|
by Paul Sumner |
|
Before the Two Models Prior to the development of formal, philosophical Christian theology, Jews interpreted Yeshua’s teachings and the NT records about him in light of the Hebrew Bible and their Jewish faith. And they made these interpretations prior to the emergence of and evolutions within Rabbinic Judaism, which later became antagonistic toward him. To recover their older Jewish perspectives it helps to remember that we live in the shadow of two great religious traditions which, at times, obscure the past. With that in mind, visitors to this website will not always find confirming statements about a particular tradition. Of necessity, some of these studies are confrontational in the sense of confronting what is with what was; the present with the past. Regarding the issue of God’s being and how to understand him, visitors will not find here arguments for either Maimonidean monotheism or Nicean-Athanasian Trinitarianism. The reason is simple. Neither theological model existed at the time of Yeshua. Nor does either one fully explain what we find in the Hebrew Bible or New Testament.
Theological models are like models that physicists construct of the sub-atomic universe. They are meant to depict relationships that scientists extrapolate from research data. In the world of theology, abstract models of God’s interior universe were constructed from logical deductions based on select statements in the Bible. But models are only as good as the interpretations of data and the amount of data included in a sample. It they do not reflect the whole data universe, in all its fullness, they are misleading and ultimately useless. In the case of Maimonides, his model was a sharpening of previous Jewish models that were constructed, in part, as a defense against the Catholic church’s Nicean-Athanasian model.
The Old Models This website thus focuses on a pre-Yavneh and pre-Nicean age, in which the Hebrew Scriptures and the teachings and Spirit of Yeshua were the guiding lights of revelation. The emphasis on this website is on “theological archeology” — deciphering the inner theology of the Bible from the later layers of interpretation. This is similar to what historians call a “Biblical Theology” approach.
In our discussions on this website “dogma” includes both Jewish and Christian forms: the authoritative tenets or body of beliefs held by the syngagogue or church.
Judaism, for example, prides itself in saying it is not built on “doctrine” but on law, morality, and action (practicing Torah). This isn’t entirely true. Regarding the nature of God and the Messiah, Judaism is quite dogmatic. It stands on certain traditional tenets that define “orthodox” Jewish beliefs. And it is quite dogmatic about rejecting the messiahship of Yeshua of Nazareth. The strict unitarian (“God only”) statements that Maimonides (1135-1204) articulated for the Jewish people in the Middle Ages are not what an in-depth reader of the Hebrew Bible will encounter. Nor are they what Jews living before and during the time of Yeshua believed. Maimonides didn’t invent Jewish monotheism. He extended it far beyond previous conceptions to exclude all supernatural beings other than God. He taught there are no other spiritual beings, whether gods, angels, or spirits, and certainly no divine messiah.
Likewise, careful readers find that no one in the New Testament expresses their understanding of God in the formulas of the later creeds of Christendom. For example, the “one God” that the disciples (and angels in heaven) worship is the “God and Father of” Yeshua. But that’s not all. The Torah-educated priests, elders, and laymen who believed in Yeshua experienced no cognitive dissonance in accepting his divinity. Their biblical monotheism didn’t contradict belief in a Messiah who is God’s Son, sits at his right hand, and shares one Spirit with him. But that’s not the same as what the Church later evolved about him.
Paradoxically, both Jewish and Christian dogmas declare allegiance to monotheism. Yet both definitions of the word can’t be true — and come from the same God. There must be truth somewhere; truth that makes certain ideas false. The biblical God isn’t the author of confusion, contradiction and chaos. How then do we know which definition is right, which is from God? The better question is: Which one is biblical? Perhaps neither dogma is totally so. But that can be determined only by comparing them with the Bible. (See related articles on this subject: What is Monotheism?)
It's Our Task Now (Again) In response, Jewish and Christian leaders think their people only need reaffirmation in the tenets of the established interpretations of the faith. Whereas the real, recurring problem that many people have is not ignorance of dogma. Nor is it due to stubborn disbelief, theological incompetence, or susceptibility to cult or goyishe influences. The problem is the Bible. The Bible — with its unchanging, demanding confrontation with human tendencies to revise and revoke revealed truth. Those who read Scripture seriously are most troubled by our traditions. That’s why for some 14 centuries the Church kept the Bible out of the hands of the laity and why the Synagogue has trained its members to ask their rabbis for explanations, not to open the Tanakh for themselves.
Theological-Archeological Goal I’m not quarrelling with people who trust tradition. My purpose is to draw lines of distinction between the present and past, the surface rivers and the subterranean waters — so people can see that the Bible (both parts) is not always the same as “religion.” So it may disappoint some readers that my goal is not to draw anyone into a particular amber-encased Tradition. My goal is to promote delving into, even drinking from, the refreshing, liberating waters of Scripture. My goal is to locate and delight in forgotten, neglected or buried insights about God and Yeshua of Nazareth. Of course, my conviction is that the older, deeper streams within Scripture are closer to first truth, to purer water.
The Hebrew Bible is what Christians share with their Lord and his disciples: the Lord born in Bethlehem of Judah. And when they discover “Old Testament light” that shines on him and more clearly reveals the Father who sent him, they begin to appreciate and sympathize with Jews as people.
Two.
Flee from the midst of Babylon . . .
Jeremiah’s call to leave Queen Babylon was revived some seven centuries later by a disciple of Yeshua. This prophet warned that her dangers were still very clear and present and posed a grave threat to the body of Messiah (Revelation 17–19). Though he urged evacuation, he also said her danger was not perpetual. For one bright day, “New Jerusalem” — not Rome or Constantinople, Canterbury or Dallas — situated on “Mount Zion” would become the final throne of God and Messiah (chaps. 14, 21). Babylon would not always hold sway.
Three.
Four. Jews, I believe, are much like Roman Catholics in the 16th century who lived under intimidation from their intellectual and spiritual leaders. Catholics were censored for seeking truth and expressing unkosher opinions. They were herded into conformity by fear of committing treason and losing community — which meant social and spiritual death. All the while they inwardly strained against shackles on mind and spirit, yearning for freedom under God. And like the struggling Catholics, young Jews will throw off slavery and fear when they read — and believe — the Book for themselves. There is a growing "Renewal" movement within Judaism now. It is counter-cultural and focused on gaining a "personal relationship" with God. Though much of it is contaminated with neo-pagan, New Age fantasies, I think it also signals first leaves on the Fig tree.
There is a river . . .
Standing with and within the Scriptures is Yeshua of Nazareth, the Jesus of the New Testament. They cannot be separated. There are streams flowing there that move rock, quench thirst, and wash away our dirt. |
|
|