a missionary hunting for prey but there are vulnerable people targeted, who are often not given the chance to make a well thought out decision.

Hence I can understand the tireless efforts made by organizations like Jews for Judaism or Yad L’Achim. That doesnt mean I agree with their methods, I am in the end a Christian as well, but if the tables would be turned and vulnerable souls among my family and friends would be targeted, I would surely also speak up.

Again note that Im not sanctioning their actions, Im just saying that their frustration is based on something real.

See also this article written by the director of Jews for Judaism that attempts to lay out why they are combatting missionaries. Interestingly, she herself was involved in the Messianic world as well before she converted (back) to Judaism.

“Part of Gods plan”

While reading the Qur’an I came across a verse that reminded me of something Paul wrote, the verse in the Qur’an read:

We have put covers over their hearts, so they cannot understand the Qur’an, and We have put heaviness in their ears: although you call them to guidance they will never accept it. Sura 18:57b

The passage by Paul I was reminded of is:

Lest you be wise in your own sight, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. Romans 11:25

When reading this I get the feeling that Paul is responding to the obvious question raised by his audience: “why did the majority of the Jewish people reject Jesus as the Messiah?” or something like “if its so evident that he is the Messiah, what happened to the endorsement?”

The Qur’an also seems to respond to a similar question, “if the Qur’an is the clear revelation from God then why do many people not accept it?”

But why is it answered in this way particular way? Why is it ascribed to God’s plan?

Im thinking a reason could be that a large part of the people that were rejecting it werent irrational or stubborn and that in some way that had to be accounted for to the respective audiences.

Thus by ascribing their rejection to part of the plan of God, the incomprehensible irrationality on the part of the people is solved, and the people no longer have to be considered deliberately stubborn.