Quote on the Redemption

Judaism, in all its forms and manifestations, has always maintained a concept of redemption as an event which takes place publicly, on the stage of history and within the community. It is an occurence which takes place in the visible world and which cannot be conceived apart from such a visible appearance. In contrast, Christianity conceives of redemption as an event in the spiritual and unseen realm, an event which is reflected in the soul, in the private world of each individual, and which effects an inner transformation which need not correspond to anything outside.

-Gershom Scholem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism (New York: Schocken, 1995)

Basic Questions…

Im having difficulty answering some very basic and fundamental questions around Jesus (and many other things).

This is troubling me because I used to have clear-cut answers and little to no doubt about them.

Basic questions would include the following three (which are of course interrelated):

1. Who is Jesus?

2. Why was he sent?

3. Why is he the Messiah?

Answers I would have given a couple of years ago would have been something like this:

1. The Son of God (in the Trinitarian sense), the Messiah

2. To save me and others from our sins and enable us to get to heaven

3. Because he fulfilled over a 100 prophecies in their very details and was resurrected, and because the Bible says so!

Answers I would give today would be something like this:

1. Rabbi from Galilee

2. To preach repentance to his generation

3. I dont know if he is. At least not as I knew it before. I see various obstacles to believing that he was the Messiah. The biggest of which is the lack of empirical change in this world after his coming. In this sense, Constantine was more a messiah and the Roman-Catholic church after him.

It hurts me that I cannot answer these simple questions and even though I know I have myself chosen which books to read, I dont feel that I deliberately have been going about trying to lose faith in his messiahship. And note that I did not give up on him. I just feel like there has been a growing distance between Jesus and me and that this is mainly the result of giving up the idea of the Incarnation and the Trinity.

Im now thinking of how I can get excited about Jesus again but whenever I pick up the NT and read about him, Im so distracted by all the side issues in the text that I cannot sit down and simply enjoy what he is saying. What he has to say about ethics is interesting and very good teaching but there are numerous parallels to this in Rabbinic literature and in this sense is not very unique. His constant stress on the end is hard to take over as the end of Jerusalem was really dawning on his generation but I personally have difficulty, in a practical sense, to prepare myself for the end as it feels not very close.

Any suggestions how to deal with this? Perhaps you have been or are going through this, if so, please share.

The Jewish No to Jesus & the NT response(s)

The Jewish no to Jesus was and remains problematic for those that consider themselves to be his disciples. It was problematic because the Jews around the time of Jesus were best placed to know the scriptures (best relatively to their gentile neighbours) and to evaluate whether he fulfilled the criteria that was established through their tradition. And it remains problematic because many have started to realize that Judaism isnt simply a religion of works, devoid of grace and that their objections to Christianity are sometimes quite substantial.

The NT authors also had to deal with the negative response to their Master and Paula Fredriksen (2000, 49) suggests that broadly the authors responded as following:

• Mark: because Jesus did not want them to respond
• Matthew: their rejection was predicted in the scriptures hence they actually confirmed his status
• Luke-Acts: many Jews did in fact join and the ones that didnt join did so because they didnt want to share Jesus’ message with any other people (i.e. non-Jews)
• John: sees the Jews as children of darkness and the Devil and hence could never have followed Jesus
• Paul: their hearts are hardened by God until the full number of the non-Jews are grafted in

What do you make of the rejection of the Jews?

Resurrected but not the Messiah?

Over the weekend I read The Resurrection of Jesus: a Jewish perspective by the late Professor Pinchas Lapide. Its a short read and certainly one I would recommend.

In this book, Pinchas Lapide, who was an Orthodox Jew, argues in favour of the resurrection of Jesus as a historical event. Ill leave the book to explain how he does it but it basically comes down to there being no better explanation for the response of the Disciples after Jesus’ death and the movement that was raised up. Significantly he sees their willingness to die for this message.

He sees this as a thoroughly Jewish response and does not believe they made it up or were hallucinating, but that actually something took place. Being a historian, he does not say it certainly happened, but that it probably happened as it accounts best for their reaction and that any other explanation simply fails to explain how they came to be proclaiming this message and were giving their lives for it.

Whats interesting is that he does not believe this makes Jesus the awaited Messiah of Israel. He does not go very much into this but in his epilogue he simply states that the resurrection, though an act of God, does not lead him to being the Messiah.

I think this is fascinating and I dont really get how he can maintain this. Granted that Jesus was not the only one to be raised but he was the only to be raised and never died again, right? I do think he mentions that people being taken up into heaven are also no novelty to the history of Israel but I still dont quite get how he is able to detach these two things.

Paula Fredriksen also mentions that the resurrection as perceived* by the apostles was not taken as a sign for his Messiahship, she writes:

Why, finally, did these apostles see Jesus as the messiah? Not because of his resurrection. That event signaled, rather, the nearness of the End, since at the End the dead (or perhaps only the righteous dead) were to be raised. It thus confirmed Jesus’ message [of the nearness of the End], and consequently his status as messenger. But nowehere did Judaism anticipate a dying and rising messiah; and the apostles, like Paul after them (Rom 1:3-4), would have no reason to infer from his resurrection that Jesus was the messiah. (From Jesus to Christ, 2000, p. 141)

I personally havent encountered this line of thought before, anyone familiar with this?

*do note that she does not hold like Pinchas Lapide that it probably happened but consistently writes about “their experiences”

Verdict of the Jewish people

In one of the responses to my questions on the NT, the following was brought forth:

I would give priority, instead, to the historical existence of a people which has consistently imagined itself called by the living God to embrace and manifest his presence and which has attempted to articulate that imagination secondarily through the biblical texts – and of course through subsequent theological and prophetic traditions. (comment on OST by Andrew)

This is an interesting way of looking at the NT, or the community but led me to the following question:

The people who imagined theirselves as called by the living God to embrace and manifest his presence  are in the first place Israel, or the Jewish people, and throughout the ages we see them being led by God, and although at times severely rebuked, never forsaken. Though at times they follow false gods, God keeps them, as they are his chosen people. Yet these people[1], at large, rejected Jesus and although all happened in front of their eyes did not choose to cast their lot upon him. Apart from the argument that they have a veil in front of their eyes[2], what are we to make of the ‘original’  peoples rejection?  We accepted their ultimate choices as the right ones (before we took over![3]) and can trace a line that is albeit with some breaks along the road, fairly consistent in its following of God. Yet the decision they have made 2,000 years ago, we consider faulty and one of which they havent recovered yet, but has something like that been witnessed before in their existence? Or could it be that they are right in their persistence and that God keeps them on their track?

———————————————————-

[1] Im well aware that the first disciples were part of the Jewish people, my question is concerning the majority of the Jewish people, which certainly did not belong to the movement of Jesus but rejected his claim for messiahship.

[2]Or the idea that their hearts have been hardened by God.

[3]In a sense we, or Christianity, took over and see itself/ourselves as the continuation of that people.

Converting to Judaism III

This is post is continued from two previous posts; I, II

In this post ill give what I see as a problem attached to converting to Judaism.

Heres the problem:

If you reject Yeshua as Messiah, why not go further and reject the whole of Judaism as well.

STOP you would say, this is an error in your reasoning, but wait, let me explain.

When one reads the Tanakh it becomes apparent that there is a development, I mean one cannot conceal his eyes for the fact that todays Judaism is very different from Moses’ Judaism[1][2], or David’s Judaism, or Jeremiah’s Judaism, and although this in itself is not negative, on the contrary, we believers, consider it to be a legitimate and G’dly guided development, this shows that there is room for religion to be externally influenced and undergo change (albeit slowly and in mostly the same direction).

What has this to do with “rejecting Judaism” (Q) as a consequent of “rejecting Yeshua” (P)? (P=>Q) [3]

It is tied to the most common reason for rejecting Yeshua as Messiah; the ‘discrepancy’ (forgive me Im biased:P) between the NT and the Tanakh, mainly found in descriptions by the Prophets of who the Messiah would be, how he would act, what would happen when he’d come, etc.

The best objection that is posed is:

if Messiah has come why isnt there peace on earth? Isnt it written [...]and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.

And this objection is a very good one! Id say by far the best objection one can pose. Why, if my Rabbi is indeed the Messiah, isnt their peace on earth? Being a Christian (albeit an odd one:P), I know our answer pretty well We say, no but look at Isaiah Ch. 53, the Suffering Servant, this was prophesied to come to pass and has, and at his second coming, the other prophecies will be fulfilled. But how much evidence do we have for this? Very little, in general prophecies concerning Messiah are scarce, and those that would indicate two comings are even more hard to be found. [4]

Nevertheless, from my point of view, the events that took place around the person Yeshua of Nazareth, as recorded by the NT[5], sound credible enough for him to be made a candidate in the race for the Messiah [6]. So even though some of the thought that is presented in the NT may appear not to flow fluently with the Tanakh, theres a general direction that is very much in line with the previous revelation (see an earlier post of my take on how to approach the NT here).

Again, there are many ‘discrepancies’[7] in the Tanakh (thank G’d for Rashi!), yet we dont dismiss it altogether. Similarly, although at some points the NT presents a developed thought (or in the words of others: foreign thought), e.g. the Suffering Servant, or an emphasis on the role of G’ds spirit in the life of the believer, or conceptually, as the spirit-christology that is more apparent in the Synoptics as opposed/in complement to the logos-christology that is posed by the Johanine writings, this is not sufficient criteria for dismissing it, as the Tanakh is full with this. Examples of these would be the shift from ethnos to ethno-religion[8], the change in who constituted part of the nation of Israel[9] but also as my friend Geert ter Horst pointed out to me, the difference between Ezekiel the Prophet’s description of the future Temple and the Tanakh’s prescriptions.

I know Im not really convicing in this post, but let me share a real life example, I had a friend who was on a similar path as me, call it “the Christian for Moses-path”, but when critically examining the NT in relation to the Tanakh, that is, holding the Tanakh to be constant and thus not open to internal critique, but solely looking between the NT and the Tanakh, he found that it was not compatible with each other. He pressed for conversion but the Rabbi slowed him down and suggested Noahidism. Yet while pursuing this, and continuing his studies in the Tanakh, he found that if he were to use his rhetoric in the same way as he did previously, he couldnt hold onto Judaism either, as internally the Tanakh didnt seem to be compatible, and he didnt.

Does this prove my point? Not really, as you could find fault with his reasoning, yet I do think this is not necessarily an illogical step.

—————————————————————

[1] Theres a midrash about how if Moses would come into the Synagogue today, he wouldnt understand anything of it and people would have to explain it to him. This, I think, indicates the Sages z”l acknowledging the difference between todays Judaism and Moses’ Judaism instead of claiming it to be the unchanged form (although often todays Judaism is forced back into the text, but this is understandable as this is somewhat demanded for making it a ‘work-able’ concept).

[2] Im aware that its anachronistic to use the term “Judaism” but use it anyways for comfort sake

[3] Im supposed to study for my mathematical logic class now but am writing for my blog, in this way I ease my conscience by still doing something in relation to my course:P

[4] Wouldnt know of one actually… granted, the idea of a suffering servant and conquering king lends credence to the thought, one could say that the existence of those two concepts necessitates two comings but a specific verse or passage for this, I wouldnt know.

[5] One could easily throw in some Biblical Criticism to debunk the NT, however the same can be done to the Tanakh, and for those that have studied that issue a bit more in-depth (Biblical Criticism especially on the Torah), it is known that the results arent that well-founded.

[6] As my blog-name (Christian for Moses) indicates I believe him to be the actual promised Messiah of Israel.

[7] I put discrepancies between inverted commas, as I dont mean real discrepancies (although in some details there may be), but rather, seeming differences in concepts, these being mainly additions that are of a complementary nature.

[8] See Shaye D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), pp. 109-39

[9] Before the Babylonian exile people were mainly defined by descent and territory, to be an Israelite, one had to be either descended from Jacob or be a non-Jew living in the territory of the land of Israel (while accepting its governance). The boundary between Jews and non-Jews was mainly based on moral-religious grounds and thus permeable if one would live in ways that were in line with the religious morality of the nation of Israel. After the Babylonian exile this changed, descent became the chief factor in defining the nation and non-Jews living in the land of Israel were no longer regarded as part of the nation of Israel regardless of their observance.

On Yeshua; who is he?

While in Israel I have heard quite some opinions on who my Rabbi was, below are some comments:

A secular Israeli girl said:

didnt he hate us?

A Modern-Orthodox Jew said:

Its not even sure he ever existed

Same Modern-Orthodox Jew said:

Some say he was a Sadducee

Yeshiva bachur said:

Disciple of Rabbi Meir, very learned in Torah

Modern-Orthodox Jewish girl said:

I only know he was a talmid chacham

Another Modern-Orthodox Jew said:

A great Rav

I didnt take interviews as most of the times while talking, people would give their opinions when I told them I was a Christian. Most of them agreed that he was a Jew and observed the Torah and did not intend to start a new religion.

So what do I personally say about my Rabbi? I personally think Peter’s words [in Acts 2:22] are very well put:

Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by G’d with mighty works and wonders and signs that G’d did through him in your midst

Building fences

As I was looking into my newly acquired Mishayot Meirot on Berachot I came across an explanation of the first Mishna from Rav Ovadiah MiBartenura zt”l that I found interesting and worth commenting on.

Ill start by translating the verse and his commentary on it:

מאימתי קורין את שמע בערבית: משעה שהכוהנים נכנסים לאכול בתרומתן, עד סוף האשמורת הראשונה, דברי רבי אליעזר. וחכמים אומרים, עד חצות. רבן גמליאל אומר, עד שיעלה עמוד השחר.

From when recite the Shema in the evening? From the hour that the Priests enter the eating of the offerings, until the end of the watch of the first, the words of Rabbi Eliezar. And the Sages say, until midnight. Rabban Gamliel says: until the first light/dawn ascends.

Rav Ovadiah comments on the last words as spoken by Rabban Gamliel are:

עד שיעלה עמוד השחר – דכל הלילה מקרי זמן שכיבה. והלכה כרבן גמליאל, שגם חכמים מודים לו, ולא אמרו “עד חצות” אלא כדי להרחיק את האדם מן העבירה.

until the first light/dawn ascends – All of the night in Scripture is [referring to] time of lying down. And the halacha is according to Rabban Gamliel [in] which also the Sages agree with him, and they said not “until midnight” but [only] in order to distance the man from the transgression.

What I found interesting in his comments is his explanation as to why the Sages said until midnight, he says the reason was in order to distance man from transgressing. Im quite sure this is an example of what is meant by the Men of the Great Assembly:

…and make a fence around the Torah.

Its these words coupled with the methodology as shown above that make me believe my Rabbi, Yeshua of Nazareth, is part of this religion and way of thinking. Consider His words in the Sermon on the Mount, many theologians would say He is placing Himself above Moses and others see this sermon as evidence that the ‘new’ Law has arrived. But I dont think they are right, rather my Rabbi was creating fences by his directives.

Knowing that killing stems from hatred, He says:

everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.

Knowing that adultery stems from visual attraction, He says:

everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.

He is in no wise putting himself above Moses, but rather is building fences around the Torah of Moses and thus in the same way as the Sages distancing man from the transgression.

 

UPDATE: a couple of days after writing this post I browsed a bit further and found that the Mishnah itself gives this explanation a couple of verses later: אם כן, למה אמרו חכמים עד חצות–אלא כדי להרחיק את האדם מן העבירה

If so, why said the Sages “until midnight” — but [they said this], in order to distance the man from the transgression

Which makes me wonder why Rav wrote this comment anyway, as it appears in the Mishnah itself a couple of verses later.. any ideas?

Converting to Judaism? II

This post is continued from a previous post, see here.

After some discussion on why I thought it was impossible for me to convert, they asked the following question:

What makes you believe that Jesus is the Messiah? And rephrased, “whats the significance of His Messiahship?”

So I responded by saying that I believed He had fulfilled various prophecies, I didnt go into detail but named especially Isaiah Ch.53. I then proceeded by talking about how His resurrection by G’d was a very important part of the evidence, but then didnt proceed to expound on it because it seemed quite difficult to communicate this to someone who is not really acquainted with this history and thinks most of the Apostolic Writings, if not all, are corrupted.

Thus I proceeded to His atonement.

I said its through the death of the Messiah that G’d has reconciled the world to Himself. I said “the Messiah has been made the korban for all those who trust/believe in Him”. However I immediately weakened my own argument by noting the Ramban’s response; “why are the curses that originated from the seperation still here”.

I talked about how Messiah’s sacrifice was made in the heavenly Tabernacle and how theres thus no problem if sacrifices are resumed, but did quite a poor job in explaining all this.

In the end, I said זה קשה מאוד, and its true, its very difficult to communicate this knowing their responses in advance and actually seeing some merit in them. 

He said to me, “you’ve studied alot on your own but I think its time for you to continue your studies with a Rabbi or some Jewish institute”. I responded a bit sarcastic, “you mean Chabad or Aish haTorah?”. He said “well maybe you could take a year off and come study here in Israel”. To which I responded, “the end result of this seems quite clear to me” (i.e. rejection of my Rabbi and conversion). He asked why I thought that would be the case. So I explained that with such signficant external factors there would be little objective search for evidence.

I mean, when you actually live or participate to some extent in the Jewish community you cannot escape the attraction. I was there for only ten days and already felt this heavy attraction, קל וחומר when youre there for a year!

Dont I like the idea? Obviously there are some parts I like of the idea, I mean being part of the Jewish community brings so many benefits if not only for the very fact that its virtually impossible to live a lifestyle close to the Torah in the absence of a community. And I think this actually reflects a big theological difference between Christianity and Judaism.

In Christianity, at least in the Protestant tradition, theres much emphasis on the relationship between the individual and G’d, and this relationship is mainly accentuated by various dogma’s or creeds that are believed in. An example of this among Pentecostalists would be to ask the question whether one believes that the gifts of the spirit are for today, an example among Reformists would be to ask whether one believes that he is saved by grace alone.

This is all so foreign to the question that Jewish people ask among each other; you keep Shabbat? you daven? Obviously the answers to these questions indicate some of the beliefs that are associated with the level of observance, an example would be whether or not they believe in TMS, but theres much more emphasis on deeds and the relationship of the community as a whole wrt G´d. This too, is one of the things that makes me feel attracted to Judaism.

So Im living in the paradox, or as some call it, no-man’s land, but for now, Im ok with it, if this is the only way to follow my Rabbi, then so be it. I recall His words:

Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head

May it be His will that I will live up to the words of Peter:

Though they all fall away because of you, I will never fall away

ואמרו אמן

Converting to Judaism?

While in Israel Ive been asked about 30 times whether I wanted to convert to Judaism. My persistent answer has always been a resolute no. So I ask myself why do they ask this to me and not to just every tourist that comes to their country. To be sure theres good reason to ask me, I show a lot of interest in Judaism and share most of their beliefs. So the obvious question becomes “why not?”.

There was this time I was sitting at a family’s house and they asked me the question again, it was an open dialogue no pressure but just a desire to understand what was going on inside of me. So I explained I dont want to convert for two reasons, one, and this is the biggest reason, my belief that Jesus of Nazareth is the promised Messiah is not acceptable within Judaism, a great teacher maybe, but definitely not Messiah, and two, Im content being non-Jewish, I say “if G’d wanted me to be Jewish I would be born Jewish”. But again number 1 is the decisive one.

Still my interest or even love for Judaism continues, theres this attraction that pulls me, and I know Im contributing to it. I dont want it, I considered stopping for a while with all the studying in Jewish texts and just buy myself a set of Christian books:) I mean its quite logical when you read about 10 Jewish books to 1 Christian book you’ll find yourself being pursuaded or at least acclimated to the former.

So what is it that attracts me…

It certainly is their Torah and especially their tradition, its so rich and provides such a good framework for life, such a framework I miss in Christianity. Not only that but it seems to be the religion of my Rabbi, He seems to fit in so well, His words and life belong in that religion. Obviously the Sages z”l think not, and who am I to say who fits into their tradition, but really when His words are removed from under the layers that have been build on it by various church traditions they show this great Rabbi who has so much compassion for the children of Israel and is zo zealous to make them return to Hashem. Obviously He’s more than a great Rabbi and this is the dividing point; to claim that He is the awaited Messiah.

I asked the family what their thoughts were about me, where I would be in 5 years, and they respectfully responded they didnt know, but thought one of the two (i.e. Torah and Yeshua) had to give in, and seeing that I felt so attracted to Judaism and believed nearly all of it, as opposed to Christianity (at least in many ways), they saw a good chance of me converting.

Are they right? I dont think so, and certainly hope not.

One thing I must say is that I think I start to understand more how the early believers vanished, I mean the believers that were observing the Torah, if their situation is comparable to some degree to mine, its not hard to imagine how they vanished into the Church or the Synagogue.

To be continued…