Triumphing over – In the past few days, and over the last month or so, we have explored the meaning of the cross from a Hebrew perspective.  Despite the popular claim that “Jesus” died on the cross for the forgiveness of sin, we find that the biblical text says something else.  It says that forgiveness (atonement) has been available since before the foundation of the world although its full extent and deeper meaning has been progressively revealed to us over time.  We also found that the cross is not a place of sin sacrifice but rather the manifestation of God’s redemptive work in the defeat of the consequences of sin, that is, the death of death.  The cross demonstrates that God uses the tool of the enemy to overturn even the greatest threat of the enemy and in so doing establishes a kingdom like no other – an eternal and imperishable presence of the Lord of life.

Our investigation dealt with the mistake of reading the apparent future tense claims of New Testament passages as if they describe Greek static states rather than Hebrew dynamic processes.  We didn’t examine all the passages but we saw enough to recognize that the claims that such-and-such will happen does not imply that it is not already present in its nascent form.  This is particularly important in order to understand that the Bible is one book, not two testaments.

Finally we noticed that Yeshua Himself doesn’t point to the cross as a place of atonement.  Instead, He directs us to Moses’ use of the nes as a symbol of God’s triumph over the pagan threat of death and He clearly states that His mission was to establish His rightful place as King in the eternal Kingdom.  Since one of the key principles of biblical exegesis is that the Bible interprets the Bible (i.e., we look at other scriptures in order to understand a particular text), Yeshua’s claims have enormous weight in settling the question about the cross.

And then there is Paul.  So much of Paul’s emphasis seems rooted in the cross, but perhaps Paul’s Jewish rabbinic perspective has been lost in our penchant to read into Paul what later Christian theology proposed.  This verse in Colossians is a prime example.  From an evangelical theological point of view, we are apt to claim that this verse is about Jesus’ triumph over sin.  As my faithful antagonist says, “It looks like both atonement and the defeat of the demonic powers were accomplished by the cross.”  But is this what the verse says?  What is the object of the Greek verb thriambeuo (translated “to triumph over”)?  Does this verse claim that Yeshua’s victory is over sin?

Let’s consider the opening verb (“having disarmed the powers”).  Apekdyomai comes from two Greek words literally meaning “to strip away from.”  According to this passage (verses 13-15), Yeshua stripped away (disarmed) the power of rulers and authorities in a publicly observable manner.  They were put to shame, and in a Hebrew world, that means public shame, something that can be seen.  This is not about invisible demonic forces.  How would anyone know that they have been shamed?  Where am I to look to see their crestfallen countenances?  If rulers and authorities have been disarmed, what was taken from them?  Certainly not their claims or superiority!  What was taken from them is the ultimate basis of their power, that is, the threat of death!  If a man does not fear to die because he is assured that the King of glory has granted him eternal life, is there any ruler or authority on earth that can compel his obedience?  When Yeshua removed the consequence of sin, he stripped every earthly power of its ultimate threat.  The triumph is His victory over the one thing that holds all unredeemed men captive – not sin but death.  This triumph is public because the resurrection is a real, historical fact.

It seems so obvious when we look at the text.  There is no mention of the cross, no mention of forgiveness of sin, no mention of demonic powers.  Ah, but you object.  The NIV translates this verse as “triumphing over them by the cross.”  A quick review of the Nestle-Aland 27^th edition of the Greek New Testament reveals no such wording in the text or in any alternate fragment of the text.  In other words, those words “by the cross” have been added to the translation.  The NIV makes a marginal note, “Or them in him,” but the marginal note is the correct reading, not an alternate.  The NIV has deliberately altered the text, not on the basis of a possible alternate translation but on the basis of a theological bias for which there is no textual justification.

No wonder we think Jesus died on the cross for the forgiveness of sin.  That’s what Christian theologians want us to think.  What a mess!  Of course, this raises an important question.  If the text doesn’t contain “the cross,” why did the NIV translators feel it necessary to add these words?

So, why did Yeshua die on the cross?  Paul does not say anything about atonement or forgiveness in this verse.  He says that the supposed power of public rulers and authorities has been stripped away from them.  And how do you suppose that happened?

Topical Index:  cross, triumph, thriambeuo, disarm, apekdyomai, death, Colossians 2:15

This verse-by-verse study examines the cultural background, grammar and linguistic nuances of the text through questions designed to help the reader understand the power of James’ relationship with Yeshua.

This 20 part audio series is now available. Listen to an audio preview and purchase by clicking here: A Study of the Book of James.

The promises – Is it really true that all the saints in the hall of fame, all those righteous Old Testament figures, died without realizing the saving grace of Yeshua?  If you accept one view of this verse, that the promises were the mighty acts of God in Christ, then you will read this verse as if it were a great disappointment to men like Abraham.  They yearned for salvation.  They hoped for deliverance.  They strained to see it.  But alas, they were just born too soon.  As one Christian suggested, “This verse says they had to wait for a later date of atonement to be perfected along with us, implicitly by the cross.”

But is that what this verse really says?  Are the epangelias the life and death of the Messiah?  Niewind and Friedrich (TDNT) tell us that there is “no prior history in the OT, for the MT and LXX use different words for God’s pledges and promises.  Paul, however, links epangelia and epangellesthai.  We thus think of Heb. drb and LXX lalein or eipein. . . in terms of promise.”[1]  What does this imply?  It implies that for Paul the Greek term is not about the coming of the Messiah but rather about God’s faithfulness in answering prayer, relating the Torah to the new covenant and the olam ha’ba.

Since Paul didn’t write Hebrews, we must ask if the author of Hebrews has a special meaning for epangelias.  Hebrews takes an “already but not yet” view of the promises.  In other words, God’s promise about the land, the generations of Abraham, the covenant in Torah are all already here . . . but they are not yet completed.  The olam ha’ba is the world coming, but the Kingdom is already at hand.  The promises are reliably established, the performance guarantee is in the bank, but those who received the initial contract waited for its full expression, some of which was additionally revealed in the Messiah.  And we are still waiting too!  The ultimate fulfillment of the promises has not happened.  We see more than those heroes of the Tanakh, but God’s final glory is yet far off.  The author of Hebrews has Jeremiah 31 in mind when he speaks of the fulfillment of the promises.  The Millennial Kingdom is still to arrive. Read what Jeremiah says.  Is his description of the “new” covenant a present reality?  Has it ever been so?  No, not yet.

Some Christian interpretations of this verse and the surrounding context would suggest that the promises of God are exclusively about salvation as a result of the incarnation, but such a reading depends on prior theological assertions.  You can’t find it in the text by itself.  And when we realize that Hebrew time is not like Greek time, the whole idea that God restrained His forgiveness and withheld atonement until the arrival of Yeshua makes no sense at all.  Promise is an “already but not yet” process, not a static state of doctrinal belief.  God is at work, has been at work and continues to be at work.  That’s a promise!

Topical Index:  promise, epangelia, olam ha’ba, time, Hebrews 11:13

Only/and – At least they had the decency to put the words in italics.  The translators have added a few words here, namely, “only” and “and.”  I suppose they thought it best in order to help their English readers continue to believe that the Law no longer applies.  After all, the Law is only a shadow, right?  But now you realize that these words are not in the Greek text (it really makes no difference that that ESV adds “but” instead of “only”).  The author of Hebrews does not contrast something that isn’t real (a shadow) with something that is (the good things to come).  He merely points out that a shadow, which is quite real, isn’t the full representation of the object that casts the shadow.  If you thought shadows were not real, try standing in the Arizona sun rather than looking for shade.  The law is real; it just isn’t the fullest representation of what causes it to be.

What is the full representation that produces the real shadow of the Law?  Ah, the completed restoration of fellowship with God, the place and time where all serve Him from the heart without need of instruction, the presence of the final expression of the Kingdom.  In the meanwhile, shadows will have to do.  Shadows might not be quite as effective as indoor air conditioning, but they are certainly useful when you need to get out of the heat.  And until you go indoors, shadows are particularly important.

So the Author of Hebrews points out that “it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sin,” but that doesn’t mean they have no place at all.  They represent a greater reality, the final removal of the guilt of sin and its consequences in the full scope of Yeshua’s sacrifice, death and resurrection.  When you stand in the shade, you find temporary relief but you still long to get into air-conditioned comfort.

Yeshua comes to complete the full process of salvation, a process that addressed both our defilement (guilt) and the resulting punishment (death).  But even that isn’t the end of the story.  Yeshua’s death and resurrection are the first fruits of the Kingdom, not the final chapter.  His death and resurrection guarantee that God’s promise to restore His chosen is a reality.  The resurrection proves that death isn’t the end.  The resurrection points us toward a time when God will once again rule over all creation as the one and only acknowledged Lord of life.  Because He died and rose again, we have an eternal hope.

But in the meanwhile, shade is a wonderful thing.  Instructions about living that please our Lord and Master are essential, useful and freeing.  “Only” a shadow?  Tell that to the man who is dying of thirst in the desert.  Oh yes, and the word “shadow” (skia) is first in the Greek sentence, the position of emphasis, not the place of casual dismissal.

Topical Index:  only, shadow, skio, law, Hebrew 10:1

CORRECTION:  Yesterday in my announcement about Israel 2014, I said we were going to Petros.  Of course, I meant to type PETRA.  Here’s the link if you are coming along.

Bob Gorelik and I will make a tour/study trip to Israel during the last week of April and the first week of May, 2014.  The dates aren’t set in stone yet, but you can plan to be in Israel for Holocaust Remembrance Day (April 27, 2014) and Israel Independence Day (May 5, 2014).  This time we are going to Petra and several others sites we have not been to on the last two trips.

The group is limited to 18.

Announcements about fly dates, costs and the full itinerary will come shortly.  But start planning now.

See you in Jerusalem.

Skip

for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words;  Romans 8:26

How To Pray - Is this really the problem?  Does Paul mean to say that we don’t know how to pray?  It doesn’t seem so.  Prayer is ultimately about communion with God.  It is about all of the emotional, volitional, cognitive and embodied elements that bridge the gap between who I am and who God is.  I don’t think I really have any serious concerns about how I pray.  I know that the Hebrew words cover the range from growling to weeping, from shouting to dancing and from pleading to praising.  The real problem is that I don’t know what to pray.  I don’t really know what God is doing in the circumstances of my life, so I don’t really know what to say that will align my heart  with His purposes.  I am stuck with the finite version of the eternal plans of God.  More often than not, I am at a loss for true perspective.

Someone is sick.  What should I pray?  Should I pray for healing?  What if that is not what God is doing with these circumstances?  Someone lost a job.  Do I pray for another, or is God teaching something else?  At every hand I am confronted with confusion.  How can I pray rightly if I do not know the mind of God first?  Do I just toss up words and add the “if it is Your will” catch-all at the end?  Paul seems to say something else.

First, the Greek phrase does not include the word pos (how).  Therefore, any translation that adds this thought doesn’t seem to be correct.  There is also no justification for adding  the “for” in a translation such as “what to pray for.”  Paul literally says, “because what we may pray as we ought, we do not know.”  Leon Morris comments:  “But we cannot hide behind a plea of ignorance and give up on prayer.  Prayer is part of the Christian life. . .  We must pray aright, and since we cannot do that, the Spirit comes to our aid.”  Paul’s comment is not an excuse for incapacity.  It is a description of our finitude.  We don’t know what to pray because in our brokenness in a broken world we cannot know what to pray.  Unless God shows up in our prayers, we are simply guessing.

The Greek verb here is proseuchomai, the standard New Testament word for praying.  It is a general category word, covering all the elements of prayer.  Paul isn’t saying that we lack insight when it comes to intercession or supplication.  He is saying that the human condition leaves us deficient in all aspects of prayer.  If you have ever struggled in conversation with God, you know that Paul speaks the truth.  Prayer is very difficult.  Without the Spirit, there is always an awareness of inadequacy in the experience.

A lot of us recognize this problem, but now what?  Perhaps it helps to recognize that the Hebrew approach to prayer almost always focuses on praise and blessing for God.  In fact, most prayers in the Siddur (the Hebrew prayer book) are filled with blessing and praising God’s name, His works and His faithfulness.  There seems to be a lot less concern about human needs and supplications.  What comes to the forefront is the magnificence and majesty of God.  Maybe these prayers don’t struggle so much with the issue of incapacity because they start by acknowledging the impossibly wide gap.  Furthermore, when the prayers of the Siddur do bring needs before the King of the Universe, the attitude is always focused on the transformation of the supplicant’s heart in order to be content with the sovereign will of the King.  In other words, the prayer is not so much about what we want God to do as it is about becoming pliable and accepting His purposes.  Prayer is real petition, but it focuses on the degree of my contentment.  God’s sovereignty always trumps my desires and I need to absorb that.

Finally, it might be helpful to see that prayer is a duty, not simply a desire.  We are commanded to pray.  That means we must pray in spite of our feelings about the situation.  How easy it is to shed the discipline of prayer when we are discouraged or downtrodden.  But prayer is not emotionally based.  Prayer is the requirement to talk to Him about it.  “Why didn’t you come to me sooner,” is God’s answer to our hesitancy.  We need to make prayer a discipline of life.  Once again, this is demonstrated in the Siddur which begins prayer at the very moment we wake and has prescribed prayers for nearly every activity in the day.  Maybe the rabbis knew how quickly we lose sight of God in the hustle and bustle of life, so they built into the training process the constant reminders of Creator conversation.  Paul concurs with his exhortation, “Pray without ceasing.”

In personal confession, I recognize that I do not know what to pray.  That often leads me to not pray, since I can see no way out of the circumstances I face.  I don’t know what to do, so I don’t know what to ask.  Not knowing what to ask, I ask nothing at all.  But this is a terrible and debilitating mistake and an awful display of arrogance.  Who am I to know?   The solution to the problem is not asking God to assist me with my solutions.  I don’t have a solution.  Therefore, I am left with pouring out my heart-felt struggle without an answer.  That opens the door for the Spirit.  All I have really done is come to the Father with these words on my lips:  “I do not know what to pray, Father, but I know who You are.  Let my heart be molded to Your purposes.  That is enough for me.”

This isn’t the end of the story, but it is a beginning.

Topical Index:  prayer, proseuchomai, Siddur, contentment, Romans 8:26

Will save – Is salvation proleptic?  Ah, what a great word!  You might have to look it up, but just in case you don’t have time, “prolepsis” means “the representation of a thing as existing before it actually does or did so.”  For example, the phrase “dead man walking” used to describe an inmate on death row is proleptic.  The inmate isn’t actually dead, but he is considered such because of his anticipated outcome.

So, I will ask again.  Is salvation proleptic?  Are we saved at the moment we accept entrance into a restored fellowship with YHWH, or are we only considered saved because the actual condition is yet to be realized?  Be careful how you answer.  If you say, “Yes, of course we are saved as soon as we enter into a restored relationship with YHWH,” then doesn’t that imply that Abraham, Samuel, David and all the men and women who lived before the birth of Yeshua were saved when they were restored to fellowship by YHWH?  And if this is true, then what makes us think that salvation wasn’t available until the cross?  But if you say, “No, those men and women of the Old Testament weren’t saved yet because Yeshua had not died on the cross,” then how do you explain God’s statements about counting them righteous and restored?

Now I suppose you could offer a bi-directional salvation, that is, those who lived before Yeshua died on the cross were counted as “saved” but really weren’t “completed” until after the death of Yeshua.  Salvation had retroactive properties.  Since we no longer live in anticipation of some godly arrangement to provide us with retroactive salvation, now we are completely saved as soon as we accept Yeshua because he has already died on the cross.  That sounds plausible (I didn’t say correct) until we come across Yeshua’s own statement to the man lowered through the roof.  “Your sins are forgiven,” doesn’t sound like, “In a few months, after I have died and been raised from the dead, your sins will actually be forgiven but for now you can consider them forgiven.”  In fact, to prove his point, Yeshua restores the man to health.  That doesn’t strike me as proleptic healing.

So with this tangle of terms, what do we do with the future, active, indicative, third person, singular verb sosei – “he will save.”  Doesn’t that make it seem that salvation is still in the future?  Doesn’t that indicate that salvation is not yet available because the crucifixion hasn’t yet happened?  We are inclined to think of this Greek verb in Greek terms, that is, according to the Greek linear view of time.  But a few corrections are in order.  First, of course, is that the angel didn’t speak Greek to Joseph (and he didn’t tell Joseph to name his son “Jesus” either).  The angel spoke Hebrew and in Hebrew actions are not past, present or future.  They are complete or incomplete, that is, they are either finished or they are continuing.  Although controversial, Thorlief Boman’s insight helps us see the essential and crucial difference between Greek and Hebrew verbal forms.  Hebrew verbs basically express movement or activity, as opposed to Greek verbs which express states of being.  So the Greek future tense expresses a yet-to-occur state of being (salvation is yet to occur – he will save) while Hebrew expresses the idea as a movement not fully complete (salvation already exists but its fullest sense is on the way to being revealed).  When we read the Greek verb translated into English, we attached to the action the same static states of being associated with Greek thought about linear time.  But when we realize that this sentence is really Hebrew, then the statement is not about something yet to come but rather about the illuminating fullness of salvation anticipated when the action is finally finished.

In Greek, Joseph waits for salvation.  In Hebrew, Joseph already experiences salvation but anticipates its full expression.

OK, so why do we care about all this technical stuff?  We care because if we understand the future tense Greek expressions as Hebraic, we realize that God’s saving grace has been active since the beginning but its full implications were not understood until the final act of the play – the cross and the resurrection.  Guilt and the broken relationship that resulted from our defilement was anticipated and covered in the sacrifice of the Lamb before the foundation of the world, but the consequences of sin – death – was not finally overcome until the cross when we saw at last just how God dealt with the entire broken creation.

Why does this matter?  Because if salvation is not available until after the crucifixion, then Abraham is not really reconciled to YHWH when YHWH says, “I will establish My covenant between Me and you.”  And we really have two different religions!

Topical Index:  save, sozo, salvation, Matthew 1:21

Prophet – Who thinks he is a prophet?  It seems like an odd question, doesn’t it?  Paul doesn’t ask, “Who is recognized as a prophet among you?”  The answer to that question would be easy.  How did the congregation recognize a prophet in the Tanakh?  A prophet comes with the authority of God Himself, with God’s own message, but, as Moses said, his words must be fulfilled exactly as spoken and he must neither add nor take away from anything revealed in Torah.  Oh, yes.  There are a few other characteristics of the ones called navim in the Tanakh.  In general (there are always exceptions, of course), these men did not want the job.  They recognized quite clearly that the path of the prophet was the path of rejection, agony and death.  God called men who squirmed in every way to get out of the assignment.  To be a prophet was not a status symbol or a title of power.  It was a terminal assignment of crushing responsibility.  To be a prophet (as Heschel so eloquently put it) was to bear the broken heart of God in human form, and that meant the eradication of human agendas.

So Paul does not ask, “Who among you is recognized as a prophet?”  People who carry the sorrow of God to the cross are easily identified.  Paul asks, “Who among you thinks he is a prophet?”  This is an ego-centered question.  “Who among you has the audacity to proclaim himself a prophet?”  Notice that Paul adds, “or spiritual.”  The Greek is pneumatikos.  Certainly you recognize the word from pneuma (wind, breath, spirit), but you might not appreciate the Greek connection between prophetes and pneumatikos in the Corinthian congregation.  In order to understand why Paul connects these two terms in this way, you must understand who Paul is writing to.

Corinth was the seat of a confluence of Greek pagan religions.  Temple worship practiced in Corinth included all kinds of idolatrous rituals, fertility cults and false gods.  So when Gentiles came into the Messianic congregation of the synagogue in Corinth, they brought a lot of these prior religious practices with them.  One of these practices was the connection between the mantic and the pneuma.  The mantic has direct contact with the deity and is possessed by the deity, exhibiting non-human speech, bodily contortions, ecstatic union, etc. as the pneuma occupies the mantic.  The prophet interprets this union in order to translate the experience of the mantic into understandable language.  If this sounds similar to Paul’s description of speaking in tongues, you should not be surprised.  This practice was widely accepted among Greek mystical religions.  What does this imply about the prophet?  He (or she) considers himself chosen by the god as a divine messenger, capable of intimate, intuitive knowledge of the divine will revealed through him.  This knowledge is unassailable.  It comes from the god.  The prophet is the god’s mouthpiece.

Notice the enormous difference between this view of the prophet and the Hebrew view of a prophet.  First, the Greek prophet’s words cannot be questioned.  There is no outside, public standard to determine their truthfulness.  The prophet is the only one who hears the god and reveals the god’s will.  Secondly, the Greek prophet is unique, an almost super-human figure selected by the god to be the god’s spokesperson.  Obviously, this sets the prophet high above all other adherents.  Finally, the Greek prophet usually delivers answers to personal inquiries.  The focus of the prophet’s interpretation is toward individuals rather than toward the community at large.  In fact, the Delphi Oracle was the source of personal answers, not declarations for the entire believing community.

Who thinks he is a prophet?  With a bit of Corinthian background, we might identify those who think they are prophets today.  Do they consider themselves above examination?  Do they claim direct and immediate, private understanding of God’s will?  Do they pronounce “a word from the Lord” over individuals and personal concerns?  Do they exhibit a life of exalted status?  Do they exempt themselves from the Torah standard?  These factors point toward a Greek navi, far removed from the one who carries God’s sorrow to the cross.  If you find such a “prophet,” run for your life!  Many perished following the self-proclaimed hubris of Greek mystic religions.  I am not so sure we don’t face the same issues today, dressed up in the disguise of Christian language.

Topical Index:  prophet, navi, mantic, pneuma, 1 Corinthians 14:37

The preexistence of Christ is an important topic of discussion among modern scholars. According to R. E. O. White in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Second Edition, edited by Walter A. Elwell, “The preincarnate existence of Christ may be ‘only a simple, contemplative inference backwards from the spiritual glory of the present Christ,’ certainly its clearest expression is found in later reflecting upon the rudimentary messianic, even adoptionist, assessment of Christ in primitive Christian community.”[1] In other words, the preexistence of Christ is the understanding that when looking back into the Old Testament scriptures, clear evidence of the messiah that Christians recognize as Jesus Christ can be found; whose sacrifice on the cross would fulfill the Old Testament prophecies and covenants.[2] Discussion of the preexistence of Christ is important because if Scripture demonstrates Jesus Christ’s existence is found prior to His incarnation described in the New Testament, such evidence would provide further justification for his claims to divinity, a central tenet of Christianity. However, there is no unanimous agreement that Christ can be found in Old Testament Scripture. There are reasonable arguments on both sides of this issue. Rather then simply advocating for or against the preexistence of Christ, this paper will attempt to determine what factors cause one to stand on either side of this argument. As a result, we will discover that neither side of this argument, based on the evidence alone, is strong enough to outweigh the opposition. This paper will show that prior theological paradigms become the single determining factor in how to interpret the textual evidence for and against the preexistence of Christ. Before beginning an analysis of how paradigms influence arguments, the arguments themselves will be presented.

PROOF OF PREEXISTENCE

            Before presenting the interpretive evidence used in support of preexistence, one significant similarity between both groups must be addressed. It is quite clear that the Old Testament scriptures speak of messianic prophesies. These prophecies speak of one who will come with all the authority of God to restore mankind to a right relationship with Him. Walter Kaiser in The Messiah In The Old Testament states, “The first two prophecies in these five books of the law declared that the coming man of promise would be from the offspring of a woman (Gen. 3:15), but would also later on be none less than God come to dwell among the families of Shem (Gen. 9:27).”[3] The Jewish community during the second temple period had deep expectations for the coming Messiah. However, the Jewish community today is included among those who oppose the Christian idea of the preexistence of Christ. The problem between these two groups then isn’t a matter of recognizing the Old Testament messianic prophecies. The problem is recognizing the Messiah who did come (Jesus Christ) as the one predicted by the Old Testament.  Even if contemporary Jews should acknowledge that Jesus is an anointed man of God (the meaning of the Hebrew term ‘Messiah’), they do not thereby recognize him as divine, principally because this acknowledgement would violate the cardinal monotheistic tenet of Jewish faith.  Using the same Old Testament scriptures, Christians almost unanimously claim that the divine, second person of the trinity, Jesus Christ, can be found throughout the Old Testament. The similarity is striking: both religions consider the Old Testament scriptures to be the inspired word of God containing prophecies about a coming messiah. The difference is not an argument about the source texts.  It is rather an argument about what the texts mean. Therefore, both interpretations of the scriptural evidence must be brought forth and examined. The first piece of evidence used by those in favor of the preexistence can be traced to the very beginning of the Hebrew Bible.

The book of Genesis is the beginning of the story between God and His children; even from the time of creation it is believed that Jesus Christ can be discovered in the text. The first passage that is used to support this belief is when God is found walking in the Garden with Adam. Genesis 3:8 (NIV) states:

“Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden.”

Before God is discovered walking in the garden in the appearance of a man a pivotal event takes places that has major implications for humanity. The perfect relationship Adam and Eve had with God is now broken due to what is called “the fall of humanity”. Mentioning this broken relationship is important because now that God and humanity are no longer in right relationship the manner in which God interacts with His children changes. In this passage God is depicted as physically walking, suggesting God has a corporeal existence. These passages don’t explicitly indicate whether this was Jesus Christ walking in the garden or God the father, but this verse already begins to paint the picture of God in the form of a man. In fact, since both Judaism and Christianity acknowledge that God is an incorporeal being, it becomes very difficult to understand how this passage can be about God the Father. What we know about God throughout Scripture is that due to the fallen nature of man we are unable to see God in all his glory because it would kill us (Exodus 33:20). However, Adam and Eve experience God in the garden, suggesting that it is possible for fallen Man to be in the presence of some divine being who appears in human form. Christians conclude that this must be the pre-incarnate Jesus. Jesus Christ is thought of from New Testament revelation to be fully God yet still a man. If God the Father cannot reveal himself in all his Glory to fallen men, then logically the figure we associate as the God-man may very well be the person we find walking in the garden.

The next piece of scriptural evidence involves the life of Abraham who has many encounters with God in the form of a God-man like figure. Abraham is mentioned as having seen God and spoken with God. No direct reference is given to Jesus Christ as being the figure Abraham experiences but many aspects of Abraham’s story contribute to the evidence for preexistence. Genesis 18:1-2 (NIV) states:

“The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground.”

According to Victor Hamilton in The Book Of Genesis Chapters 18-50, “To his surprise Abraham sees three men in front of him. Yet, for reasons unclear to us, he addresses only one of them in the following verse. Indeed, one of the interesting features of this section is the shift back and forth from singular to plural…A.R. Johnson has advanced the idea that Genesis 18 provides another illustration of the oscillation between the one and the many in Israelites’ conception of God. Elohim is both one and more then one, and on this concept the NT doctrine of trinitarianism is built.”[4] In Genesis chapter 19 detailed description is provided regarding these three figures who appear to Abraham. All three were in the form of men, one being Yehovah (God) in bodily form and the two angels.[5] It is clear that in chapters 18 and 19 this encounter is considered to be an event that actually took place. God in the appearance of a man is interacting with Abraham.

The next passage used to support preexistence is Genesis 16:7, and 16:13 (NIV) which state:

“7 The angel of the Lord found Hagar near a spring in the desert; it was the spring that is beside the road to Shur…13 She gave this name to the Lord who spoke to her: ‘You are the God who sees me,’ for she said, ‘I have now seen the One who sees me,’”

Throughout Scripture there are many instances where angels appear to men as men, but in this instance this is not an angel like any other, but the angel of the Lord (angel of Yahweh). This angel speaks with the authority as if He is God. By speaking as God in first person, this being suggests that God exists in this instance in a corporeal form. According to Victor Hamilton, “It is clear from the above that the angel of Yahweh is a visible manifestation of Yahweh that is essentially indistinguishable from Yahweh himself. The angel is more a representation of God than a representative of God.”[6] The angel of the Lord appears 58 times in the Old Testament.[7] Though this angel of the Lord is considered to be a representation rather then representative, He is not simply just God the father. The angel of the Lord is a heavenly being given a particular task by Yahweh.[8] What we take away from these versus is the example of a representation of God, in fully human form, that is going about accomplishing God’s will, yet has all the authority of God by speaking as if He is God. The language used in describing the angel of the Lord in this passage and the language the angel of the Lord actually uses contributes to the idea that this figure mentioned is none other then God who in bodily form is at work to accomplish His purposes; a situation strikingly similar to the Son of God found in the New Testament scriptures.

Of all the prophets throughout the Old Testament Moses is by far the most significant. Moses is so important because of the ways in which God uses him. The interactions God has with Moses are unlike any other. Mention will be made of Moses’ first encounter with God in Exodus, Exodus 3:2 (NIV) states:

“There the angel of the Lord appeared to him in the flames of the fire from within the bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up.”

It is significant to note that this manifestation of God in the burning bush is considered by supporters of preexistence to be the angel of the Lord. The Hebrew terms suggest that this is the same angel that appeared to Abraham in Genesis and the same angel who spoke with the authority of God. Several of these references to the angel of the Lord speak of the angel/God/Lord as if interchangeable, reinforcing the idea that the Lord Himself is the angel visible to those who encounter Him.[9] According to Brevard Childs, “Who was this ‘angel’ who appeared in the fire in the lowly bush, who spoke for God in executing the redemption from Egypt? For most of the early Fathers the identity with the Son was completely obvious… Augustine was not adverse to the identification of the angel with Christ, but soon developed a more sophisticated Trinitarian interpretation, particularly under the pressure of the Arian controversy. Identifying Christ directly with the angel led to the danger of seeing him as a created being. Therefore, the angel was regarded as only representing the Son and speaking in his name.”[10] Identifying the angel of the Lord in this passage with Jesus Christ is a complicated issue, but the church fathers nevertheless made this association. They believed that the angel of the Lord in the Old Testament is the mediator of God the Father, which they also know Christ to be, thus they concluded that the angel of the Lord and Jesus Christ are the same. Nevertheless, we should note that throughout church history discussion over this passage has been subject to controversy, as we will find to be the case with all passages concerning the nature of the angel of the Lord.

Moses’ role with God’s plans does not end with the burning bush. Several other passages refer to God moving in ways to reveal His will and nature to Moses, passages including Exodus 24:9-11 and Exodus 33:11. If the angel of the Lord appeared to Moses in the burning bush, then it can be assumed that the angel of the Lord was the one who split the red sea, brought the children of Israel out of Egypt, and met with the children at Mount Sinai.[11] After the Israelites arrived at Mount Sinai many events transpired that are difficult to ignore when considering the previous evidence displayed for preexistence. Exodus 24 and the previously mentioned Genesis 18 both establish the fact that God can appear in human form. The relationship God has with Moses provides further examples of this, and in Exodus 33:11 we learn how Moses spoke with God face-to-face. Moses pleads with the Lord to actually see Him; God then sets up the event where He reveals Himself to Moses in a way that keeps Moses from being harmed. Exodus 33:21-23 (NIV) states:

“Then the Lord said, ‘There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen.”

All the prophets and patriarchs were given two options when encountering the angel of the Lord. One choice was in a human form with the glory turned away, while the other option was the glorified angel who had to be covered with a cloud.[12] In the case of Moses during his experience on Mount Sinai, Christian apologists have argued that God reveals Himself as a glorified man who Moses only catches a glimpse of. This is another example of where the language by those involved and the description of the events that transpire denote aspects of the future Jesus Christ. According to George Bush in Commentary on Exodus, “Yet let us repeat in reference to this whole gracious manifestation, that the glory beheld was unquestionably the glory of Christ. Nor are we prepared to deny that a resplendent human form, preintimative of the Divine Man, Christ Jesus, was vaguely presented to his view.”[13] It is difficult not to see the similarities of the angel of the Lord with Jesus Christ, the bodily form, the glory and authority of God, and the mediator of God’s will, all of which are aspects applicable to both the angel of the Lord and of Jesus Christ.

It is important that the idea of the preexistence of Christ be demonstrated throughout the rest of the Old Testament. This paper has already made such a connection to passages including the Garden, Abraham, Hagar, and finally Moses. Included now is the connection to two new periods of reference, these include the books of Joshua and Judges. The angel of the Lord brought the children of Israel out of Egypt and into the land of Canaan. In that stage the people of Israel came to know God by new names, new attributes, and new characteristics that would have strong influence on Israel’s future expectations of the prophesized messiah. One important characteristic that relates to preexistence is how Israel came to know God as a mighty commander in chief of the angelic armies.[14] Joshua 5:13-15 (NIV) states:

“Now when Joshua was near Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand. Joshua went up to him and asked, ‘are you for us or for our enemies?’ ‘neither,’ he replied, ‘but as commander of the army of the Lord I have now come.’ Then Joshua fell facedown to the ground in reverence and asked him, ‘what message does my lord have for his servant?’ The commander of the Lord’s army replied, ‘take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy.’ And Joshua did so.”

In this encounter Joshua experiences the angel of the Lord similar to those before him, the angel of the Lord is speaking with authority and with purpose. This figure who is depicted as a man can’t be God the Father because He is referred to as a man.[15] He can’t be an ordinary angel because Joshua calls Him Lord and worships Him.[16] This passage is directly connected to the burning bush experience of Moses (Exodus 3:5). In both situations the angel of the Lord refers to the place where they are standing as holy.[17] It is undeniable that the angel of the Lord is stating He is the same figure who appeared to Moses in the bush.[18] As the connection to Moses is made it appears that this angel of the Lord is intent on associating himself to past events, which is important for this discussion because this emphasizes the connection this figure has throughout the Old Testament. In this instance the angel of the Lord gives the audience a straight answer. What we find however is a key difference in this experience compared to past references of the angel of the Lord. This angel of the Lord Joshua meets is considered many things, including a man, an army commander, an angel, God, and Lord.[19] Asher Intrater states in Who Ate Lunch With Abraham?, “The combination of all those qualities is a mathematical set that has no possible members in it—except one. This mixture of attributes is what the New Covenant attributes to Yeshua alone. The only logical conclusion is that this Commander whom Joshua met must by Yeshua.”[20] It is clear that Intrater believes this figure to be Jesus Christ, and it is clear that this figure is connected to the same figure Abraham and Moses encounter. Yet, this figure is now thought of in a military sense. This element is developed further in Judges 2:1 (NIV) which states:

“The angel of the Lord went up from Gilgal to Bokim and said, “I brought you up out of Egypt and led you into the land that I swore to give to your forefathers. I said I will never break my covenant with you.”

The same angel of the Lord who is now known as a commander in chief of the angelic armies makes a statement that He is the one who brought the Israelites out of Egypt.[21] This is a crucial piece of evidence. This is not a separate person, but the same person who is found in the book of Joshua, Exodus, and Genesis. When New Testament passages are included in the argument for preexistence, it is very difficult to come to any other conclusion than this Old Testament figure is Jesus Christ. John 8:56-58 (NIV) states,

“’Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.’ ‘You are no fifty years old,’ the Jews said to him, ‘and you have seen Abraham!’ ‘I tell you the truth,’ Jesus answered, ‘before Abraham was born, I am!’

Even this brief review of some of the crucial passages seems to be enough evidence to cause any person to understand that the savior Jesus Christ, though He was never named, is indeed the angel of the Lord who appears throughout the Old Testament. With the revelation of the New Testament scriptures it seems easy to make this association, but oddly enough this connection isn’t easy to make for many and is still adamantly opposed by some. In order to understand why this is the case in spite of the apparent evidence, we must examine the opposing argument.

PROOF OF PREEXISTENCE?

            This section will discuss the passages mentioned previously from the perspective that is not in favor for the preexistence of Christ. Following the explanation of the opposing perspective will be the focus on trying to understand why there can be two opposing views drawn from the same source texts. Unlike the Christian community the Tanakh (Old Testament) is the only scriptural material the Jewish community accepts. Because Orthodox Judaism does not accept the New Testament scriptures, it developed a different interpretation of Old Testament texts. Christians view the scriptures from the New Covenant looking backwards into biblical history; the Jewish community starts at Genesis and ends with Malachi, looking forward to an event yet to occur. This has ramifications on the way the Jewish community views concepts introduced in this paper such as “the angel of the Lord.” Why they don’t accept the New Testament passages will be addressed later on, but for now the Jewish interpretation of the scriptural evidence mentioned in Chapter 2 will be addressed.

The first verse mentioned in this paper was Genesis 3:8. For a Christian the occurrence of God in the form of a man immediately causes an association to the God-man in the New Testament, Jesus Christ. However, the theological discussion over the information we find describing the figure in the garden and throughout the Tanakh defines these occurrences of God-man as a theophany rather then immediately associating any description of God-man to Jesus Christ. According to M.F. Rooker in The Dictionary of the Old Testament Pentateuch, “A theophany may be defined simply as a visible manifestation of God, a self-disclosure of the deity. The word does not occur in the Old Testament or New Testament but is a theological word formed by the combination of two Greek words, theos (“god”) and phainein (“to appear”). Thus theophany refers to an appearance of God…As theophanies are normally understood to be temporary manifestations of God, many scholars maintain that they are restricted to the OT, since the NT understanding of the incarnation of Christ removes any need for further visible manifestation of God.”[22] In other words, because of the revelation of the New Testament the incarnation has created a new understanding of how God operates, especially in terms of manifestations. According to Asher Intrater in Who Ate Lunch With Abraham?, “The ultimate stumbling block for a religious Jew to believe in Yeshua is the claim of Yeshua’s being divine, not of His being the Messiah.”[23] Christians adopt doctrines such as the trinity, which claim Jesus as equal to the Father, but the Jewish community does not. For Jews, the Christian description of God being one in three while still maintaining a monotheistic nature can’t be accepted, so the theological framework of a theophany, a manifestation of God rather than a separate being (i.e., Jesus Christ) is used to explain circumstances such as the garden encounter. The concept of a theophany explains away the manifestations used by God in all examples. A man-like form is one of the means by which God reveals himself to humanity; God’s presence is made visible and recognizable.[24] The notion that a supernatural being or god could reveal himself or herself to humanity was generally accepted not only in the ancient Near East but also in Hellenistic society.[25] The angel of the Lord has been the primary focus of those in favor of preexistence, taking on a more important role in the manifestation hierarchy, but in many ways the Old Testament scriptures depict equality in all of God’s manifestations. For the Jewish community, this indicates that the angel of the Lord is just simply one of the ways God reveals himself and not something unique; certainly not a separate person. God could use fire, thunder, lighting, his Spirit or his angel to reveal his presence, but all are to be equally understood as genuine revelations of God.[26] What is clear is this: Jewish interpretation of the text fits the concepts of the ancient Near East and maintains a strict monotheism. The postulation of a preexistent divine second being is not a necessary conclusion.

The next verses are Genesis 18:1-2. In this passage angelic figures appear to Abraham, and in our first analysis of this passage the focus was on the angel of the Lord. The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis states, “This is the only example of this formula being used without some verbal declaration immediately following. Here, it seems to be a general statement followed by a detailed description of theophany or divine self-revelation, mediated in this instance through angelic messengers…There seems to be nothing superhuman about their appearance. Abraham perceives them to be human, as do people of Sodom (19:5). From the Jewish perspective these angelic figures are repeatedly designated ‘men,’ although they are also called ‘angels.’ Chapter 19:1 mentions ‘the two angels,’ which suggests that the third was manifestly different. Indeed, Abraham speaks to, and is in turn addressed by, one of them directly. Perhaps the other two are his attendants.”[27] Sarna continues, “Their arrival as a group of three is without analogy in the Bible.”[28] When compared to the Christian interpretation, which points to an early example of the trinity, we find the idea of a preexistent divine being completely absent from this new interpretation. Without the revelation of the New Testament, there is no basis for the connections made by the Christian interpretation. Instead of highlighting the angel of the Lord, which the Christian interpretation emphasizes, the JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis barely acknowledges this particular development. According to Sarna, this is not particularly special; it is just another means in which God reveals himself to humanity.

The next verses mentioned in Chapter 2 are Genesis 16:7 and 16:13. As described before this is the first appearance of the phrase “the angel of the Lord.”[29] The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis says, “This is the first of several such instances of an announcement by a divine messenger predicting the birth and destiny of one who is given a special role in God’s scheme of history.”[30] It is clear that reference is made to a future messiah, which the Jewish community had anticipated. What is especially noteworthy is that both interpretations see this passage as a key piece to the future promise of the messiah. The question then is, “If it was clear that a messiah would come, how did so many not find Jesus Christ to be the one that the prophecy foretold?” This question will be addressed in Chapter 4.

The next verse presented in Chapter 2 is Exodus 3:2. In this passage the interpretation of the JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus states, “The ‘angel’ has no role in the entire theophany; it is the fire that attracts Moses’ attention, and it is always God Himself who speaks. Most likely the angel is mentioned only to avoid what would be the gross anthropomorphism of localizing God in a bush.”[31] This interpretation doesn’t make a connection of the future messiah to the angel of the Lord. The belief here is the angel of the Lord is separate from God, and the angel of the Lord is not actually involved in this manifestation. The focus is on the fire, one of many manifestations used by God. This Jewish commentary goes on to state that the angel of the Lord is mentioned only to avoid anthropomorphism. It appears as if the angel of the Lord isn’t necessarily important in this event. The fire is more important and considered equal to all other manifestation including the angel of the Lord.

Another passage in Exodus used as evidence for the preexistence of Christ is Exodus 33:21-23. The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus states, “This daring anthropomorphism is conditioned by the contrasting repeated use of panim, ‘face, presence.’ Here the term means the traces of His presence, the afterglow of His supernatural effulgence. No human being can ever penetrate the ultimate mystery of God’s Being. Only a glimpse of the divine reality is possible, even for Moses.”[32] This alternative interpretation once again focuses on terms and phrases differently than the Christian view. It completely dismisses what George Bush believes to be a primary example of the Old Testament connection to the divinity of Christ.[33] The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus doesn’t even reference the man-like nature of the passing figure who Moses encounters. The contrast between these interpretations is so vast that it begs the question whether these two commentators are referencing the same material.

By now it is clear that the interpretations from both sides are divided but this does not suggest that one is better then the other, or one is right and the other wrong. The same interpretive difference could be shown for the other passages used to support the Christian view of preexistence. The point of this chapter was to show the difference in thought between the two perspectives. The following two passages from Joshua and Judges that were not analyzed in Chapter 3 will be presented in the next chapter as they exhibit to the primary concern of this paper, namely, the a priori interpretive scheme or paradigm that directs thinking about the text.

PARADIGMS AND PREEXISTENCE

            The Christian interpretation in favor of preexistence establishes a direct connection between Jesus Christ and passages in Genesis, Exodus, Joshua, and Judges. Chapter 2 developed the major tenets of this position. Though Jesus Christ himself is never literally mentioned in the Old Testament, it is difficult to interpret these passages any other way after having accepted the revelation of the New Testament. However, all of this is equally opposed when looking at the perspective presented in Chapter 3 where it seems justifiable for those who take these passages within the context and culture of Judaism and make no connection to Jesus Christ. It is clear that both parties find evidence that a future messiah was expected. It seems then that the difference between both perspectives is a prior acceptance of the claims of Jesus Christ as the divine Messiah; this determines how the interpretation of the passages in the Old Testament will be understood. In other words, it is not the text that determines the doctrine but rather the doctrine that informs the text. The real argument about the preexistence of Christ depends on the paradigm used to understand the text, and that paradigm does not come from the text itself. The paradigm arises from some other consideration.

The paradigm causes the ability/inability to interpret the passages from a certain perspective. According to the Christian position, the Jewish community is affected because it is missing the complete picture; namely, the continuing revelation of God in the New Testament.  The Christian paradigm is influenced by its prior commitment to the inspiration and authority of the New Testament so that the Christian reads this New Testament commitment back into the Old Testament texts. But Judaism does not recognize the New Testament material as sacred, for a number of reasons, not least of which is the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Therefore, the Jewish interpretation of the same texts arrives at a different interpretation, not because it is flawed but because it does not read back into the Old Testament texts what is only fully understood from the New Testament. In terms of textual integrity, Jews could easily argue that the Christian idea is isogesis, not exegesis, because dealing only with the text does not require a Christological assumption.

If we do not recognize this fundamental paradigm difference, we might press the opponent to adopt a methodology that does not fit the paradigm. It is like expecting both parties to come to the same mathematical conclusion when one party approaches the problem with the principles of Euclidian geometry and the other approaches the problem from a Riemannian perspective. The evidence for preexistence is then theory-laden. In other words, the meaning of the text depends on the theory about the text. The predisposition to certain accepted beliefs causes the evidence to be viewed within certain parameters. Christians who have the revelation of the New Testament are working in a topography of curved surfaces while Jewish exegetes are working in a topography of flat surfaces. The Old Testament to Christians is viewed as the beginning half of a story between God and humanity, while Jews view it as the only story. There are no raw facts in the discussion of preexistence; the only facts are those determined by the predisposition set prior to ever conducting a survey of the information involved in this discussion.

Since the work of Thomas S. Kuhn, scientists have recognized the influence of paradigms in the supposedly neutral “objective” world.  If this is now acknowledged in the hard sciences, how much more then does it affect what happens in religion? According to Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, “Men whose research is based on shared paradigms are committed to the same rules and standards for scientific practice. That commitment and the apparent consensus it produces are prerequisites for normal science, i.e., for the genesis and continuation of a particular research tradition.”[34] The scientific method was developed so that error could be reduced in determining the causal relationship between dependent and independent variables. The naïve belief of the scientific method is that by taking these precautions the hope of the researcher is to ultimately avoid any biased input into the data. However, this is rarely accomplished. According to Kuhn, “No natural history can be interpreted in the absence of at least some implicit body of intertwined theoretical and methodological belief that permits selection, evaluation, and criticism. If that body of belief is not already implicit in the collection of facts—in which case more than ‘mere facts’ are at hand—it must be externally supplied, perhaps by a current metaphysic, by another science, or by personal and historical accident.”[35] If this is the case with “objective material,” then how much more is this the case with theological material? The text is not neutral; meaning is read into the text, not from the text.

Consider the work of N.R. Hanson in Patterns of Discovery. Hanson studied how subjects view particular optical illusions which include the famous duck/rabbit illusion.[36] In this illusion subjects have the ability to see either a duck or a rabbit yet they are viewing exactly the same image.[37] The study focuses on what determines the ability to see either a duck or a rabbit.[38] N.R. Hanson states, “Examining how observers see different things in x marks something important about their seeing the same thing when looking at x. If seeing different things involves having different knowledge and theories about x, then perhaps the sense in which they see the same thing involves their sharing knowledge and theories about x.”[39] If this study shows anything, it is that paradigms do indeed have an influence on the ability to side with a particular interpretation of a particular issue. It is obvious that the adopted paradigm is different for both Jews and Christians. As mentioned previously Christians accept Jesus Christ, and adopt the New Testament as the word of God. The Jewish community accepts neither of these beliefs. This means that Judaism is not wrong for not recognizing Christ’s preexistence. It means that for Judaism, preexistence is not an option. No amount of textual exegesis will be convincing because the exegesis depends on paradigm assumptions that Judaism does not share. Furthermore, the same can be said of the Christian position. Christianity is not right in seeing Jesus in the Old Testament. It simply sees him there because of its paradigm commitment.

The Christian church from the very beginning had set itself on a path that would make it very difficult for Jews to shift paradigms. According to G.C. Berkouwer, “Under the influence of anti-Semitic propaganda many began to depreciate the significance and value of the Old Testament because they increasingly viewed it as representing a specifically Jewish religion. And, to be sure, anti-Semitism is not solely responsible for this far reaching devaluation of the Old Testament, for it has a long history which begins already with Marcion and continues through Harnack who declared with emphasis that the Old Testament is of no value to the Christian Church; but it cannot be denied that anti-Semitism played an important role in the characterization of the Old Testament as a purely Jewish book.”[40] The negative views of the Old Testament, its customs, and its history created a gap that began to widen between Christianity and Judaism. Asher Intrater states, “For the religious leaders of the first century, deciding between Yeshua’s insanity or His divinity was not a very easy choice. We Jewish people should desire to follow in the footsteps of Abraham. We should believe in the same God he did.”[41] Today the negativity towards the Old Testament may be decreased but the Jewish-Christian relationship has already suffered immense damage. Berkouwer states, “In this conflict the church believingly testifies to the progress of redemptive history and to the promise-fulfillment relationship between the Old Testament and the New, while, with equal emphasis, the synagogue declares the opposite.”[42] This broken relationship has a long history, much like an individual’s personal history. This history influences the identity of those involved. So if the history of the Jewish community is filled with Christian anti-Semitism, it makes sense that there is a restraint by Jews to change to a Christian paradigm. On top of this mistreatment of the Jewish community itself is another element that contributes to Jewish resistance. According to Brevard Childs in The Book of Exodus, “It is difficult to translate Exodus 3.14 into western language because in the process we inevitably impose upon the Hebrew text categories of being and essence which were quite foreign to the Hebrew mind. The ancient Greek and Latin translations of the Old Testament unconsciously but radically changed the meaning of the Hebrew text.”[43] Not only did the church represent the Jewish community in a negative way but also over time the Jewish community witnessed the word of God as they knew it, transformed by foreign concepts which changed their understanding of the text. The Old Testament was stripped of its Hebraic culture right before their eyes to fit a perspective they didn’t understand and could not accept.

In Chapter 2 two passages that both Christians and Jews recognize as involving the angel of the Lord were examined. It is already established that the angel of the Lord is thought of in different ways depending on the paradigm one chooses. In these passages God is thought of as the commander and chief of the angelic armies.[44] The military aid that God provides throughout the Old Testament becomes a characteristic that is expected to be a major piece of the purpose of the coming messiah. When Jesus Christ came however, he came to suffer for all of mankind, thus the expectations of many Jews were not met. These verses, used by Christians to show evidence of the preexistence of Christ, become the cause of many Jews to reject Jesus Christ. Asher Intrater states, “The root problem is not the interpretation of Messianic prophecies but the essence of who the Messiah is.”[45]

Today, even with the availability of information, Jews still don’t accept Christianity’s beliefs as the truth and Jesus Christ as the one true God, not because the argument and information isn’t there, but because of Jewish history, a history that contains too much bad blood to give the arguments even the slightest chance. From the very beginning of Jesus Christ’s time on earth those who held a certain expectation that was not met were let down, causing them to ignore a truth that many were some how able to see. Those who rejected Christ were then pushed further away as time went on due to the mistreatment of those who remained strictly Jewish. It becomes clear how an individual who already had difficulty in believing Jesus Christ as the messiah, who still loved God the father, while also being mistreated by those who did believe in Christ, would ever come to terms with what Christianity claimed. This paradigm is so engrained in the Jewish community it is a long shot for a Christian to show those who are Jewish that the work of Jesus Christ is something different then their paradigm has told. This is why when we as Christians look to the New Testament we must focus on the example Christ left us, which in many ways differs from the methods Christians have taken throughout history to show this good news to those who are Jewish.

How to change a paradigm is a complicated issue. According to Thomas S. Kuhn, “When paradigms change, the world itself changes with them…It is rather as if the professional community has been suddenly transported to another planet where familiar objects are seen in a different light and joined by unfamiliar ones as well”[46] A paradigm shift then is no simple matter. It is not a matter of simply having more information. Something else has to happen before we see the world differently. Jesus Christ impacted the lives of those who truly knew him for who he was to such an extreme that they continued to preach his claim to divinity until their dying breath. What we find in the example of the twelve are men who were stuck in the same paradigm that most Jews today hold; except for the subsequent mistreatment from the Church, yet they came to know the truth of Jesus Christ. How is it that Jesus made such a radical impact on their lives? What was it He did that we don’t seem to do enough of today to show the truth that He obviously displayed during His time with the disciples? Luke chapter 13-34 is the perfect example of how Jesus caused a paradigm shift that should be exemplified by Christians today. After His death and resurrection from the tomb, Jesus appears to two men walking along the road to Emmaus. These men describe to Jesus, whom they did not recognize at the time, the events that just transpired, stating that they had hoped He would be the one who would redeem Israel. This points out the paradigm beliefs that the Jewish community had expected of the messiah mentioned earlier. Jesus then states in verse 25-26 (NIV),

“How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?”

Jesus then goes on to explain to the men all the things the prophets said concerning Himself. Jesus then joins them, walking with them and revealing His character in a humble manner. The two men suddenly recognized after spending time with Him who He was and the truth of what He had told them along the road to Emmaus. The paradigm shift did not occur on the basis of textual evidence. It occurred when they experienced the reality of his presence. The argument was already there but the experience of Jesus Christ was needed in order to recognize it for what it was. A theological argument on its own is not enough to change a paradigm; the individual must experience the truth. The individual with a paradigm that denies the work of Christ must experience the truth that Christ works through those who have received His grace, the same way Jesus revealed Himself to the disciples, the same way He revealed Himself to the two men on the road to Emmaus. Only after the experience can the paradigm shift; the argument means nothing without the experience.

CONCLUSION

            The purpose of this paper wasn’t to claim whether the preexistence of Christ is true or false, but to show that the arguments for either position do not have the capability of achieving such a conclusion from the textual evidence alone. The evidence presented for both positions does not prove whether its perspective is right and the other is wrong because the evidence is already determined to support the particular paradigmatic understanding prior to the textual analysis. The claims of this paper are based on the functioning of paradigms and their application to the preexistence of Christ debate. By understanding the impact of paradigms in scriptural interpretation, we find that any expectation for one party to come to terms with the opposing party’s perspective on the evidence alone is doubtful, but when the evidence is built on top of an experience a shift in paradigms is very possible. According to Ludwig Wittgenstein in On Certainty, “Giving grounds, however, justifying the evidence, comes to an end;– but the end is not certain propositions striking us immediately as true, i.e. it is not a kind of seeing on our part; it is our acting, which lies at the bottom of the language-game.”[47] If Christians would recognize this paradigm dependence, then the possibility of cross-paradigm communication may open. In the end, the enlightenment required to see the text in support of the idea of preexistence depends more on the movement of the Spirit and the experience of the presence of the Savior than it does not the verses of the Bible. Until Jews see the truth of their monotheism lived out in the lives of Christian believers, they have no reason to question their understanding of the biblical texts.

Does the Bible support the idea of the preexistence of Christ?  Yes – and – No. Which paradigm do you have? And what reason do you have to shift?

BIBILIOGRAPHY

Baker, David W., and Alexander, T.D., edit. Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2003.

Berkouwer, Gerrit C. Studies In Dogmatics: The Person Of Christ. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974.

Brown, Colin, edit. Dictionary of New Testament Theology Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, Michigan:  Zondervan, 1986.

Bruce, F.F. The Epistle to the Hebrews, Grand Rapids, Michigan: WB Eerdmans Publishing,1990.

Bush, George. Commentary on Exodus. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 1993.

Capetz, P. E. “The Old Testament as a Witness to Jesus Christ: Historical Criticism and  Theological Exegesis of the Bible according to Karl Barth”. Journal Of Religion, 90(4),  (2010): 475-506.

Childs, Brevard S. The Book of Exodus. Louisville, Kentucky: The Westminster Press, 1974.

Erickson, Millard J. The Word Became Flesh: A Contemporary Incarnational Chistology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1991.

Greidanus, Sidney. “Preaching Christ from the Old Testament.” Bibliotheca Sacra 161 (641)  (2004): 3-13.

Guthrie, George H. The NIV Application Commentary – Hebrews. Grand Rapids, Michigan:  Zondervan, 1998.

Hamilton, Victor P. Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2011.

Hamilton, Victor P. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament: The Book of Genesis 1-17. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995.

Hamilton, Victor P. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament: The Book of Genesis 18-50. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995.

Hanson, N.R. Patterns of Discovery. London: Cambridge University Press, 1965.

Intrater, Asher. Who Ate Lunch With Abraham?. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Intermedia Public Relations, 2011.

Kaiser, Walter C. The Messiah In The Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995.  

Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Second Edition. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1970.

Knox, John. The Humanity and Divinity of Christ: A study of Patten in Christology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge Publishing, 1967.

Myatt, William. “He Came Down From Heaven: The Preexistence of Christ and the Christian Faith.” Trinity Journal 27.2 (2006): 342-343.

Navas, Patrick. Divine Truth or Human Tradition?. Bloomington, Illinois: AuthorHouse, 2007.

Pannenberg, Wolfhart. Jesus- God and Man. Trans., by Lewis L. Wilkins and Duane A. Priebe.  Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Westminster Press, 1975.

Robinson, John A.T. The Human Face Of God. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Westminster Press, 1973.

Sarna, Nahum M. The JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989.

Sarna, Nahum M. The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989.

Webb, Barry G. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament: The Book of Judges.  Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2012.

White, R. E. O. The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology Second Edition, edited by Walter A. Elwell. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2001.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. On Certainty. New York, New York: Harper & Row, 1972.

New – What are you?  Not, “Who are you?”  Paul doesn’t answer that question here.  He answers the question, “What are you?”  You are a new lump.  I don’t imagine most of us think of ourselves as a lump.  But Paul’s analogy is placed in the culture of Israel, not ours.  His language depends on his readers knowing about Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread.  If he were writing to ignorant Gentiles, none of this would make any sense.  It’s Jewish, through and through.

Now we notice that Paul uses the Greek word neos.  He doesn’t use kainos (the word found in Hebrews).  Neos is about “fresh, young, a new state of position.”  It’s about new wine, a new reality and the new man.  But it does not have eschatological implications.  It is new now, in the present, not new later when the Messiah comes.  Whatever we are, we are right now new, fresh and young.  And this is Paul’s point (and the reason he chooses neos rather than kainos).  The sacrifice of the Lamb has already removed the leaven from your life.  You are already new.  His death accomplished what you and I could never do.  It took away the pollution that defiled us in the presence of YHWH.

Great!  What a blessing!  Finished!  Does that mean we have nothing more to do?  Ah, not quite.  Look how Paul begins this verse.  Imperative!  [You] cleanse out the old leaven.  You and I have to remove in practice what has already been removed in theory.  Yeshua’s death gives us legal status as “not guilty.”  We are obligated to make that legal status a practical reality.  We are called to live up to the standard God has already placed upon us.  “Cleanse out” says Paul.  The Greek is ekkatharate.  It’s catharsis – removal in experience – coupled with ek – out.  Get the junk out!  Purge yourself!  Remove everything that defiles.  That’s the symbolic meaning of removing leaven (yeast) from your home before the feast.  Now you and I need to do that on the inside as well as the outside.  It is not possible to simply wait until God shows up with the spring cleaning equipment.  This is a daily task.  Make yourself a place where the purity of the Spirit may reside without concern.

Generally we agree.  We should get rid of the bad stuff.  We are to be purified.  But we are far removed from the culture where these words recalled yearly practice so we might overlook the fact that this implies a knowledge of what is clean and what is unclean.  You see, this action is not simply a good heart-scrubbing.  It is also about my environment.  It includes ritual as well as moral purity.  Everyone in Paul’s reading audience would have known this.  It’s clean on the outside and on the inside.  Christians who have left Torah behind often think that this process is only an interior one.  It is, of course, but it also includes aligning myself with what God calls clean.  That is the process of ritual purity and it cannot be separated from the inner disinfecting.  The Passover Lamb makes it possible.  Now you and I have to make it real.

Topical Index: cleanse, new, neos, purity, Passover, 1 Corinthians 5:7