Archive

Archive for August, 2008

Jews, Gentiles, and MJ: Whaddya Think?

August 29, 2008 derek4messiah 13 comments

I find myself repeatedly in conversation with non-Jews about Messianic Judaism. Many in particular want to ask my opinion because they know I am not Jewish, but that I am converting.

In this post, I will simply raise a few issues and then ask you to chime in. All viewpoints are welcome if stated with grace and not vitriol. You are allowed to challenge what I say . . . just be polite, is all I ask.
…………………………….

There are so many people drawn to the Jewish mission of Yeshua, which is a good name for what Messianic Judaism really is. You see, Messianic Judaism finds its origin in some ways in the book of Acts, where Peter in many ways heads up the Jewish mission and Paul the Gentile mission of the early movement.

There are a variety of positions on non-Jews and Torah in MJ circles:
(a) The Torah is for everyone and the church is in terrible error.
(b) The Torah is for everyone but this is something Christians must learn with grace as they grow in discipleship.
(c) The Torah is for Jews and also for the Ten Lost Tribes (of which many Christians believe they are members).
(d) The Torah is made up of moral, civil, and ceremonial laws with the moral laws still being in effect for all people, Jew and Gentile.
(e) The whole Torah is an obsolete covenant, remaining in the Bible for its historical value, and replaced by a new Law of Messiah consisting of a collection of laws from the New Testament.
(f) The Torah is God’s covenant with Israel, not with the nations, and it has application in many parts to the whole world, but it also has identifying marks of covenant relationship that are just for Israel (e.g., Sabbath, dietary law, circumcision, fringes, etc.).

I’m not sure I have captured all the major views. Can anyone send me a new category to add to the list?

Anyway, my view is the last one, “The Torah is God’s covenant with Israel, not with the nations, and it has application in many parts to the whole world, but it also has identifying marks of covenant relationship that are just for Israel (e.g., Sabbath, dietary law, circumcision, fringes, etc.).”

And here is a short list of practical points I wrote out in an email just this morning to a new friend:

–I do not believe that non-Jews must start living as Jews.

–I believe that God gave Israel some identity badges in Torah that are only required of Israel (Sabbath, circumcision, kosher, fringes, etc.).

–I do not agree that Acts 15:21 is saying, “Start these Gentiles with the basics and later, while attending synagogue, they will learn the rest.” (My Paul book goes over Acts 15 in some detail).

–I do believe that some non-Jews will have a calling to be involved in the Jewish mission of Yeshua in a major way.

–I do believe that God calls some people to convert and join their destiny with Israel (but this happens over time, with confirmation, and is not a hasty decision).

–I do believe God calls many non-Jews to be involved in the Jewish mission without converting.

–I believe that all Christians would benefit from learning Jewish roots and from some reclaiming of Jewish culture, especially of Passover.

So, whaddya think? Please make brief points. Excessively long comments will be deleted. It is better to make three short comments than one long one. But let’s discuss this.

Messianic Jewish Musings Wordle

August 27, 2008 derek4messiah Leave a comment

Categories: Messianic Jewish

Messianic Judaism: Values

August 27, 2008 derek4messiah 1 comment

Now for something a little different . . . At Tikvat David, we are in a series about our values and vision. As I see it, we have three meta-values in Messianic Judaism. They can be seen to spring from the words MESSIANIC JEWISH SYNAGOGUE:

MESSIANIC = Messiah
JEWISH = Torah
SYNAGOGUE = Community

Thus, to me, the three values of Messianic Judaism should place highest are Torah, Messiah, and Community.

By Torah, I mean God’s teaching. This starts with the Torah proper (Genesis through Deuteronomy). It includes the other inspired writings (Prophets, Writings, Apostles). But most importantly, in Messianic Judaism, when we speak of Torah or the Bible as a meta-value, we have in mind a particular way of reading the Bible.

You can read the Bible for many reasons (religious obligation, curiosity, historical interest, theological interest, etc.). But our way of reading the Bible, influenced by Jewish tradition, is to read the Bible halakhically, which means to read it in order to do it. From the Jewish tradition of halakhah, we learn to read the Bible as Yeshua and James recommended. We are to be doers of the word (James 1:22) and those who build our lives on Messiah’s teaching (Matt. 7:24-25).

By Messiah, of course I mean Yeshua (Jesus). But I also mean something more specific. It is not just that we value Messiah as a founder or a savior, but we recognize that God has given to Messiah all power and authority and that to be God-centered is to be Messiah-centered.

In Daniel 7:14, God hands over the kingdom to Messiah and puts all things under his feet. Our mainstream Jewish critics may say that Yeshua is an idol for us Messianics. Far from it, we are obeying God when we surrender our lives to Messiah and allow him to live through us. Our value in Messiah is not merely to recognize him, but to give up everything to follow him. When we in Messianic Judaism give up everything to follow Messiah, then the Jewish community will see something worth following.

I include myself in that little critique and I am realizing more than ever how much we need to grow in our seriousness about God and Messiah. We have not failed to bring more Jewish brothers and sisters to Messiah because we have been too Messianic, but because we have not been Messianic enough. And Messiah calls us to a life of radical love, deeds of mercy, and selflessness.

Finally, we place a value on community. Yeshua came to start a community. He chose twelve as the inner circle and built a community of a hundred and twenty in his day. And Yeshua’s teaching about community is radical. He is the one who said, “These are my mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters.” He is the one who said, “Love one another as I have loved you and by this all people will know you are my disciples.” He also said, “You are the salt of the earth,” meaning that we exist not for ourselves but for the world.

Torah. Messiah. Community.

Our movement must make the teaching of God, including tradition, a pattern to do and live out and walk in.

Our movement must place a higher value on being centered in Messiah, giving up self-will and cleaving to Messiah’s way.

Our movement must take up the call to radical community that is relational, selfless, and transforming.

Bockmuehl: Jesus’ Jewishness and the Historical Quest

August 26, 2008 derek4messiah 2 comments

Many thanks for a friendly reader who emailed me after my post, “Musings on Some Academic Portrayals of Jesus,” to point me to a handful of scholars I should consider. In particular, I wanted to see some of the best historical study (like that of John Meier and N.T. Wright, among others) combined with the pro-Judaism philosophy of E.P. Sanders. This friendly reader turned me on to Markus Bockmuehl — hence the post for today.

Also, before I move on, thanks to others who emailed encouraging thoughts. I do appreciate all who read and interact, privately or publicly, favorably or unfavorably . . .
……………………………………….

I spent half a day at the library reading and skimming parts of several of Markus Bockmuehl’s books. In particular, I spent some time in Seeing the Word: Refocusing New Testament Study and This Jesus: Martyr, Lord, Messiah. Excellent books. If you are not a theologian and want a good read on Jesus, I recommend This Jesus. Bockmuehl argues that faith and historical understanding can and do go together. The Jesus who was crucified under Pontius Pilate should not be separated from the Jesus who was raised and exalted to the right hand of God.

In particular, though, I wanted to share with you today some refreshing words from Bockmuehl about Jesus, his Judaism, and the sad fact that even the writers of the modern Historical Quest for Jesus who seem most conservative are all too willing to present Jesus as abolishing part or all of Judaism.

Not that all of these scholars will ever see this blog post in the vast array of learned works they read day in and day out, but I offer these words of Bockmuehl as a bit of a challenge to Scot McKnight, N.T. Wright, Ben Witherington, and John Meier. I have learned so much from these writers, but I find an important perspective flawed or missing in their approaches. Here are some excerpts from Bockmuehl’s Seeing the Word:

With occasional exceptions, the Christian churches have been on the whole remarkably welcoming of this more Jewish understanding of Jesus, no doubt in part by a significant increase in Christian-Jewish dialogue in the postwar period. . . . These developments and others have contributed to what is today a clear, though admittedly not unopposed, consensus: at the historical level Jesus of Nazareth is most appropriately understood in the cultural and religious setting of first-century Judaism in the land of Israel. . . .

New Testament scholars, even if they talk the talk of a Jewish Jesus, do not always walk the walk — either hijacking narrowly particular phenomena for ideological ends or more commonly continuing in blithe neglect of actual particularities in order to highlight their conveniently relativizing diversity. Challenges arise not only from historical skeptics and protagonists of the Jesus Seminar, but also from the proverbial force of old scholarly habits. It remains the case that not more than a few New Testament scholars lack a firsthand familiarity with the relevant Jewish sources and their setting . . .

[Note from Derek: I did not include the above paragraph in any way as a reflection on McKnight, Wright, Witherington, or Meier, who do have firsthand knowledge of Jewish sources.]

Whether for conventional or confessional reasons, many continue to favor the notion of Jesus’ opposition not perhaps to Judaism tout court, but certainly to the teaching of any and all Jewish individuals or groups actually known to us. This applies especially in the case of law, where many assume that at least in a handful of programmatic words and actions Jesus deliberately “broke” or “annulled” the Torah and thereby did place himself consciously over against Judaism . . . What is clear is that conservatives are often just as keen on this theme of Jesus’ superiority or separation from contemporary religious Judaism as ostensibly more liberal interpreters. Making Jesus more of a Jew may seem to have the effect of making him less of a Christian — or at any rate less of a Western Enlightenment Protestant.

[Note again from Derek: Okay, that paragraph was included as a challenge to McKnight, Wright, Witherington, and Meier -- all of whom fit into what Bockmuehl describes.]

Academic Theories about Yeshua

August 25, 2008 derek4messiah 4 comments

This is a list I am preparing for the first chapter of Messiah, a book I am working on for next year. I will add a few more examples by the time it is done. I would be glad to get feedback on any of these and see if anyone else has a different take on these scholars.
………………………………

WHO WAS YESHUA?

John Dominic Crossan – A traveling cynic, a sort of Greek philosophical teacher, who chose poverty and sought to overturn unjust social systems with his teaching. Jesus was a wisdom teacher who came to teach the end of authoritarian hierarchies, to liberate people to see the equality of all men and women, who used his magical powers to develop a following, and who was abandoned by his followers before the cross.

Marcus Borg – A “spirit person,” meaning someone who radiated a sense of being on a higher plane, in touch with God, and a channel for God’s power to come into the world. He was also a wisdom teacher subverting conventional thinking and seeking to reform Judaism. Specifically, Jesus sought to end the exclusivist, hierarchical, temple-centered Judaism in favor of a sinless Judaism, accepting of all people as they are.

Geza Vermes – A Galilean charismatic healer, whose ability to move God by his prayers was the source of his reputation.

Amy-Jill Levine – A prophet very much within Judaism whose purpose was to build egalitarian, utopian communities where members shared all things for the common good.

E.P. Sanders – A prophet of the coming kingdom who worked very much within Judaism. Jesus preached acceptance by God without repentance. Rather than repentance, Jesus called sinners to an easier path of following him, a process which would lead to goodness and transformation, but which did not make people feel rejected.

Richard Horseley – A prophet of social change whose message was intended to liberate Galilean peasantry from abuse by urban centers of power. Jesus sought to establish egalitarian, utopian communities to improve the life of the peasantry.

John Meier – A Galilean teacher at the margins of society who proclaimed the coming time of God’s rule and who was largely in agreement with Judaism.

N.T. Wright – A prophet within Judaism, who led a messianic movement to free Israel from exile by his highly symbolic death and divinely empowered resurrection. Jesus operated within Judaism, but also challenged the temple system and taught changes in the Torah for the reconstituted community of Israel.

Ben Witherington – A Jewish wisdom teacher, also of prophetic and messianic character, who saw himself as God’s wisdom incarnate. He came to teach Israel how to live in light of the coming time of God’s rule.

Is Israel Missing from Revelation? Pt. 2

August 21, 2008 derek4messiah 10 comments

Like last time, this is not an excerpt from my book, but I cover this material in chapter 6, “The Vision of John.”
……………………………

As I said last time, it seems like the Jewish Scriptures (Old Testament) give us God’s promises for Israel in the Age to Come, but that Revelation is purely about the nations (Gentiles, church) in the Age to Come. Revelation just doesn’t seem to have that Jerusalem centrality and Israel focus that the Jewish Scriptures do. Right?

Well, I would just tweak those ideas slightly and say this instead: Whereas the Jewish Scriptures present eschatology with a view of Israel’s future as primary, Revelation presents the larger picture of eschatology, including the nations.

Israel is certainly not missing from Revelation.

Consider Revelation 7 and 14. The 144,000 men from the twelve tribes function in some way as a vanguard for God’s salvation of all Israel (which happens in Revelation 11, see below).

Consider Revelation 12 and the woman and the dragon. The woman is Israel (note: Christendom did not give birth to Jesus and Mary does not fit this image either).

Consider the Temple imagery throughout Revelation:
–1:13 Menorah and priestly robes
–4:4 24 Courses of the priesthood (cf. 1 Chron. 24:4)
–4:6 Sea, basin or laver
–5:8 & 8:3 Altar of Incense
–6:9 Altar of Burnt Offering
–11:19 Ark of the Covenant
–21:22 Temple is no more, but only after the 1,000 years

Most importantly, consider Revelation 11 and its similarity to Zechariah 12. Revelation 11 is the turning point:

And at that hour there was a great earthquake, and a tenth of the city fell; seven thousand people were killed in the earthquake, and the rest were terrified and gave glory to the God of heaven.  The second woe has passed; behold, the third woe is soon to come. Then the seventh angel blew his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Messiah, and he shall reign for ever and ever.” (Rev. 11:13-15)

The city is Jerusalem (from earlier in the chapter). Things get very bad in Jerusalem (cf. Zechariah 12). Yet at the very worst the people of Jerusalem do not curse God, but give him glory.

This is the turning point in the final events of this age. Jerusalem’s repentance is what brings about the transfer of the kingdom of this world to Yeshua. A spirit of grace and supplication, Zechariah says, is poured out on Jerusalem. In other words, Zechariah’s prophecy spoke of Jerusalem suddenly turning to God in prayer. Revelation, quite similarly, says that at the worst point of destruction, Jerusalem gives glory to God.

According to Revelation, what brings Messiah back to this world? The repentance of Jerusalem. It is the same concept at in Matthew 23:37-39.

Is Israel missing from Revelation? No, Israel is the central player, just as in the Jewish Scriptures.

Israel Missing From Revelation? Pt. 1

August 19, 2008 derek4messiah 2 comments

One of the topics I enjoyed thinking about as I wrote The World to Come is the presence or lack of presence of Israel in the book of Revelation. In this post, I outline the basic issue and in Part 2 I will make a case for a very strong presence of Israel in Revelation.

This is not an excerpt from the book, but I do cover this material in a different way in Chapter 6, “The Vision of John.”

Get my book at amazon or at Messianic Jewish Resources.
………………………………………………….

How do most Christians get their information about future things like the afterlife and the ages to come? I’d say most get their information from reading the New Testament. The Old Testament promises to Israel get some play but not nearly as much. I’m sure there are a variety of reasons for this. The Old Testament promises are confusing the most Christians since they promise things to Israel. And when you are not part of Israel, what do you do with that? Do you assume that the promises are for Christians and not necessarily Israel? Many do just that. Or do you just avoid these texts because you don’t understand them? This is an even more popular approach.

So this causes a problem. If many Christians are not getting their information about the afterlife and the ages to come from the whole Bible, then there may be a problem of distortion. Further, if those who are getting information from the Old Testament are reinterpreting the text, there is again distortion.

Consider the basic trajectory of the Bible’s teaching about afterlife and ages to come:

1. Old Testament promises of a transformed Israel, a restored Israel, new hearts, Torah on the heart, circumcised hearts, agricultural paradise, a pure temple, the divine presence more directly with us, and so on.

2. The partial realization of these promises in the work of Yeshua on earth: demons cast out, people healed, some Israelites transformed, Yeshua’s intensification of the Torah, redemption foretold and enacted on the cross, and resurrection starting with Yeshua.

3. The teaching of the apostles about afterlife and the ages to come, culminating with the book of Revelation (I’m assuming some type of future significance for the book and passing over interpretations that deny any future reference).

Here is the thing. The Old Testament material is Israel-centered. Yeshua’s mission and teaching is Israel-centered (though that does not stop most interpreters from missing Israel in Yeshua’s teaching). But Revelation is encouragement to a mostly Gentile population in Asia Minor (and one being persecuted in some places by the synagogues).

Therefore, the place most Christians will get their information about the ages to come will be from a Gentile-centered (multinational, universalistic) text.

Isn’t Israel missing or at least highly diminished in the book of Revelation?

Don’t bet on it. See you next time.

A Mastermind of Mideast Troubles

August 19, 2008 derek4messiah 1 comment

The Wall Street Journal has a great review of a new book about Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Hitler-loving Mufti of Jerusalem from 1921 through the war for Israel’s independence, put in power by some very foolish Brits. al-Husseini is in large part responsible for creating the current situation, perpetuated by later leaders who kept following his model:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121443841364405405.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

McKnight’s A LIGHT AMONG THE GENTILES, Pt. 1

August 18, 2008 derek4messiah Leave a comment

As part of my ongoing research for the book, Messiah, I am reading many portraits of Jesus by academic writers. If you didn’t already, see the post below, “Musings on Some Academic Portraits of Jesus”

I’m working my way through a list of books and want to get more McKnight and Witherington into my brain. As I said yesterday, they are among those who come closest to my views about Jesus (if only they could get a dose of Sanders).

As part of my reading, I’m going through McKnight’s A Light Among The Gentiles: Jewish Missionary Activity in the Second Temple Period. It has more bearing on New Testament studies in general than specifically on Jesus studies, but I figure it can help me get a feel for McKnight’s position on several Jewish questions. Along with many of the scholars I mentioned yesterday, McKnight believes Jesus changed significant parts of the Torah. Yet, as we will see here, his appreciation for Second Temple Jewish literature is large.
………………………………………

The following are short summaries of ideas from the introduction and first chapter of A Light Among The Gentiles (get it used on amazon here).

1. McKnight takes on a tradition, especially in German theology of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, of asserting the superiority of Christianity as a universalistic, redemptive, mission-minded movement in contrast to Judaism’s nationalism, legalism, and separatism. He calls these older treatments “propagandistic apologetics.”

2. In chapter 1, “Judaism and the Gentile,” McKnight seeks to show both sides of the equation with regard to Jewish separatism and integration. He says:

The facts support clearly the grid that most Jewish groups . . . both resisted non-Jewish culture and also integrated themselves into that culture.

3. He finds eight kinds of examples of tendencies in Second Temple Jewish communities of integrating with the surrounding culture: universalism (God is for all nations), friendliness with Gentiles, allowing Gentile participation in Judaism, seeking citizenship in Rome, Hellenistic education for many Jews (including sages of renown), intermarriage with Gentiles, assimilation away from Judaism and into Roman life, and at the far end: apostasy from Judaism. Many Jewish texts from the period indicate a belief that God is for all nations. Friendliness with Gentiles and participation in Gentile culture is widely evidenced.

4. He finds six forms of Jewish resistance to Gentile culture: separation and belief that Gentiles will be judged, exclusion of Gentiles from temple precincts, repudiation of all idolatry, prohibition of intermarriage, revolting against political attempts to compromise with the temple and with Judaism, and a literature of God’s wrath against Gentiles in the final judgment.

5. McKnight concludes from this study that earlier statements of Jewish separatism and misanthropy were based on selective reading. He notes that scholars failed to read thoroughly and find that in nearly every instance of a Jewish text denouncing Gentiles, the text was qualified in some way. For example, many texts denouncing Gentiles would go on to say positive things about Gentiles as well. The overall message is that Jews of the period criticized Gentile immorality resulting from their idolatrous worldview. McKnight gives as an example a line from the Letter of Aristeas:

“that we might not mingles at all with any of the other nations but remain pure in body and soul, free from all vain imaginations, worshipping the one Almighty God above the whole creation.”

McKnight demonstrates clearly in this chapter a broad reading of Second Temple Jewish literature. We can say with confidence that this is a scholar who has done his homework. As I continue to summarize A Light Among The Gentiles, we will get some interesting perspective on the question: did Jews in the time of Jesus missionize Gentiles actively and try to convert them?

Musings on Some Academic Portrayals of Jesus

August 17, 2008 derek4messiah 4 comments

I am working on an upcoming book, Messiah, and enjoying a great deal of reading and some re-reading of academic portraits of Jesus. I appreciate the wide variety of voices trying to get back to who Jesus was. I even appreciate the ones I strongly reject, since they show me how thinking unconventionally about Jesus can be done.

I strongly reject but radically appreciate portrayals of Jesus by John Crossan, Marcus Borg, Geza Vermes, Amy-Jill Levine, Paula Fredicksen, Albert Schweitzer, and many others. In an upcoming post I will give a summary of their portraits of Jesus.

I come much closer to agreement with a handful of scholars: N.T. Wright, Ben Witherington, Scot McKnight, John Meier, E.P. Sanders, Craig Blomberg, and others.

But I still find that no one perfectly represents what I think is important about Jesus. In this brief musing I want to explain why I wish I could find a scholar who blends some of the fine traits of the close-but-not-quite portraits I see above.

Specifically, I wish I could get a little of E.P. Sanders mindset injected into Wright, Witherington, McKnight, and Blomberg. Alternatively, I’d love to see a little more Wright/Witherington/McKnight/Bliomberg infused into Sanders. What do I mean?

Sanders represents my strong value on Judaism and seeing Jesus as a figure within Judaism and not overturning any aspect of God’s Torah. By contrast, Wright, McKnight, Witherington and Blomberg all want to see Jesus as announcing the end of some aspects of Judaism (dietary law, Sabbath, etc.).

Witherington’s comment is typical. He says that we must see Jesus as continuous with Judaism but in other ways as discontinuous:

The difficulty for any historian is in achieving the right balance between Jesus’ continuity and discontinuity with early Judaism. Insist on too much discontinuity, and it becomes impossible to explain why Jesus had an exclusively Jewish following during his lifetime and why so many Jews were interested in giving him a hearing. Insist on too much continuity, and differences of the church from early Judaism, even in the church’s earliest days, become very difficult to explain. (The Jesus Quest, pg. 122).

Witherington is a great scholar and I certainly wish E.P. Sanders could catch a little Witherington-itis, but the last sentence of that quote begs for an overlooked answer. If you accept the conclusion that Judaism already contained within it and that the New Testament affirms a different relationship for Gentiles to Torah than for Jews, the problem of the early church’s discontinuity with Judaism goes away entirely. Acts 15, where the apostles decided Gentiles need not live like Jews was the right conclusion from the Torah and not an innovation (it was an innovation for Judaism at the time, but the viewpoint of Acts 15 was not an anti-Judaism argument but an intra-Judaism one).

Sanders, by contrast, gets Jesus’ relation to Judaism so right. He can be faulted for throwing away some of the evidence (he doubts the validity of some of Jesus’ disputes with the Pharisees), but I love what he says about Jesus and Judaism:

Those who presumably know the most about Judaism, and about the law in particular — Jewish scholars — do not find any substantial points of disagreement between Jesus and his contemporaries, and certainly not any which would lead to his death. (Jesus and Judaism, pg. 55).

That comment may sound overreaching, but the context is Jesus’ view of the law. Sanders does not mean Jesus had no conflict with the Jewish leaders. He simply means their conflict was not about the law.

I wish Wright, Witherington, McKnight, and Blomberg could get that Jesus was not saying the temple was outdated, but that the temple leadership was corrupt. He was not saying that the dietary law was obsolete, but rejecting the imposition of extra standards of separation. He was not overturning the Sabbath for Jews, but sharply critiquing a formalistic approach to holiness (getting Sabbath and worship regulations right while ignoring greater matters of justice and love). I wish these scholars could understand the early church as the product of Acts 15 and the very Jewish view that Gentiles need not convert to be in relation to God.

Sanders certainly has his problems too, problems to which Wright/Witherington/Meier/McKnight/Blomberg offer a corrective. Sanders, for example, believes Jesus’ message was acceptance without repentance (ouch, what a non-Jewish idea!).

I have been greatly enriched by all of the scholars mentioned above, including the ones whose views I strongly reject. But how I would love to see a synthesis of a strongly historical and a strongly Jewish Jesus. I wish we could get scholarship that combines both strengths.

POV’s on Yeshua in the Gospels

August 14, 2008 derek4messiah Leave a comment

I’m working on my next book. I hope the publisher will agree to simply call it Messiah. The idea for the book came late last week as I sat with a new friend who is considering Yeshua. This new friend is quite bright and eager to learn some background. So, when my friend asked me the question, “What does Messiah mean and how is Yeshua the Messiah?” I couldn’t give a quick answer. I took out a steno pad and timelined the Messiah concept through history. That’s essentially what the book will be about. The list of viewpoints below is a small part of chapter one, “Signs of Confusion.”
……………………………..

GOSPEL VIEWPOINTS ABOUT YESHUA

Herod the Great - a king who threatened Herod’s power (prompting the slaughter of innocents in Matthew 2).

Herod Antipas – John returned from the dead (Mark 6:16).

The people of Galilee – John the Baptist returned, Elijah, Jeremiah, or a prophet risen from the dead (Matt. 16:14).

John the Baptizer – The one greater than he but who did not seem to do what John expected (Luke 3:16; 7:20).

Pilate – A Jewish teacher who was no political threat but who had run afoul of the Jerusalem leadership (Luke 23:13-16).

Caiaphas, the High Priest – A threat to the religious leadership, to the prevailing views of Israel’s relation to God, and to the complex status quo between the Pharisees and Sadducees (Matt. 26:59-61).

The Twelve (before the resurrection) – The Messiah, they hoped, who would defeat Rome and restore Israel (Acts 1:6), but who apparently failed at the cross (Luke 24:10-11, 36-39).

A centurion who witnessed Yeshua’s death – “Truly this man was the Son of God” (understood perhaps in a Greek way, a demi-god like Hercules, unless this centurion might have been a synagogue-attender, Mark 15:39).

Yeshua: Self Aware? Pt. 2

August 13, 2008 derek4messiah 4 comments

Day before yesterday, I introduced the topic of Yeshua’s self-awareness. Did he know he was divine and Messiah his whole life? The following musings are not about proof, but they might be helpful.
……………………………………………

Anne Rice, the famous author of vampire novels, returned to the Catholic faith in 1996. She said she would write only for the Lord from now on and not write vampire novels ever again. In an interview she said, “”I would never go back, not even if they say, ‘You will be financially ruined; you’ve got to write another vampire book.’ I would say no. I have no choice. I would be a fool for all eternity to turn my back on God like that.”

In 2004 she released a book, Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt.It is the first of a trilogy of books about the life of Jesus told in novel form. Anne Rice bases her books about Jesus on the four biblical gospels plus the Gospel of Thomas — which is from the second century and, in my opinion and that of many scholars, has nothing historically to do with the Jesus of history.

In the opening scene of her book, Jesus is seven years old and living in Alexandria, Egypt with his family. This fits into the biblical period when the family of Jesus had fled from Herod.

Jesus is playing and a bully threatens him. Jesus yells angrily at him and the bully falls dead. Jesus feels the power go out of him and he is weak for a moment.

Meanwhile, the other kids cry out, “Jesus cursed him and he died.” The townspeople are afraid of Jesus and know he has power. One father says he is demon-possessed. They demand that Jesus and his family leave Egypt and go back home to Nazareth.

Meanwhile, Jesus sneaks out and goes where the dead bully has been laid. He raises him from the dead, again with power going out from him and leaving him weak.

The Jesus of Anne Rice’s novel doesn’t know who he is. He doesn’t know why he has been taught not to call Joseph his father. Later, when he comes to the temple at the age of 12, he says a prayer:

Lord. Lord, whoever I am, whatever I am, whatever I am meant to be, I am part of this, this world that is all of a flowing wonder – like this music. And you are with us. You are here. You have pitched your tent here, among us. This music is your song. This is your house.

The underlying premise of the novel seems to be that Jesus does not know who he is. He only knows that he is different from other children. As the novel progresses, Jesus’ curiosity about his identity grows.

Did Yeshua know who he was? The birth narratives from Luke certainly assume that Mary knew who he was. The angel told Mary she would conceive and Mary asked how that could be since she had not been with a man. The angel answered her in Luke 2:35:

The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.

And we know little or nothing about the childhood of Yeshua. But at age 12, he certainly knew who he was. When his parents could not find him, they came back to the temple. And Yeshua was there. He said in Luke 2:49:

How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?

Did Yeshua grow up knowing who he was? If you believe the stories in Luke are true, he did. Instead of praying, as Anne Rice portrays him, “Lord, whoever I am . . .” he more likely prayed the way he did as an adult:

And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. (John 17:5)

………

What about the idea that there was no clear idea of Messiah in Yeshua’s time? Therefore he could not have thought of himself as Messiah.

Schalom Ben-Choren was a German Jewish scholar who went to Israel in 1935. He wrote the book Brother Jesus which was recently translated into English. In one chapter, Ben-Chorin considers the story when Yeshua asked, “Who do men say that I am?” and then, “Who do you think I am?”

Peter famously answered, “The Messiah, the Son of the Living God.”

Ben-Chorin says:

Jesus is not posing an exam question here . . . neither is he asking a sort of Gallup poll question . . . Rather, in this kind of questioning we see the confusion of a person, who deeply implicated in the adventure of faith, is inquiring about his own existence and its mystery. In this exchange he is seeking to know himself . . . I agree with Bultmann who says, ‘I am personally of the opinion that Jesus did not believe himself to be the Messiah.’ (pgs. 105-106).

Was there a strong concept of Messiah in Yeshua’s time? If so, what sort of expectations were there? And did Yeshua see himself that way?

Well, in brief, there was a strong Messianic concept. There were just a variety of ideas about what he would do and what he would be like. There were a number of would-be-messiahs who started mini-revolutions. The Dead Sea Scroll community wrote of two Messiahs: one a king and one a priest.
Those who rebelled against Rome believed to the last minute that Messiah would come and save them. Various pieces of Jewish literature spoke of Messiah-figures, such as the Psalms of Solomon and the book of Enoch.

And did Yeshua know he was Messiah? Did he ever! I would say Yeshua taught us what Messiah is supposed to be. He clearly defined the vision of Messiah all through his work in Galilee and Judea.

I’ll just cite two examples.

John the Baptizer was in prison. He sent a messenger to ask Yeshua, “Are you the one who was to come?” John was disillusioned. Even he thought Yeshua would conquer Rome and reestablish Israel’s independence. Yeshua answered him beautifully in Matthew 11:4-5:

Go and tell John what you hear and see: 5 the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them.

On another occasion, a man was brought in on a mat for Yeshua to heal. But first he said, “Your sins are forgiven.” Some scribes in the crowd objected. And Yeshua’s answer in Luke 5:23-24 is beautiful:

Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’?But so you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—He told the paralyzed man, “I tell you: get up, pick up your stretcher, and go home.

Consider Yeshua’s definition of his Messiahship:
–It was not yet to end Israel’s exile but to cause the kingdom of God to break in now.
–It was not yet to restore Jerusalem but to heal the dying and set free the demon-possessed.
–It was not to lead a revolution but to forgive sins and lead many to repentance.
–It was not yet as a king, but first as a healer and redeemer.

The problem was not that Yeshua did not know he was Messiah. The problem was people needed to learn from God what Messiah would do.
……….

Was Yeshua aware of his divinity and Messiahship?

Not only was he aware, but he entered into conflict with the leaders of his generation precisely over the nature of the Messianic mission. He was executed as a pretender to Messiahship. He was executed as one who claimed divine status and was thought a blasphemer.

An uncertain, weak Yeshua, the one many writers want us to believe in, would have either never been killed or he would have been killed as a revolutionary.

But remember something. It was for religious reasons, not political ones, that Yeshua was arrested by the Sanhedrin. And they then convinced Rome Yeshua was a political threat. But even Pontius Pilate was not convinced. The Sanhedrin tricked him into getting involved in their religious disagreements.

But Richard Horsley is one of those authors who sees Yeshua as a political revolutionary. He says that Yeshua was a prophet calling for social change in Galilee and then when he brought his message to Judea, they killed him.

He says Yeshua formed small communities that practiced healing and exorcisms in Galilee. He wanted to teach people an alternative way of living to following Rome in the path of money and power. Yeshua, says Horsley, came to change society. He says:

Jesus is thus usually seen as (only) a religious reformer, attempting to purify the Jewish religion centered in the Jerusalem Temple. But the Temple, along with its high-priesthood, stood at the political-economic as well as the religious head of Judean society in general and was an integral institution of the imperial order. (Jesus and Empire, pg.166).

In short, Yeshua was a sort of early Marxist starting communities where wealth and power were replaced by the value of love and sharing. I can hardly think of a worse reading of the gospels.

Sure, there were social and political ramifications to Yeshua’s teaching. But his primary conflict with the leaders of his day was about religious matters:
Who is God? Who is Messiah? What does God want Israel to do? Whom has God sent to speak to Israel?

Consider Yeshua’s first trial, when he stood before the High Priest. In Matthew 26:63 we read the story. But Yeshua was silent. And the high priest said to him, “I adjure you by the living God, tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”

The conflict that got Yeshua killed was not about his helping peasants redefine the economy. It was religious — a question of God and Torah and temple.
………..

So don’t be quick to believe all these historical reconstructions of who Yeshua was.
–If you believe the angel came to Mary and said, “the power of the Most High will overshadow you”…
–If you understand that Yeshua not only knew he was Messiah but even that he taught us what Messiah means…
–If you grasp that it was for religious conflicts that Yeshua was killed…

…then you will believe in a self-aware Yeshua.

We can’t try to understand Yeshua from a scientific point of view. He can’t be psychologized. We don’t have to try to make the mystery of the one who is God and Man and make it understandable.

You don’t have to comprehend love to believe in it.

From Scot McKnight’s Blog: Gentiles in the Age of Israel

August 12, 2008 derek4messiah Leave a comment

I am a frequent reader of “Jesus Creed,” a blog by North Park University professor Scot McKnight. He is discussing Christopher Wright’s book, The Mission of God, at the moment. Today he brought up a good point. I include below an excerpt from Scot’s article and my addition to the pot of comments.
……………………………………..

Scot McKnight, “Missional God 9.” See the full article here.

This week the tough question is this: Why, if God wanted to make his Name known throughout the world, did God choose to make that Name known only through one people? From a different angle, that tough question looks something like this: Why does the Gentile mission, to use this expression for what happens in the Acts of the Apostles, not become fully operative for at least 2500 years from the time of Abraham? These are the questions that Chris Wright asks in The Mission of God, chps 6-7.

No matter how you cut the pie, one big piece is that — no matter how many Old Testament texts you can find about a universal mission or vision — OT Israelites so rarely did “mission” work that one can at least be fair in wondering if they read those texts that way. We know Acts does and Paul does etc, but it the missional impulse simply isn’t the way of ancient Israel. What are your thoughts? What about those who did not hear?
……………………………………

My comment:
Scot:

I have a some chapters in my latest book about “Israel as the Vessel” and “The Nations as the Goal.” You are right to say that Israel did not do well in its priestly mission. God worked through Israel in spite of Israel, bringing the BIble and Messiah and transforming the world.

I love the mutual blessing theme of Genesis 12, which R. Kendall Soulen develops at length in The God of Israel and Christian Theology. It sounds like Chris Wright gets that too. God’s way of redeeming the world is mutual blessing.

In my book, The World to Come, I say that Israel had three ways of incorporating non-Jews: Conversion (like Caleb or Ruth, joining the family), Participation (the sojourner who was invited to make offerings and keep Sabbath and so on with Israel), and Invitation (like Solomon praying in Kings that people from the nations would worship at God’s temple). Yet, though we see these examples and more, clearly Israel did not heed God’s call to priestly mission. But we could ask ourselves: was there any better plan God could have chosen? I think not.

Derek Leman
……………….

How about you? What do you think?

Yeshua: Self-Aware?

August 11, 2008 derek4messiah Leave a comment

Recently I was surprised to find a statement by one of my favorite New Testament scholars that I disapproved of. I mean it’s not as if I think this guy is perfect. I know a few things I would love to see him change in his theology and biblical understanding. But I hadn’t realized in my prior reading of this scholar that he was a little weak on the idea of Yeshua’s self-awareness. That led me to a few musings (hmm, seems appropriate for this blog).
……………………………………………….

You will hear a lot in books, magazine articles, and TV documentaries that Yeshua did not claim to be Messiah or to be divine. After all, I guess it is hard for people to imagine a guy who walked around his whole life knowing he was Messiah and God in the flesh. Can you get your mind around the idea of Yeshua being aware of his divinity and still being a mentally-balanced, healthy person?

The topic has been all the more on my mind because of several conversations I am having with people considering Yeshua or considering abandoning Yeshua. I think it matters what we do with Yeshua.

But the ultimate reason for this message and for my meditation on Yeshua’s self-awareness was a disappointment. There is a scholar that I read and reread often. I appreciate the way he brings clear historical thinking and close attention to the Jewish sources of Yeshua’s time to bear on the question of who Yeshua was and what he purposed to do.

This scholar is a great one for helping the skeptical to see that the Yeshua of the gospels is historically believable. So I was a little disappointed when this scholar was a little noncommittal on this question. The scholar I am talking about is N.T. Wright. He started well, by observing that Yeshua did things only God can do. Then he said:

Why should such a person, a good first-century monotheist, not also come to hold the strange and risky belief that the one true God, the God of Israel, was somehow present and active in him and even as him? (Who Was Jesus? p.103)

What?

That sounds like Yeshua grew into an awareness of who he was. That sounds like Yeshua was uncertain. Is it so hard to believe that Yeshua knew he was divine, that he was Messiah? Does historical accuracy or intellectual rigor demand that we view Yeshua as completely or partially unaware of his divinity and Messiahship?

Now, before I answer that, let me suggest to you some reasons why many scholars would have trouble believing in a self-aware Yeshua:

1. Our primary sources about Yeshua are the four gospels written later and, many scholars think, they reflect the later belief of the church and may present Yeshua in ways he never saw himself. Perhaps, some would say, the concepts of Messiahship and divinity were put on Yeshua by later generations and not by himself.

2. The concept of Messiah in Yeshua’s time, many scholars say, was vague and not often referred to, but was developed more by the church of the gospels than by Jews in Yeshua’s time. How could Yeshua think of himself as Messiah if there was no clear idea of Messiah in his day?

3. Finally, I think many scholars simply believe it is not possible to be human, believe you are divine, and to be sane. How can a man really be a man and think he is God?

Well, those arguments are substantial. Have we been sold a view of Yeshua that is anachronistic — reading late first century ideas back into the early first century? Is our view of Yeshua as the God-man and Messiah inaccurate or simplistic?
More to come tomorrow . . .

Some Prayer Practices: Jewish and Christian

August 8, 2008 derek4messiah 1 comment

The following notes are for a class I am giving this Shabbat about personal or constant prayer. For a long time, I thought Judaism had no such tradition but was limited to liturgical prayer. I started my religious life in a Christian environment where all prayer was spontaneous and personal. I have so enjoyed the return to biblical prayer through the liturgy. But it is important to remember the value of personal prayer as well (though my personal prayers sound different now than they used to — less telling God what to do and more praise and declaration of trust).
……………………………………………………………………………..

BIBLICAL EXAMPLES


The stories and texts of the Bible reveal three kinds of prayer as part of the life of the people of God:

Crisis prayers: Such as Moses asking God not to destroy Israel, the Psalmist asking to be delivered from enemies, or the Jerusalem congregation praying for Peter to be let out of prison.
Liturgical prayers: Such as Israel’s prayer each time the Ark set out before them, the apparent use of some of the Psalms in temple liturgy, and Yeshua’s prayer which he gave to his disciples.
Personal prayers: Such as confessions of sin, expressions of thankfulness, and declarations of intimacy with God.

Crisis prayers and liturgical prayers will always have their place. But the regular practice of personal prayers is likely what biblical writers had in mind when they said:
–Be constant in prayer (Rom. 12:12).
–Pray without ceasing (1 Thess. 5:17).
–When you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret (Matt. 6:6).
–I will give thanks to the Lord with my whole heart; I will tell of all thy wonderful deeds (Psalm 9:1).
–Through him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name (Heb. 13:15).

SOME JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN TRADITIONS

Both in Judaism and in Christianity personal prayers are of great importance. Interestingly, the Bible assumes that people will pray but gives few guidelines about how to pray. Aside from a few guidelines, we need traditions to follow to guide us in methods of prayer. There is no such thing as the one right method of prayer.

In Christianity there are many traditions of personal prayer. One interesting tradition is the “breath prayer,” practiced especially by the Eastern churches. Richard Foster (Prayer: Finding the Heart’s True Home) says, “The idea has its roots in the Psalms, where a repeated phrase reminds us of an entire Psalm, for example, ‘O Lord, you have searched me and known me’ (Ps. 139:1).”

The most commonly used breath prayer is called the Jesus prayer, “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner” from Luke 18:13. The prayer is recited throughout the day and many times so that it becomes natural, like breath. One writer says this method of prayer is especially helpful when the mind is clouded with thoughts and the breath prayer helps to keep the focus on God and faith.

In Judaism, the most common example of personal prayer is the practice of reciting blessings. All blessings begin with, “Blessed are you, O Lord our God, King of the Universe . . .” The following are commonly used:
–When seeing lightning: “. . . who makes the work of creation.”
–When hearing thunder: “. . . for his strength and power fill the universe.”
–When seeing a rainbow: “. . . who remembers his covenant, is trustworthy in his covenant, and fulfills his word.”
–When seeing the ocean: “. . . who made the great sea.”
–When seeing beautiful people, trees, or fields: “. . . who has such in his creation.”
–When seeing a Torah scholar: “. . . who has apportioned of his knowledge to those who fear him.”
–When seeing an outstanding secular scholar: “. . . who has given of his knowledge to human beings.”
–When first seeing a friend who has survived a life-threatening illness: “. . . who has given you to us and has not given you to the dust.”
–On hearing good news: “. . . who is good and does good.”
–On hearing bad news: “. . . the true judge.”
–When reading Torah: “. . . who has made us holy through your mitzvot and instructed us to busy ourselves with words of Torah.”

Also, in Judaism there are several traditions of personal prayer throughout the day. Similar to the breath prayer tradition in Christianity is a Jewish tradition of repeating holy sentences. One midrash says that Enoch was a shoemaker and used to say, “Blessed is his glorious name whose kingdom is forever,” and ever with each stitch (Yitzhak Buxbaum, Jewish Spiritual Practices, pg.443). In the Jerusalem Talmud we read about Rabbi Shmuel bar Nahmeni who repeated the Shema over and over each night until he fell asleep. Other rabbis have recommended other verses or prayers to be repeated often, with an ideal of praising God with each breath (Buxbaum, pg. 445).

Finally, Hasidic rebbes, especially Rebbe Nachman of Breslov have recommended a practice called hitbodedut (Buxbaum, pg. 609). This means “self-seclusion” and involves solitude and personal conversation with God. Rebbe Nachman says, “You should speak at length, talk and talk some more, and argue with him to convince him to bring you close to him” (Buxbaum, pg. 611). This practice was featured in the popular Israeli film about a Breslover family called Ushpizin.