Introduction, Purpose, Definitions and Terminology
Timelines: Jewish and Gentile Writings and Thought
Eliminating Potential Sources of Complex Monotheism
Was Jewish Complex Monotheism Borrowed from the Greeks?
The Hebrew Bible Teaches Complex Monotheism - Part 1
The Hebrew Bible Teaches Complex Monotheism - Part 2
Complex Monotheism after the Close of the Hebrew Bible
Philo Affirms Complex Monotheism in Pre-rabbinic Judaism
Criteria of Biblical Monotheism, Christianity & Pre-Rabbinic Judaism
New Testament Christianity as a Sect of Judaism
When Was Complex Monotheism First Rejected?
Simple & Complex Monotheism before the Rabbinic Period
What Separates Biblical Judaism & New Testament Christianity?
God's Sovereign Choice of Abraham & His Offspring
Summary, Conclusions, and Implications
Summary, Conclusions, and Implication
The particular purpose of this study was to perform a
historical investigation into developments that lead to the partition between
modern Judaism and Christianity. Likewise, we sought to determine whether the
conventional explanations that are commonly offered for the categorically
separating Judaism and Christianity were valid. In the course of our study we
have relied upon the work of two scholars, Alan F. Segal and Benjamin J.
Sommer. Both men are non-Christian, Jewish historians of religion. Neither author
has the intention or motivation of finding support for or validating Christian
theology. Their books Two Powers in
Heaven (Segal) and The Bodies of God
and the World of Ancient Israel (Sommer) focus on doctrinal topics related
to how Judaism and Christianity conceive of God.
Various terms were employed by Segal and Sommer in their
books to describe the conception of the one, true God YHWH existing as more
than one person. Their terms included: hypostasis, manifestation, figures, powers
(such as the phrase “two powers”), fluidity of self or personhood. The
Christian Trinitarian conception of God likewise teaches that the Jewish God
YHWH exists as more than one person. More specifically, the Trinitarian concept
understands YHWH to exist as three persons. In our study we have used the term
Complex Monotheism to refer to conceptions in which YHWH was understood to
exist as more than one person/hypostasis. Conversely, we have used the term
Simple Monotheism to refer to conceptions of God in which YHWH was understood
to be one person.
As we began, we first charted the chronology of Jewish and
Christian literature including their scriptures. We added to this list some
additional chronological data about other religious systems and texts which are
sometimes suggested to have influenced Jewish or Christian theology. Early on
we noted that the historical evidence prohibited the consideration of any other
religious system besides philosophical Greek thought as a possible source of
Jewish and Christian conceptions of God. Comparable aspects of Hinduism,
Zoroastrianism, and Gnosticism all post-date the emergence of Complex
Monotheism in Jewish and Christian groups. Therefore, none of these religious
systems can be responsible for the development of Complex Monotheism within
Jewish sects.
In his book, Sommer documents clear displays of Complex
Monotheism within numerous passages and books of the Hebrew Bible itself. These
articulations of Complex Monotheism within the Hebrew Bible fit within their
cultural and historical context of the Near Eastern Semitic and Canaanite
peoples. In the early Biblical and pre-Biblical periods, Northwestern Semitic
groups express a common conception that a single god could exist as more than one
person in more than one place at a single time. This is true whether the
Semitic or Canaanite group was polytheistic or monotheistic. As Sommer explains
the question of how many gods exists (polytheism and monotheism) is
categorically and conceptually distinct from the questions about the nature of
the selfhood (personhood) of a single god.
Unlike their contemporaries, the Biblical Israelites were
monotheists who worshipped only one God, YHWH. However, like their Semitic
counterparts, the Biblical Israelites believed that God existed as more than
one person. The clear and consistent display of Complex Monotheism beginning in
the oldest sections of the Hebrew Bible and continuing into the prophetic and
post-exilic books, eliminates the possibility that Greek
religious thought is responsible for Complex Monotheism within Judaism for
several reasons. First, the Hebrew Bible was completed at a time when Greek
religion had no expression of the plurality of selfhood for any single god.
Second, the emergence within Greek religion of what might initially be
categorized as Complex Monotheistic ideas occurs only with the rise of Greek
philosophical religion in the late fifth and early fourth centuries BC. This is
after the final books of the Hebrew Bible had already been written. Since
Complex Monotheism is present in the Hebrew Bible before it appears in any form
within Greek religion, Greek religion cannot be identified as the source of
Complex Monotheism in later Jewish sectarian writing. Moreover, as we have
seen, there is good reason not to categorize Greek Philosophical religion as
Complex Monotheism at all due to its insistence on the absolutely unity of the
Supreme Being and its description of secondary divinities as occupying separate
levels of being outside the Supreme Being. Consequently, for both chronological
and fundamental conceptual reasons, Greek Philosophical religion cannot be the
source of Complex Monotheism within Judaism. On the contrary, Jewish sectarian
writing in the period between the fourth century BC and the third century AD
derives its Complex Monotheism directly from the passages of the Hebrew Bible
itself, even as identified by Sommer. In other words, the Hebrew Bible is the
source of Complex Monotheism within Judaism.
Additionally, while theoretical similarities between Greek
philosophy and Jewish or Christian Complex Monotheism ultimately turn out to be
relevantly dissimilar on a fundamental conceptual level, there are fundamental
parallels between Jewish Simple Monotheism and Greek philosophical religion. In
fact, medieval Jewish philosophers had a high regard for Platonic thought. The
Platonic conception of the One God as incorporeal being who is an indivisible
and perfectly simple unity corresponds precisely with the medieval Jewish view
of God. In the medieval Jewish conception of God, YHWH is an incorporeal being
with an indivisible self who emanated the “shekhinah,” a created being with a
particular relationship to YHWH which manifested his presence in heaven and
earth. This medieval definition of God’s “shekinah” occupies the same place and
function of the Divine Mind and World Soul in Greek philosophy, both of which
are emanations that exist outside the absolute unity of the incorporeal,
eternal Supreme Being and mediate God’s relationship to the physical world.
In contrast, the Complex Monotheism of early Judaism and
Christianity rejects the absolute indivisibility of the Platonic God’s selfhood
as well as his incorporeality. Therefore, while the medieval, Jewish concept of
God parallels the Platonic idea very closely, the earlier Jewish and Christian
conceptions of God resist and reject critical aspects of the Platonic view.
These theological parallels and associations enable us to accurately identify
the medieval, Jewish conception of God as fundamentally Hellenistic regarding
the Godhead while at the same time earlier Jewish and Christian beliefs about
God cannot be accurately characterized as Hellenistic with regard to their
views of the Godhead.
As Sommer explains, a study of the historical evidence
overturns a great deal of the conventional perspectives about Judaism and
Christianity. In the conventional view, Christianity stands alone in support of
Complex Monotheism, a corporeal God, and incarnational theology. On the other side
stands all of Judaism from the biblical period through to the modern day
proclaiming in unison the incorporeal, indivisible conception of YHWH. However,
these conventional views are not biblically or historically sustainable. They
are not merely an oversimplification of the evidence. They are flatly in error.
The historical evidence provided in biblical literature as well as
post-biblical, sectarian literature demonstrates that modern Rabbinic Judaism
stands alone in the rejection of Complex Monotheism and in the embrace of
Platonic Simple Monotheism. On the other side, along with New Testament
Christianity stands the host of available Jewish sectarian literature prior to
the third century AD including: Jewish apocalyptists, Jewish-Christians, Philo,
Jewish mystics, and even some Pharisee and rabbis like Akiba. There is little
or no concrete evidence of the rejection of Complex Monotheism and the
adherence to Simple Monotheism in available Jewish literature prior to the
third century AD.
The rejection of Complex Monotheism by Judaism did not begin
to occur before 70-80 AD when the Temple
was destroyed and rabbinic leaders began to wield greater influence over the
surviving Jewish community. The passing of their rivals, the Sadducees, no
doubt contributed to this rise in authority. As their authority grew, the
Pharisaic rabbis began to reformulate the Jewish orthodox position regarding
the proper conception of God. To do so required working out an exegetical basis
for the rejection of Complex Monotheism and the exclusion of its adherents from
the synagogues. Even so, these efforts were not well-developed or established
until the close of the second century AD. Prior to that time, even rabbinic
leaders like Akiba still continued to articulate interpretations of biblical
passages correspondent with Complex Monotheism. Likewise, Jewish and Christian
literature from the second century shows that the Jewish-Christian community continued
to remain conceptually close to the rabbinic synagogue community of that time.
Third-century Talmudic accounts intended to display the skill of the rabbinic
argument against Complex Monotheism still do not exhibit an effective or
substantive exegetical framework justifying the rejection of Complex
Monotheism. On the contrary, they only effectively display the rabbinic conclusion
on the matter rather than the explanation necessitating that conclusion.
Likewise, the accounts provided in the rabbinic literature from the third
century and earlier do not contain a clear chronology or explanation of the
developments that lead to the partition of the rabbinic and Christian teachings
and communities. The earliest material from the rabbis does not specifically identify
the Christians among the heretics. The concern of the rabbis only related to
groups which posited independent heavenly powers with contrary will. Jewish
groups (including Christians) which did not believe in independent, separate
powers with contrary will were not actually named among the heretics.
While their exact scriptural interpretations may have
differed in some respects or passages from their fellow Jewish sectarians, the
beliefs of the New Testament Christians were not conceptually unique among the
Jewish sects and literature before the third century AD. The applications and
specifics of New Testament teaching may, and in some cases, do differ in finer
points and particulars from their contemporaries among other Jewish sects. But
their general conceptions about God were of the same kind (Complex Monotheism.)
Prior to the third century AD, Jewish literature commonly displays a belief in
YHWH existing as more than one, simultaneously-present person. One of these
persons of YHWH was commonly identified in Jewish literature as the
Logos/Memra/Word/angel of YWHH. This figure was associated with the Messiah and
a “man-like” hypostasis as depicted in passages like Daniel 7. Jewish writings
even taught that various human figures were exalted to become the “second
power” or hypostasis of YHWH. One tradition taught that the particular angelic
manifestation which the Hebrew bible identifies by the name YHWH (otherwise
deemed to be a theophany) actually descended into flesh and became the historic
human figure Jacob. Prior to the third century AD, Jewish literature from
biblical and post-biblical sources contained a strong tendency towards
incarnational theology. Major themes in the Hebrew Bible itself deal with YHWH’s
desire and intention to become immanent in the world and among his people by
creating a body or receptacle for Himself on earth.
These themes as well as the Hebrew Bible’s depiction of YHWH as both immanent
and transcendent are best explained by Complex Monotheism. Within Complex
Monotheism YHWH exists as more than one person in distinct bodies at the same
time. This allows YHWH to be present in the world without being limited,
entirely vulnerable, or consubstantial with the world. He can experience
suffering and joy with his people and yet not be limited or vulnerable due to
the fact that YHWH is more than just one embodied, person and also exists
beyond and independent of the world.
Difficulty in finding a substantive basis for categorically
separating biblical Judaism and New Testament Christianity is not limited to
Complex Monotheism or the incarnation. Attempts to dissociate Judaism from
Christianity on the basis of identifying Jesus as Messiah, the abrogration of
the Law of Moses, the unique covenantal relationship between God and Israel,
and a dying and rising Messiah who is the incarnation of YHWH are also not sustainable.
It is clear that many of the Jewish people and rabbinic leadership did reject
Jesus as a false Messiah. However, some Jews and even rabbinically-trained
Pharisees did accept Jesus as Messiah. Jewish attestation of a rejection of
Jesus as Messiah does not emerge until a century or two after Jesus’ life.
Therefore, it is not possible to discern an official position of Judaism
regarding Jesus until after the close of the second century at the earliest.
Likewise, Rabbi Akiba himself died while believing in a man who was a false
messiah (Simeon bar Kokhba.) Therefore, a belief in someone regarded as a false
Messiah does not constitute grounds for being labeled a heretic.
Furthermore, Christianity and Judaism have similar views and
approaches to the Law of Moses. The historical reality is that significant
portions of the Law of Moses have not been applicable or practicable since 70
AD. The New Testament is not antithetical to the Law of Moses. On the contrary,
in the New Testament period, Jewish followers of Jesus continued to keep the
Law of Moses. They rejoiced that they could. They did not simply reject or deny
the Law of Moses. They recognized that it was God-given. The New Testament does
teach that a new covenant superseded the Law of Moses and the Sinai Covenant.
However, the new covenant incorporated aspects of the Law of Moses. And
ultimately, the New Testament’s position regarding the relationship between the
the Sinai Covenant (Law of Moses) and the new covenant is not substantively
different from the relationship between the Abrahamic Covenant and the Sinai
Covenant. Once the subsequent covenant was put into effect by God, the
parameters of that covenant were obligatory for the Jewish people. Rabbinic
Judaism’s approach to the serious limitations imposed on practicing the Law of
Moses are, in principal and large-scale practice, not substantially different
from the approach of the New Testament. Accommodations are made and Mosaic Law
is abrogated on the basis of divinely-mandated authority to create a new and
different law code. Neither Rabbinic Judaism or
Christianity applies Mosaic requirements regarding Temple
service, priestly duty, annual festivals, Sabbath day offerings, tithing, how
to live in the land, and how to enforce punishments for criminal actions. Only dietary restrictions, circumcision, and some Sabbath practices
separate Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity when it comes to keeping the Law of
Moses. Such differences are not only minor issues of practice, but most
importantly they have nothing to do with theological issues. It is true that
neither Christianity nor Rabbinic Judaism recognizes the other’s authority to
alter the Law of Moses. But the inherent similarities prohibit either side from
objecting to the other in principal. The critical disagreement is in the
legitimacy of the respective authorities identified by either party to make
changes to the Law.
New Testament teaching on God’s relationship to Abraham’s
descendents, the people of Israel,
does not differ substantively from the perspective offered in the Hebrew Bible.
The new covenant that Jesus institutes is given to Jewish men. The New
Testament reiterates that the new covenant is to Jews first and secondarily
also to Gentiles on the grounds that they convert, adopt the teachings of the
Jewish covenant, and participate with Israel
in Israel’s
covenant and promises with God. The Law of Moses had the same outlook regarding
the adoption of Gentiles into the nation of Israel.
And far from abandoning the Jews as God’s Covenant people, the New Testiment
also emphasizes that God is going to to save all of Israel.
Also like the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament acknowledges that not all of
Abraham’s or Israel’s
descendents were faithful or accepted by God. On the contrary, the portrayal of
the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament is that, in general, a larger portion of
Israel is
typically unfaithful to YHWH than the portion of Israel
who remains faithful. While it is true that various Christian groups after the
New Testament period have rejected God’s unique and ongoing covenant
relationship with Israel,
Jesus, his apostles, and the New Testament affirm this special relationship.
The final theological issue that Sommer lists as
justification for categorically separating biblical Judaism and New Testament Christianity
is the New Testament teaching that Jesus is God incarnate and that he died and
rose again. Sommer articulates that this particular belief is a form of pagan
myths about dying and rising gods. While Sommer points out that
scholarly circles have at times exaggerated the prevalence of such pagan
myths, Sommer also asserts that Judaism entirely rejects such beliefs. As with
other claimed justifications, objections concerning a belief in a dying and
rising God are untenable. We have seen the body of Jewish traditions which
identified the Messiah as a hypostasis or incarnation of YHWH. And we have even
seen a tradition in which the angelic hypostasis identified by the name YHWH in
the Hebrew bible was believed to have descended to become Jacob, a historical
human figure of significant importance and connections to central Jewish
lineage. The divine nature of the Messiah is an authentically Jewish concept
originating from biblical texts and expressed in non-Christian post-biblical
Jewish literature. Likewise, Judaism contains a general belief in the
resurrection of the dead. More specifically, pre-rabbinic and even Rabbinic
Judaism contains traditions of a dying and rising Messiah. In no way then can
the Christian teaching that Jesus is YHWH incarnate who died and rose from the
dead be categorized as non-Jewish, pagan, or a concept that Judaism has always
rejected.
Furthermore, an awareness of common Jewish views from the
period surrounding and preceding the New Testament not only impacts the
relationship between Judaism and Christianity but it also has a significant
impact upon related disputes among Christian groups. Two related examples of
this deal with the origin of the Trinitarian concept and the nature of the Word
of YHWH.
Over the centuries after the New Testament, some Christian
groups developed the belief that the Word of God was a created being who was
made by God the Father prior to the creation of the world. For these
Christians, God the Father is the Supreme Being, the only uncreated being, and
the only being worthy of worship. He is identified as the God, as YHWH, or as
God Almighty. While the Word is designated as a god, he is not understood to be
co-eternal or co-equal with the Father. He is not identified as YHWH, or as
Almighty, and he is not to be worshipped as YHWH God. On the other side of the
debate are Christians (including ourselves) who identify the Word as co-eternal
and uncreated along with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Events surrounding the
Council of Nicaea in 325 AD highlight the early developments of this dispute.
When we read John 1 in light of the existing Jewish
traditions about the Logos/Memra/Word of YHWH, its particular claims about the
Godhead become even clearer. John is a Jewish man writing at a time when Jews
identified the Word of YHWH as the person who appeared to all of the patriarchs
and prophets in the Hebrew Bible. This includes Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob,
and Moses to name a few early and significant figures. The Targums (the translations
of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic that were read in the Jewish synagogues each
week) identify the figure meeting with these men as the Word of YHWH. In the
first chapter of his gospel John is discussing this important figure that Jews
of his time identified as the Word is God. He states that the Word is God and
is with God. This is an acknowledgement of the existing Jewish understanding
that YHWH existed as more than one hypostasis or person and that the Word was
one of those persons of YHWH. John begins his gospel with an account of the
history of the Word leading up to his incarnation as Jesus. At the beginning of
this account, the Word simply exists. He exists with God and he exists as God.
He does not describe any creation event wherein the Word was made by God. In
verse 18, John explains that while no man has seen God at any time, the person
of the Word had made God known to mankind. This is a reflection of the existing
Jewish understanding that even though God was transcendent and beyond the
physical world of men, men had seen YHWH God just as the Hebrew bible says
because the Word visited the patriarchs and prophets and God was manifest to
them in the person of the Word.
The implications of John’s gospel contextualized in the
existing Jewish understanding at the time are important. The significant
relevance that this historically responsible perspective has regarding the
dispute over the nature of the Word can be seen as we note the language applied
in the Hebrew Bible to the person who appeared to the patriarchs. For instance,
the person who appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is called the Almighty in
Genesis 17:1, Genesis 35:9-11, Genesis 48:3, and Exodus 6:3. Likewise, the
person who appeared to Balaam is also the Almighty (Numbers 24:4 and 16.) And
yet in these same passages the person who appeared to these men is identified
either in the Hebrew Bible itself, in the Targums, or both as the figure
commonly identified by first-century Jews like John as the angel of YHWH or
Word of YHWH.
According to the Targum it is the Word of YHWH that Jacob
proclaims to be his God.
12. As if these examples aren’t enough (and there are many
more), just consider Genesis 28:20-21,
Jacob’s vow. In Hebrew, it reads, “If God
will be with me and will watch over me on this journey I am taking and will
give me food to eat and clothes to wear so that I return safely to my father’s
house, then the Lord will be my God.” The Targum says, “If the Word of the Lord will be with me…then the Word of the Lord will be my God.”
The Word of the Lord will be Jacob’s God! And this was read in the synagogues for decades, if not centuries. Week
in and week out, the people heard about this walking, talking, creating,
saving, delivering Word, this Word who was Jacob’s God. – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus,
Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 21
(For a review of information contained in the Targum and
pre-rabbinic traditions about the Word of YHWH please revisit the portion of
this study entitled “The Continuation of Complex Monotheism within Judaism
after the Close of the Hebrew Bible” and especially the Memra Chart contained
in that section.)
As we read these passages, keep in mind that Jews of the
first century AD understood the angel/Word of YHWH to be the same person who
appeared and interacted with the patriarchs in each of these biblical passages.
Thus, at the very least, the entire angelic theophany in Exodus (and maybe those in Genesis as
well) was seen as a close unit as early as LXX translations in the second century
B.C.E….Whatever is implied about the status of the tradition at the time of the
LXX translation, this angelic manifestation of God is so consistent a character
in the biblical drama for Philo that he blithely applies the description of the
angel Moses saw to the angel that appears to Abraham. Again the link is
made on the basis of place. (Gen.
28:11): For as long as he falls short of perfection, he has the Divine Word as his leader, since there
is an oracle which says, “Lo I send my messenger before thy face to guard thee
in thy way, that he may bring you into the land which I have prepared for thee;
give heed to him and hearken to him, disobey him not; for he will by no means
withdraw from you. For My name is in him.” (Ex. 23:30 f.) – Alan F.
Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, p.
169-170
Genesis 15:1 similarly states that the Word of YHWH appeared
in a vision to Abraham and Genesis 3:8 describes the “voice” of YHWH walking in
the garden. The same passage is translated in the Targum as “the Word/Memra of
YHWH walking the garden.”
11. To use Genesis
3:8 as an example, most of the people who were listening to the public reading
of the Scriptures would not have understood the Hebrew, which said, “And they
heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden.” Rather, they
would have understood the Targum, which said, “And they heard the sound of the Word of the LORD God walking in the midst of the garden.” 30 –
Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to
Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 19
This means that according to John’s Gospel, the Targums, and
the Hebrew Bible, the Word of YHWH identifies himself and is identified by
others as God Almighty. Similarly, in the Hebrew Bible and the Targums the Word
identifies himself and is identified by others simply as YHWH. Furthermore, it
is the Word who commands that Israel
must worship YHWH alone for he is a jealous god (Exodus 20:5, 23:24, Leviticus 26:1, Deuteronomy 5:9.) For
example, here is Exodus 20:2. Keep in mind that according to numerous passages
in Exodus and Numbers the person who brought the Israelites out of Egypt
was the “angel of YHWH” which is another title for the Word of YHWH.
Exodus 20:2 I am the LORD (YHWH) thy God, which have
brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing
that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the
water under the earth: 5 Thou shalt not
bow down (07812) thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a
jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto
the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
These commands are given by the Word speaking in the first
person. This means that the Word is identifying himself as YHWH and commanding
the Israelites not to worship anyone besides himself. And as we would expect
then, it is the angel/Word of YHWH that Moses, Jacob, and Balaam bow down to in
worship and call their God (Genesis 28:20-21, Exodus 24:1, 33:10, 34:8, Numbers
22:31.) This is all the more significant for those who accept the New Testament
given the declaration in John 1 that no man has seen the Father. Who then are
these men bowing down before in worship? For example, here is Exodus 24:1 where
Moses and the elders go up the mountain to worship YHWH. Note the word for
“worship” is the same Hebrew word used in Exodus 20:5 where YHWH commands the
Israelites not to worship any other god but him. In both cases it is “shachah”
(Strong’s number 07812.)
Exodus 24:1 And he said unto Moses, Come up unto the
LORD (YHWH), thou, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders
of Israel; and worship (07812) ye afar off.
We must keep in mind that Jews of the pre-rabbinic and even
the rabbinic period (Rabbi Idi) identified the person that Moses and the elders
went up to as Metatron, another name for the angel or Word of YHWH. And yet it
is this Word of YHWH that Moses and the elders worship.
“According to a story
in the Talmud (b. Sanhedrin 38b), a man identified as a schismatic – here a
clear reference to a Jewish follower of Jesus – was talking to a rabbi about Exodus 24:1, the beginning of the passage
we are looking at, in which God said to Moses, “come up to the LORD [Hebrew,
YHWH].” …The Jewish believer was trying to argue that it seemed odd that God
said to Moses, “Come up to YHWH,” rather than, “come up to me.” Didn’t this
seem to indicate more than one divine Person? …Now, the rabbi could have simply replied, “Such usage is not that
unusual in the Hebrew Bible.” Instead, because he too sensed that there were
some theological issues to be addressed, the rabbi answered that God was not
speaking here of himself but rather of Metatron, the most powerful angel in
Rabbinic literature, “whose name is as his Master.” In other words, when God said, “Come upon to YHWH,” he did not mean,
“Come up to me” but “come up to Metatron whose name is YHWH.” So according to
this Talmudic interpretation, Metatron was called YHWH!” – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus,
Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 26
Here is the Talmudic account. Again, Rabbi Idi’s remarks are
in blue. (The remarks of the “Min” or sectarian are in red.)
Sanhedrin 38b: R.
Nahman said: “He who is as skilled in refuting the Minim as is R. Idith [MS. M: R Idi] let him do so; but not
otherwise. Once a Min said to R. Idi:
‘ It is written, And
unto Moses He said: Come up to the Lord (Ex. 24:1). But surely it should
have stated, Come up to me!’ – ‘It was Metatron,’ he
replied, whose name is similar to that of his Master, for it is written, For My name is in Him. (Ex. 23:21). ‘But if
so, we should worship him!’ ‘The same passages, however,’ replied R. Idi,
‘says: Be not rebellious against Him [i.e.,
exchange Me not for him.’] ‘But if so, why is it
stated: He will not pardon your
transgression?’ (Ex. 23:21). He answered: ‘By our
truth [lit: we hold the belief] we would not accept him even as a messenger,
for it is written. And he said unto him, If
Thy presence go not etc.’ (Ex. 33:15).” – Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, p. 68-69
The established Jewish tradition read in the synagogues each
week at the time of the New Testament was to identify the figure that Moses and
the people worshipped in Exodus 33:10 and 34:5-8 as the angel/Word of YHWH.
Exodus 33:10 And all the people saw the cloudy pillar stand
at the tabernacle door: and all the people rose up and worshipped (07812),
every man in his tent door. 11 And the
LORD (YHWH) spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his
friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua
Exodus 34:5 And the LORD descended in the cloud, and
stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD. 6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed,
The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant
in goodness and truth, 7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and
transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children,
and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation. 8 And Moses made haste, and bowed his head toward the earth, and
worshipped (07812.)
Note that Exodus 33:10 specifically identifies the figure in
the cloudy pillar as the one worshipped by the nation of Israel.
And yet Exodus 14 identifies this person both as the angel of YHWH (v. 19) and
simply as YHWH (v. 24.)
Exodus 14:17 And I, behold, I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians, and they shall follow them: and I will get me honour
upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host, upon his chariots, and upon his horsemen.
18 And the Egyptians shall know that I am
the LORD, when I have gotten me honour upon Pharaoh, upon his chariots, and
upon his horsemen. 19 And the angel of
God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and
the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them:
20 And it came between the camp of the
Egyptians and the camp of Israel; and it was a cloud and darkness to them, but it gave light by night to these: so that the one came not near
the other all the night. 21 And Moses
stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that
night, and made the sea dry land, and
the waters were divided…24 And it came to pass, that in the morning watch the LORD looked unto the host of the
Egyptians through the pillar of fire and of the cloud, and troubled the
host of the Egyptians.
In 1 Corinthians 10:1-4 and 9, Paul speaks of the Rock that
followed Israel
in the pillar of the cloud mentioned in such passages from Exodus and
Deuteronomy. He plainly identifies the Rock, the person in the pillar of cloud,
as Jesus Christ.
1 Corinthians 10:1 Moreover, brethren,
I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2
And were all baptized unto Moses in the
cloud and in the sea; 3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat; 4 And did
all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ…9 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of
them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.
The phrase “the Rock,” which Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 10,
is a specific reference back to Moses’ identification of YHWH as “the Rock” in
Deuteronomy 32. Again, we see that the incarnate Word of YHWH (Jesus) is
identified by a Jewish New Testament author as YHWH himself.
Deuteronomy 32:3 Because
I will publish the name of the LORD:
ascribe ye greatness unto our God. 4
He
is the Rock, his work is
perfect: for all his ways are
judgment: a God of truth and without
iniquity, just and right is he…15 But
Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou
art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his
salvation…18 Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and
hast forgotten God that formed thee…31 For their rock is not as our Rock, even
our enemies themselves being judges.
Just as in the Exodus accounts where Moses and the people of
Israel worship
the angel of YHWH, Numbers 22 identifies the figure that Balaam interacts with
as both YHWH and the angel of YHWH (and possibly the Word of YHWH, v. 18.) And
again, it is to the angel of YHWH that Balaam bows down in worship using the
same Hebrew word not only from Exodus 24:1 but also from Exodus 20:5, which
forbid worshipping anyone other than YHWH God.
Numbers 22:4 And
Moab said unto the elders of Midian, Now shall this
company lick up all that are round
about us, as the ox licketh up the grass of the field. And Balak the son of Zippor was
king of the Moabites at that time. 5 He
sent messengers therefore unto Balaam the son of Beor to Pethor…8 And he said unto them, Lodge here this night,
and I will bring you word again, as the LORD (YHWH) shall speak unto me:
and the princes of Moab
abode with Balaam. 9 And God came unto
Balaam, and said, What men are these with thee? 10 And
Balaam said unto God, Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab, hath sent unto
me, saying, 11 Behold, there is a people come out of Egypt,
which covereth the face of the earth: come now, curse me them; peradventure I
shall be able to overcome them, and drive them out. 12 And God said unto Balaam, Thou shalt not go with them; thou shalt
not curse the people: for they are
blessed. 13 And Balaam rose up in the morning, and said unto the princes of
Balak, Get you into your land: for the
LORD (YHWH) refuseth to give me leave to go with you…18 And Balaam answered and said unto the
servants of Balak, If Balak would give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot go beyond the word of the LORD
(YHWH) my God, to do less or more. 19 Now therefore, I pray you, tarry ye also here this night, that I may know what the LORD (YHWH) will say unto me more. 20 And God came unto Balaam at night, and said
unto him, If the men come to call thee, rise up, and go with them;
but yet the word which I shall say unto thee, that shalt thou do. 21 And Balaam
rose up in the morning, and saddled his ass, and went with the princes of Moab.
22 And God’s anger was kindled because
he went: and the angel of the LORD
(YHWH) stood in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him. 23 And the ass saw the angel of the LORD (YHWH) standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and
the ass turned aside out of the way, and went into the field: and Balaam smote
the ass, to turn her into the way. 24 But
the angel of the LORD (YHWH)
stood in a path of the vineyards, a wall being on this side, and a wall on that side. 25 And when the ass saw the angel of the LORD (YHWH),
she thrust herself unto the wall, and crushed Balaam’s foot against the wall:
and he smote her again. 26 And the angel
of the LORD (YHWH) went further, and stood in a narrow place, where was no way to turn either to the right
hand or to the left. 27 And when the ass
saw the angel of the LORD (YHWH), she fell down under Balaam: and Balaam’s
anger was kindled, and he smote the ass with a staff…31 Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he
saw the angel of the LORD (YHWH) standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and he bowed down his head, and fell flat (07812) on his face.
Note
that each of these passages in the Hebrew Bible (Exodus 20:5, Exodus 24:1,
Exodus 33:10, Exodus 34:5, and Numbers 22:31) uses the same word for worship
(“shachah,” 07812). Likewise, the Septuagint translates “shachah” in each of
these passages with the Greek verb “proskuneo” (Strong’s number, 4352.) This is
the same Greek word used repeatedly in the New Testament to translate the first
commandment and to iterate the obligation to worship YHWH alone.
Matthew 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto
him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship (4352) the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou
serve.
Luke 4:8 And Jesus answered and said
unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship (4352) the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou
serve.
John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship (4352) him must worship (4352)
him in spirit and in truth.
And
yet the New Testament repeatedly indicates that the incarnate Word (Jesus) is
worshipped by his disciples and by angelic heavenly beings using this word
(“proskuneo”) that is employed when the first commandment prohibits worshipping
anyone besides YHWH.
Matthew 14:33 Then they that were in the ship came and
worshipped (4352) him, saying, Of a truth thou art the
Son of God.
Matthew 15:25 Then came she and worshipped (4352) him, saying,
Lord, help me.
Matthew 20:20 Then came to him the mother of Zebedee’s children with her sons,
worshipping (4352) him, and desiring a certain thing of him.
Matthew 28:9 And
as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and
worshipped (4352) him.
Matthew 28:17 And
when they saw him, they worshipped
(4352) him: but some doubted.
Luke 24:52 And they worshipped (4352) him, and returned to Jerusalem
with great joy:
Likewise,
Revelation 4 uses this same Greek word “proskuneo” to describe the angelic
beings worshipping God in heaven as they proclaim his worthiness to receive
glory, honor, and power to him.
Revelation 4:10 The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne,
and worship (4352) him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns
before the throne, saying, 11 Thou art
worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created
all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
Note
that Revelation 4:10 specifies that
the worship is given to God, in part, because he has created all things. And
yet this same achievement is credited to the Word in John 1:1. If the person
sitting on the throne is worthy of worship because he created all things then
the same would be true for the Word since he also created all things. And as we
might expect from these observations, the same proclamations are, in fact, made
to the Word (the Lamb) as they fall down before him in Revelation 5.
Revelation 5:8 And when he had taken
the book, the four beasts and four and
twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps,
and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints…11 And I
beheld, and I heard the voice of many
angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of
them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands; 12
Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the
Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and
honour, and glory, and blessing. 13 And
every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and
such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and
honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and
unto the Lamb for ever and ever. 14 And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down
and worshipped (4352) him that liveth for ever and ever.
The
worshippers here in chapter 5 are the same angelic beings who fall down before
and worship Him who sits on the throne in chapter 4. Note that this passage
from chapter 5 concludes with the angelic beings making these proclamations to
Him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb together followed by verse 14’s
statement that they fell down and worshipped him (“proskuneo.”) The verse does
not designate that only one receives the worship of the angelic beings but not
the other. Rather, after mentioning the Lamb and Him who sits on the throne
separately, the verse designates both as the object of worship by simply using
a singular pronoun. This is reminiscent of Genesis 1, which also uses singular
pronouns in reference to God depicted as a plurality of interacting persons.
The Context and comparisons of the treatment of the Word (Lamb) and Him who
sits on the throne in these two chapters shows that no distinction is needed
or, indeed, can be made with regard to worship. The angelic beings worship both
the Word and Him who sits on the throne in a perfect
fulfillment of Daniel 7’s vision. As we have seen, up until the third century
AD Daniel 7 was understood by Jews to refer to two distinct hypostases (or
persons) of God on heavenly separate thrones, one of which was associated with
the Word of YHWH and the Davidic Messiah.
The
use of these Hebrew and Greek words for worship make it exceedingly difficult
to deny that the Word is receiving the very worship given to YHWH alone and
forbidden to anyone else especially when the immediate context depicts another
person of YHWH receiving that same kind of worship simultaneously. The language
and historical context of these biblical passages shows that the Word is
worshipped by the patriarchs, the apostles, and angelic beings as YHWH in the
manner which was forbidden to anyone but YHWH. These observations make it
exceedingly difficult to argue that the Word is not understood by first century
Jews including the New Testament writers to be YHWH God and worthy of our
worship.
This
is why the early Christians including the apostles and New Testament authors
feel free to identify the Word/Logos (Jesus) with all of the first-century
epithets that were used of YHWH God alone, at times, exactly as they are used of
YHWH GOD in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible). The
most important of these titles are the Greek terms “kyrious” and “theos” which
are the words used to translate YHWH (“kyrious”) and God (“theos”) from the
Hebrew Bible.
As further evidence
that these traditions had a background in Hellenistic Judaism before they were
put to Christian use, Goodenough shows that most of the titles applied to the logos
by Justin are the same as those used by Philo and other Hellenstic Jewish
writers: theos, kyrios, angelos,
dynamis, anatole, litha, petra, arche, hemera (phos), sophia, aner, anthropos,
Israel, Jacob, etc.: 17 [Footnote 17: E. R. Goodenough, The Theology of Justin Martyr, p.
168-172.] – Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in
Heaven, p. 223-224
These are equivalent to
the logos which as a second God can also be given the title “Lord.” (kyrios – YHWH).
This doctrine, which allows that “place” is a divine creature called Lord, cannot strike us as innocent, especially
when we know that “Lord” is synonymous with the tetragrammaton… – Alan F.
Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, p.
162-163
But Jos. 22:22 has exactly the same string of divine names,
as Ps. 50:1 – El, Elohim, YHWH – so it is equally likely to have been used as
proof of plurality. Notice that Irenaeus
uses the passage merely to prove that the Son is one with the Father. He could
do this because the Greek translation of the psalm used a genitive plural to
translate one name of God (Theos Theon
Kyrios) making a total of two figures. – Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, p. 228-229
Likewise, we have already seen that John 1:14 identifes the
Word as the glory of God paralleling the Jewish concept of the “kabod”
(“glory”) of God (and its cognate the Name of God) expressed in both rabbinic
writing and the Hebrew bible itself.
But in most biblical
texts the divine kabod refers to a
divine attribute, whether a concrete one that embodies God’s presence but does
not exhaust it (i.e., a hypostasis) or an abstract characteristic, such as
the honor due to the deity or the moral qualities the deity expresses…The consistent tendency of many of these
ambiguous texts to associate God’s kabod
with light, fire, and brightness (e.g., Deuteronomy 5.20; Isaiah 6.3, 24.23,
60.2, 62.2; Zechariah 2.9) suggests that, even when the term is used
metaphorically, a more substantial usage stands in the background. –
Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 61-62
Endnote 22: Even…Justice
and Fairness…may have been hypostatized in Northwest Semitic literature, where
they are actual gods…(For a similar use in rabbinic liturgy, see the
Sabbath morning hymn, “El Adon,”
where…Right and Fairness…are in God’s
presence, along with other creatures…who comprise the heavenly court.) Consequently, the parallel between kabod and terms such as these leaves
open at least the possibility that kabod here
is not an abstract quality but a hypostatized quality that has become a
substantial entity. – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 215
The terms shem and kabod outside priestly and
deuteronomic literature, in short,
function in similar ways. Thus it is not surprising that the terms often appear
together or parallel to each other (see,
e.g., Isaiah 59.19; Jeremiah 14.21; Psalms 72.19, 79.9, 102.16-17, 106.2; and
Nehemiah 9.5 [cf. Isaiah 30.27]). In Psalm 29.2 and 66.2, the worshippers laud
the kabod of God’s shem, whereas in Psalm 27.19 and
Nehemiah 9.5, the shem of God’s kabod receives Israel’s praise. Psalm 63.3 is an especially
interesting case of their appearance together: The worshipper at the sanctuary
sees God’s kabod and raises his hand
to God’s shem.
In many passages, it is hard to say whether these two closely related terms
refer to parts of God’s self, to concrete manifestations that embody or
surround the divine presence, to abstract characteristics of God, or to
epiphenomena that relate to a theophany. This difficulty is not surprising in a
world where divine selfhood can be fragmented or overlapping. In such a world, there is little reason to
decide whether shem
was the very essence of God, a local manifestation of God, or a hypostasis that
overlapped with God while maintaining some distinct nature. All three could be
the case at once. Similarly, kabod
might be a body of God without being the
body of God; it might be an emanation from but not the entirety of the divine
self. It is because of the scope of fluidity traditions that we find a plethora
of verses that point in all these directions. – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 62
God’s name and God’s
Glory in the Hebrew Bible – Priestly and deuteronomic traditions make
distinctive use of two terms that refer
to divine presence in various parts of the Hebrew Bible: (kabod, usually translated as “Glory”) appears often in the
former, and (shem, or “name”) in the latter. To understand how these traditions take up these terms, it is necessary
to review how other biblical texts use them. Outside the priestly and
deuteronomic traditions these terms can
refer to some type of divine manifestation or some attribute closely aligned
with God’s self, but the exact nature of the connection between God and these
manifestations or attributes is difficult to characterize. The term “name” in
ancient Near Eastern cultures can refer to the essence of any thing and hence
can be a cipher for the thing itself. Examples of the identity of God and God’s
name in biblical literature abound. The synonymous parallelism of God and God’s
name in many poetic texts attest to this identity…(Micah
5.3…Psalm 7.18…Psalm 145.21) Similarly, in Jeremiah 14.9 the presence of God in
the people’s midst is equated with God’s shem…Yet
shem or Name can also refer to a
hypostasis, a quality or attribute of a particular being that becomes distinct
from that being but never entirely independent of it. 6 In many texts, God’s shem embodies but does not
exhaust God’s self, and it also maintains some degree of separate identity.
Texts that use the term this way give witness to the fluidity of the divine
selfhood so common in the ancient Near East. We noted in the previous chapter
that Exodus 23.20-2 portrays God as sending an angel (mal’akh) to accompany the Israelites to their land. God tells Moses
to obey the mal’akh, because “My shem is in it.” This mal’akh is the sort I discussed in the
previous chapter – not quite a separate being but a small-scale manifestation
of God. At times, the divine shem is sufficiently material to be the subject of its own
verbs of motion. In Isaiah 30.27 it moves on its own: “The shem of Yhwh comes from afar, burning in anger, with a weighty
load.” It is difficult to say whether “the Name of Yhwh” here means “the LORD
Himself” or whether the poem distances God slightly from this angry theophany,
implying that only part of God’s self will become manifest. 8
Significantly, God’s shem
can manifest itself at more than one location. According to Exodus 20.24, the
Israelites are to construct altars “in all the locations where I cause My shem to be
mentioned.” Thus the notion of shem reflects the
possibility of a fragmented divine self and its physical manifestation in
multiple bodies. In short, shem functions outside deuteronomic and
priestly texts both as a synonym for God and as a hypostasis or emanation of God that is not quite a separate deity.
– Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 58-59
To first-century Jews including the New Testament authors
and apostles, the Word (Jesus) was YHWH. Therefore, the apostle Thomas could
speak to Jesus and proclaim him to be both the God (“theos”) and the Lord
(“kyrios.”) By recording Thomas’ words with these two Greek terms, the apostle
John applies the existing Jewish terminology for YHWH and God (“kyrios” and
“theos”) to the Word (Jesus.) (The Greek words used in verse 28 are literally
“the Lord of me and the God of me” using the Greek definite articles.)
John 20:27
Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy
finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my
side: and be not faithless, but believing. 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because
thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and
yet have believed.
An awareness of the first-century Jewish context that the
New Testament was written within is an essential component of sound biblical
interpretation. Proper hermeneutic principals dictate that we try to understand
scripture in the historical context that its authors wrote within so that we
avoid misreading them through more modern experiences and views, which may have
nothing to do with what these ancient texts had in mind. As we can see, an
awareness of the existing Jewish context in which John and the other Jewish New
Testament authors wrote negates the position of those who conclude that the
Word is not YHWH, or the Almighty, or worthy of true religious worship.
Likewise, identifying the Word as a being who is a god but who is not the same
being as YHWH God constitutes a Platonic reinterpretation of the Jewish
teaching articulated in both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. Under such
Platonic schemes, the Logos is seen as the first being (or level of being)
created by the One God. As we approach interpreting the New Testament we must
choose either to interpret it in light of first-century Jewish traditions or
Platonic traditions that became influential in Christian circles in the fourth
century AD through the actions of figures like Constantine, Arius, Ambrose, and
Augustine as well as in later rabbinic writings exemplified by Moses Maimonides.
(For more information on the theological alterations and Platonic influences of
these fourth century figures please see our articles on Roman Catholicism and
the History of the Church.)
These facts and considerations are relevant to common
assertions that the Trinity was not taught before the fourth century AD and
that it was first introduced by figures such as Constantine.
But, as we have seen the Trinity is simply a shorthand term used to denote the
basic belief that God exists as more than one person. An awareness of Jewish
views from the first century AD and earlier shows that this was a common belief
among Jews and other Semitic peoples going back to the earliest biblical times
and continuing into the second century AD. The only unique aspect of the
Trinitarian concept is its specification of the number of persons that are YHWH
as three. However, the concept of God existing as more than one person is not a
novel idea that emerges in the fourth century church. Instead, it is a
well-established, longstanding idea held by Jews and Semitic peoples for
millennia and, more specifically, from the earliest portions of the Hebrew
bible.
The affirmation of the belief that God exists as more than
one person is clearly presented in the New Testament. The New Testament
affirmation of these beliefs is even clearer when we read it in its historical,
first-century, Jewish context. Even the specification of three persons of YHWH
(Father, Word/Son, and Holy Spirit) is clearly presented in the New Testament.
It is true that the term Trinity was not used in the New Testament. Although
perhaps the earliest recorded use of this term dates to Tertullian in the early
decades of the third century (circa 200-220 AD), nevertheless the beliefs
referred to by the term Trinity were taught in the New Testament and within
earlier Judaism long before Constantine and the Council of Nicaea. The idea
that Constantine and the Council of Nicaea invented Trinitarian teaching is
historically untenable as is its more general correlary that the Trinity is an
adaptation from pagan polytheism.
Just as untenable is the common assertion that Judaism has
always taught Simple Monotheism. This assertion is little more than an
assumption. It is not merely an oversimplification. Rather it is historically
inaccurate. The idea that Judaism has always taught Simple Monotheism does not
have the support of historical documentation in Jewish literature prior to the
third century AD. In contrast to this assertion, the counterclaim, that Judaism
has always taught Complex Monotheism, is not simply an assertion or wishful
thinking on the part of Christians. To the contrary, the Hebrew Bible and
Jewish sects from across the board articulate forms of Complex Monotheism in
the centuries prior to 200 AD. These sects include: Jewish apocalyptic groups,
Christians, Jewish mystics, Philo, and even some Pharisees and rabbis like Paul
and Akiba. In light of the historical evidence presented by modern,
non-Christian, Jewish scholars (such as Segal and Sommer) we must recognize
that it is not responsible or accurate to claim that Biblical Judaism, pre-rabbinic
Judaism, or even early rabbinic Judaism have always held the same point of view
as modern, Rabbinic Judaism on these issues.
As we conclude we must keep in mind that the historical data
and assessments that counter conventional perspectives are not offered by
Christians seeking to vindicate New Testament teaching against Jewish
objections. These are the conclusions and historical assessments of qualified,
credentialed, historians of religion who are non-Christian Jews chronicling
ancient Jewish beliefs and developments in the theology of Judaism and
Christianity. Any responsible assessment of the biblical or Jewish nature of
New Testament or rabbinic beliefs should address the evidence presented by
these scholars. We have simply attempted to represent their work in a single
document and connect the related observations made by these authors.
When the historical and biblical evidence is taken into
account attempts to categorically separate the theology of Judaism and New
Testament Christianity prior to the third century AD evaporate, particularly
with regard to issues such as the nature of the Godhead, the Messiah, and incarnation.
In light of the available historical data, Christianity becomes an
authentically Jewish sect whose novelty is derived from its application of
existing Jewish traditions to the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Since the
beliefs associated with Jesus are authentically Jewish, originate from the
Hebrew Bible itself, and are shared by other Jewish sects prior to the third
century AD, it is not possible to categorically separate Christianity and
biblical Judaism on the grounds that Jesus’ teaching and the Christian belief
in Jesus violate Judaism. While Jesus and his teaching may contradict rabbinic
theological positions that developed centuries later, Jesus and his teachings
(as contained the New Testament) were perfectly acceptable and fairly common when
compared to Judaism from the earliest biblical periods until the close of the
second century AD. No substantive, historically viable grounds exist for excising
New Testament Christianity from authentic, biblical Judaism. On the contrary, the
exclusion of New Testament Christianity can only be maintained if one
subscribes to a system of beliefs that were contrived by men centuries after
the destruction of the Temple in 70
AD. More specifically, one can only justify excluding New Testament teaching from
authentic Judaism if one adheres to a non-biblical, post-biblical religious
system that in many ways requires impositions borrowed from pagan (Platonic)
thought and itself admits to overturning and replacing enormous portions of the
specific commandments laid out by Moses as part of the Sinai Covenant.
What is even more interesting is the realization that the
New Testament Christian sect constitutes an earlier form of Judaism than the Rabbinic sect particularly with regard to the antiquity of
its particular beliefs. There are two factors supporting this conclusion.
First, the texts of the New Testament were written between 100-150 years before
the earliest rabbinic material. Likewise as a general rule the chief New
Testament figures were active before the earliest figures featured in the
Talmud. Jesus’ life and ministry took place over 40 years before early Talmudic
figures. Second, the beliefs and teachings contained in the New Testament
represent an earlier form of Judaism than that offered by Rabbinic Judaism. The
new standards of orthodoxy, new conceptions of God, and new interpretations of
the Hebrew Bible found in Rabbinic Judaism developed in the second and third
century AD, many centuries after the Biblical period. It constitutes a
departure from many of the teachings and practices of Judaism dating from the
time of the Biblical period to the second century AD. This would be equivalent
to a new Jewish sect emerging out of Rabbinc Judaism and declaring many of the
essential, widely-held, and longstanding beliefs and practices of Rabbinic
Judaism to be suddently no longer authentically Jewish. Indeed, Christian
teaching is often excised from Judaism on the allegation that it is a novelty
departing from its Jewish antecedent. And yet there is compelling historical
evidence that Rabbinic Judaism itself originates from this same kind of
innovation and alteration of earlier Judaism.
On the other hand, the beliefs articulated in the New
Testament existed in Judaism for hundreds of years prior to the onset of rabbinic
views. It is true that the Pharisees are the predecessors of the rabbis
although this is largely documentable in terms of practice, not theology.
However, the theological features that distinguish Rabbinic Judaism from
Christianity are not readily identifiable or documentable prior to the second
century AD. Therefore, Rabbinic Judaism is a distinct form of Judaism that is
younger than New Testament Christianity. Rabbinic Judaism developed many
centuries after the Biblical Period. (While there is a gap between the writing
of the last book of the Hebrew bible and the onset of Christianity, it must be
noted that this gap is much shorter time by hundreds of years.) On the other
hand, as we have seen, the core theological concepts of pre-rabbinic Judaism are
preserved in New Testament Christianity, which subsequently remains as the main
surviving transmitter of the authentic beliefs and traditions of an earlier and
more ancient Judaism.
In closing, I would like to add one final thought based on
the preceding study. There is compelling reason to believe that Judaism, its
patriarchs, its prophets, its ancient sects, and its scriptures are intending
to share with us this story. YHWH God in the person of the Word came to the
patriarchs and prophets of Israel in order to cultivate for himself a nation
from the descendents of Abraham so that he could one day become incarnate as a
man and as a Jew, share their sufferings, forgive their sins, live among them
as their God, their King, their Lawgiver, and their Savior, and to bring light
and peace to the world as a whole. As we have seen, Sommer has offered evidence
for this exact conclusion.
Yet it has become
clear in this exposition that the P
document is in fact the most Christian section of Hebrew scripture. As one
reads through P beginning with Genesis 1, one can see that for all its attention to specifics, this narrative has a larger, overarching
concern: the decision of a transcendent God to become immanent in the world
this God created….P subsequently narrates, at much greater length, God’s
attempt to overcome this distance. Doing so requires the designation of the
servants who will build the receptacle for God’s body on earth and hence their liberation from Egyptian
bondage….it nonetheless describes an act of divine grace, for those rules provide the means for God
to enter the world and thus for humanity to approach God. In broad terms, P’s
basic story and the New Testament’s are of the same type. – Benjamin D.
Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 136-137
In light of these things, the final verse of the section of the Hebrew Bible called the Nevi'im (the Prophets) may provide a relevant thought. In the verse below, the Hebrew word translated as “hearts” is “leb” (concordance number 03820.) It conveys the idea of the “inner man, mind, will, heart, understanding.” Similarly, the Hebrew word translated as “turn” is “shuwb” (concordance number 07725). It can mean “return, turn back, restore.” Therefore, Malachi 4:5-6 may indicate that in the period before the coming of the day of the Lord, the understanding of the children or descendents of the people of Israel will return to the understanding and faith that was held by their forefathers. Perhaps, the information and research done by Jewish biblical and historical scholars like Segal and Sommer will provide the opportunity to return to the understanding and faith of the biblical patriarchs just as Malachi 4:6 implies.
Malachi 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: 6 And he shall turn (07725) the heart (03820) of the fathers to the children, and the heart (03820) of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.
For a more detailed look at biblical and other historical
arguments that New Testament teachings are the legitimate form of Judaism and
that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah expected in the Hebrew Bible, please see the
Christianity and Judaism section of our Why Christianity study.
For additional information on correspondences between
rabbinic traditions and New Testament teaching regarding important theological
and messianic issues, please see our Rabbinical Studies series featuring the work
of Jewish-Christian scholar and author Dr. Michael Brown.
For an in-depth examination and exegesis of key passages
throughout the Hebrew Bible, which depict the Jewish God YHWH as one God who
has revealed himself as more than one simultaneously-existing, divine Person,
please see our Trinity Study.