Means for reaching a higher standard

I was listening to a lecture by Paula Fredriksen titled: “Sin: The Early History of an Idea“, in which she explained the development of the idea of sin. I actually googled her because of a book (From Jesus to Christ) I have been meaning to read and after the lecture am convinced I should:)

She made some comments about the development of sin and atonement via the sacrificial system and related this to the grander attitude of Jews towards non-Jews. This was all quite familiar but became more interesting when she related this to Paul; hence my blogpost.

General attitude

In general, during the second temple period, the idea was held that Jews were to observe the Torah, that consisted of the 613 commandments and non-Jews were not meant to observe those rules. What they were to observe wasnt really codified as it is today (cf. seven laws of Noah) but in general there were some ‘natural’ commandments that they were to observe (in my opinion the three cardinal sins at the very least and perhaps more that later came to be recognized as the seven laws of Noah).

These laws werent really meant to reach some kind of holiness or high standard but more to prevent society from turning into chaos. The non-Jews did not need to attain any high standard, though they werent prevented from doing so neither. In fact there were non-Jews that were attracted to this higher standard and took on more commandments than the minimum, these were called God-fearers. This was lauded but it does not look like an active outreach took place to encourage this.

A different attitude

Paul however had a different view, he held the non-Jews to a higher standard, he expected them too to aim for attaining levels of holiness and went beyond the sins that were most evident. Paula Fredriksen relates that in antiquity the sins that were mostly commented on by Jewish writers on non-Jews were fornication (sexual activity without marriage) and idolatry, but Paul started to include many more sins and in a sense erased the difference in level he expected from Jew and non-Jew.

The problem with this was that Jews had an instrument or  a means of attaining this holiness, the Torah, which commandments when observed set a person apart. The non-Jews however did not have this kind of measure and as a result had two options; 1. invent their own system of laws that would lead to holiness 2. use the measure of the Jews (i.e. the Torah).

Problems

Paul however made it even more difficult:) he re-interpreted the Torah and its commandments in a way that to this day theres no real certainty about what he believed should be observed and by who it should be observed. But lets for a moment assume he believed in the ongoing validity of the Torah (the case made by for example Mark Nanos)

In that case, the choice seems fairly simple, the non-Jews should be using the measure that was inspired by the Divine and developed in subsequent generations as this would be much more ‘biblical’ than a secular based system. But were this to happen, these non-Jews would virtually turn into Jews, which apparently didnt sit well with him either.

So perhaps some adapted form was called for, but how does one adapt a law that from its foundation knows only two classes; the Jew and non-Jew. Is it even possible to divide these laws into Jewish laws and more universalistic laws?

Invitation-based?

Im very much aware and have indeed myself some year ago come to the idea (through Flusser & vd Sandt) that it could be more in the style of an invitation based approach where a minimum is set and one is invited to take on more commandments, but the halachic system of the Torah knows of no such invitation. It knows only of either taking on the whole yoke of the Torah or not!

There is no such thing (in theory) as a gradual taking on of commandments. In fact the very nature of something being a commandment seems to disolve when its based on an invitation, as compelling as this invitation may be.

So we are left with a problem, on the one hand Paul exhorts non-Jews to attain higher standards than before but how this is to take place is not clear at all. He may say “work out your salvation with fear and trembling” but how one is to do that, he seems not to specify…

What are your thoughts on this? Assuming non-Jewish disciples of Jesus were expected to attain a higher standard than before, how were they to do this?

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…

“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.

Interesting paper by Nanos

I just read Mark Nanos’ last paper and found it very interesting. A piece I would like to share:

This position was simple, but confusing, and led to many problems for the first non-Jewish believers in the gospel of Christ, and for the Jews proclaiming this message of good as well. This created the need for a new social category to identify these believers. They were no longer idolaters, and thus no longer represented the status quo of the nations from which they came. But they were not Israelites, not Jews, and thus, not worshipers of the God of Israel on the same terms as Jews within the larger Jewish communities, or within their own idolatrous families and neighborhoods either. Yet they were to understand themselves, without becoming Jews, as fellow members of the Jewish way of life, of Judaism, of the people of G’d (cf. Acts 15). Their equal standing with Jews was legitimated by faith in Christ, the faithful representative of God’s plan to reconcile all of the nations equally. They were thus members of a certain Judaism, of a Jewish subgroup, of a Jewish coalition, of Christ-faith Judaism, the Judaism of Paul post-Damascus. [1]

I find this such a profound way of summing up what was going on at the time, and it seems that the more I try to go back to that time, as the subtitle of my blog says, back to before this became a paradox, I find myself to be a fellow member “of the Jewish way of life, of Judaism, of the people of G’d”, and even though I know that I am legitimated by the gospel, find that this social category seems to be one that is very difficult to be established.

 ———————————————————————–

[1] “The Myth of the ‘Law-free’ Paul standing between the Christians and the Jews”, Mark D. Nanos, Lecture at the ETS, 3rd of December 2008 (http://www.marknanos.com/Myth-Lawfree-12-3-08.pdf)

Our forefathers?

As I was learning Chumash & Rashi last week I came across the following comment of Rashi:

Its on Deut 26:11

And you shall rejoice in all the good that the Lord your God has given to you and to your house, you, and the Levite, and the sojourner who is among you.

Rashi says:

And the convert who is in your midst – He brings but does not recite for he is unable to say “to our forefathers”. [1]

I remember once someone told me at the Kotel that I was allowed to pray the whole Amidah, save for the phrase ואלקי אבותינו, אלקי אברהם, אלקי יצחק, ואלקי יעקב

and G’d of our forefathers, G’d of Abraham, G’d of Isaac and G’d of Jacob

This seems like a reasonable charge as Im not Jewish.

But some would argue that this is possible as a believer in Jesus and reference especially Paul for this.

For example while addressing a largely non-Jewish congregation Paul says: 

For I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink

And thus they induce from this that non-Jewish believers in Jesus can also call the Patriarchs their fathers. 

Im not sure if this is rightfully so, at least not on the basis of this phrase, as even though he says our fathers, this does not necessarily mean he includes his audience in ‘our’, he could simply be using this phrase as he is teaching from within the Jewish camp. And this is not a stretch, think of a business presentation, it would be unlikely to hear a representative talk in the singular. Similarly the position he takes in his letter could be reflecting the Jewish believers in Jesus teaching a largely non-Jewish congregation, who they see as brothers albeit in a different way than their ethnic brothers.

When it comes to considering the possibility to call Abraham as their father, in a spiritual sense, I would have to concur on the basis of Paul’s writings, for he says:

That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all

But as for Isaac and Jacob, Im not sure…

 

Feel free to drop in your comments.

[1] R. Herczeg, Rashi (New York: Mesorah Publications ltd., 2007), p.272