Influences
Exalted be the Living God and praised, He exists – unbounded by time is His existence. He is One – and there is no unity like His Oneness. Shacharis/Morning Service, Morning Blessings
Unbounded by time – You won’t find this verse in the Bible. It’s from the Morning Blessings of the Siddur.[1] This particular prayer goes on to describe YHVH as incorporeal, inscrutable, infinite, the first cause of all creation, immutable and perfect in judgment. One might reasonably wonder if the authors of this prayer read Thomas Aquinas. Probably not, since the prayer was in practice centuries before Thomas was born. But these descriptions of the divine attributes read as if they come from Christian theology. Why do Jewish rabbis think like Christian theologians?
The answer is Hellenism. Greek thought invaded Hebrew thinking just as it invaded all other parts of the Western world. The power of Greek thinking can hardly be under estimated. Even rabbis shifted their grasp of the Tanakh because of the influence of Greek philosophy.[2]
Men love the sense of control. Since the beginning, control has been one of the greatest temptations. Wresting power from God’s hand so that we might make the world according to us, we have unconsciously altered the biblical idea of God in the process. In other words, we observed what human beings are like, and projected the opposite of those fragile attributes onto God. We are imperfect, therefore, God must be perfect. We are finite, therefore God must be infinite. We are bound by space and time, therefore God must be omnipresent and ex-temporal, that is, outside of time. The list goes on. The only unfortunate consequence is that this kind of God is so transcendent that there is no way to be related to Him. He is unknowable, unfathomable and wholly other. And He’s not the God of the Bible. Once you start down this road, you will inevitably end up with a God who is completely separated from creation, the philospher’s God, not the God of Abraham.
Both priests and rabbis know this. It’s not too difficult to follow the logic. But at the same time, both priests and rabbis learn to live with the internal contradiction, that is, that the God of philosophy, the wholly other, completely transcendent God, is still a God who cares about us, who desires fellowship and who, in some way or another, changes His mind and His will when we plead with Him. Both Judaism and Christianity have a bi-polar God, not because the Bible portrays God this way but because both religions have incorporated Hellenism into their thinking about God.
Maybe your God is bi-polar and you never thought about it. Maybe you should.
Topical Index: Hellenism, time, Siddur
[1] The Complete ArtScroll Siddur, translated by Rabbi Nosson Scherman (Mesorah Publications, Ltd.), p. 15.
[2] For a full analysis see Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism.
Hi Skip. I have a question… about this statement: “Why do Jewish rabbis think like Christian theologians? The answer is Hellenism. Greek thought invaded Hebrew thinking just as it invaded all other parts of the Western world. The power of Greek thinking can hardly be under estimated. Even rabbis shifted their grasp of the Tanakh because of the influence of Greek philosophy.”
Is it safe to say that even “some parts” of the New Testament, like Mark, Luke and Paul’s letters have “some greek thinking and greek argumentations” embedded, even though their writters had a Jewish way of thinking and background?
Thanks,
We know that the Messiah came at the “fullness of time” (Gal 4:4). Is it possible that this coincided with when Hellenistic thought colluded with Jewish thought? Might it be because the Jewish rabbis didn’t have it all figured out—many certainly had difficulty believing Jesus was the Messiah, after all—and specific parts of Hellenism provided the missing pieces?
Historian Martin Hengel is quoted above in support of this TW (see footnote 2), as if Hellenism is wholly antithetical to being Jewish Messiah followers. Yet Hengel himself was a Christian. Just the title of one of his works, which I will quote just below, seems to bear this out: “The Prologue of the Gospel of John as the Gateway to Christological Truth” (in Bauckham, Mosser, eds. The Gospel of John and Christian Theology [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008]). In this piece, Hengel compares the Gospel of John with the Gospel of Matthew (bold added, italics in original):
Dear Craig,
As usual, you bring historical (and mostly) linguistical preciseness to this discussion which I value highly, as I am weak in that area. Thank you!
I don’t think the Jews “had difficulty believing Jesus was the Messiah”; as much as they may have had difficulty syncretizing that belief with the political obsession of the day, which was a desire to be a power rival with Rome. They wanted to get even! But I don’t think that was all of it.
The entire Jewish economy was built around types of Messiah, from the tabernacle patterned after the Temple in heaven “not built with human hands” to the habits of dress, community, and rule of law designed to pattern Messiah to the rest of the world. When He came, they were supposed to recognize Him because they were LIVING Him already. The entire nation, as a good friend just pointed out to me, was anointed to do just that. He was supposed to “come unto His own” and they were supposed to recognize and receive Him as themselves.
I think the single biggest problem they were having, as revealed by the types of questions the national leaders posed to Him, etc. was that Hellenistic thinking had obscured this habitual, instinctual, active lifestyle by philosophy and mysticism. They had forgotten why they were doing what they were doing, but I think I can see Hellenism as being the biggest culprit for producing that difference, as it focuses on the mind rather than deeds of the body.
Yeshua cut through they darkened rabbinic speculations of WHY they believed and did the way they had been told by LIVING it. This hurt the intellect that had to be ‘right’. That intellectual focus was surely a result of Hellenism, because ancient Hebrews, as far as I can tell from what Skip has written so far, were not focusing on why: their language and writings were focused on action and appearances and results. This is pretty much a diametrical contrast in worldviews!
I suspect Hellenism obscured the beautiful picture of Messiah built into the action and appearance fabric of Mosaic instruction with a focus on knowledge and intellect instead. The rabbinic instruction of the age, when I read it, is dark and murky to the extent that it is GREEK. My head rolls around in the same way as when I read all those Greek guys, anyway!
And Hengel can be wrong, right?
Sure. And historian and Christian Larry Hurtado could be wrong. Or you could be wrong.
Skip, I was looking through one of the first books I bought from you “Spiritual Restoration,” Volumn I, 2007, which is a compilation of some of your readers favorite TWs. In one of my favorites, “Making It My Own,” you explain the correct meaning and usage of the word “Amen.” “It’s related to trustworthy, permanent, secure, lasting, to prove faithful, to be constant, truth…thoughts that center around the permanence and stability of the character of God. Amen is related to all these thoughts. It’s literally the personal endorsement of God’s actions. It’s like saying, “What God says, I accept and submit myself to…a spiritual signature on the holy contract.” You went on to say, “Amen is normally found AFTER a declaration of God’s will, but Yeshua says “amen” BEFORE He gives His teachings. Who can possibly give an endorsement to God’s will BEFORE God’s will is revealed? Only God, of course, because only God knows what His will is before it is spoken to men. So…Yeshua is not being just a good orthodox Jew. He is declaring His divinity whenever He begins a statement with amen amen. Unfortunately our English translations often change these words to “truly, truly” or verily, verily” or “I tell you truly.” See Today’s Word, “Making It My Own” written 12/7/2007
Am I correct in assuming you no longer believe the above to be true (regarding Yeshua’s divinity?) Am I correct in assuming your paradigm has shifted since you wrote this in 2007?
Yes, the paradigm has shifted. As Flusser used to say, “I wrote that when I was stupid.” There is more to the story, of course.
Let me add this: We know that the Jews of the time of Yeshua were strictly monotheistic. We know that the Gospel accounts portray Yeshua’s disciples as strictly monotheistic. We know that even the Church fathers did not believe that Yeshua was ontologically equal to YHVH. We know that rabbinic theology rejected any idea that the Messiah was YHVH in the flesh. We know that both Luke and Paul make statements legitimately interpreted according to the idea that the Messiah was “elected” to that position due to factors other than ontology. We know that the full doctrine of the Trinity took 400 years to develop. We know that 50% of the ancient Church did not accept the Trinitarian position in its final form. We know that the Latin church forced this belief with political pressure.
Now, what is more reasonable? That the orthodox disciples and the orthodox Paul threw away their strict monotheism, that the early Church fathers did the same despite holding a subordinate view of Yeshua, and that the Greek categories needed to explain “person” were somehow latent but hidden in the biblical text OR that the later Church bishops developed a syncretism with Platonic Greek categories and in the process rejected and removed all traces of Jewish monotheism?
“We know that even the Church fathers did not believe that Yeshua was ontologically equal to YHVH…We know that both Luke and Paul make statements legitimately interpreted according to the idea that the Messiah was “elected” to that position due to factors other than ontology.”
In the 2nd century, Irenaeus, in Against Heresies 4.20.3-4 (ca. 180AD), implied an ontological equivalence between Father and Son (and Spirit), for the fact that he asserted the Son (and Spirit) was uncreated. For simplicity’s sake, I’ll quote from Gregg Allison’s Historical Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), which quotes from ANF (Ante-Nicene Fathers) 1:488:
In First Corinthians 8:6, Paul makes a statement paralleling God the Father and “Lord, Jesus Christ” (the Son), in which all things are from the former, yet all things are through the latter. That “all things” refers to all of creation is borne out by the context. This implies that the Son is Uncreated, which in turn implies that the Son is ontologically equivalent to God the Father. The counter-argument that “all things” refers to merely the ‘new creation’ falls flat, as it belies the context, for the context in no way delimits “all things” (see verse 5’s “whether in heaven or on earth”). In Christian understanding, this provides some of the background for the Logos in John 1:1-3, and then John 1:14’s “Word-made-flesh”, i.e. the Lord, Jesus Christ.
Craig thanks read a little longer on your response. Seems like all are saying man and woman. Direction and Restrictions. The question is this on the Ten Commandment’s, Law of Moses or Teachings of the Apostles… Christ is all inclusive, Jesus is revealing the reality of the manifestation. Of what in our age and era. Which Laws which Rites and which Prayers???
Also…over the years, I’ve printed that TW out and given it numerous friends, since it was one of my favorites. I’m wondering if you would you prefer I no longer do that… if it now misrepresents your paradigm?
Well, it does misrepresent where I am today, but it still might be helpful to someone who is not ready to make the jump.
If it misrepresents you, I’m surprised you would want it to be circulated…especially if you believe salvation is at stake re: which paradigm a person holds.
It sounds like you’re suggesting I start out with what you believe is a lie (my paradigm) and then, ease into what you consider the truth (your new paradigm.)
OK, let me be clear. I don’t think salvation is at stake over WHAT you believe, that is, if you got all the doctrines right. Clearly many people have had deep relationships with God and been mistaken in their theology, even biblical characters (whom God had to correct). Salvation is not a noetic issue. It is a personal/relationship issue and that does not require that I have all the right answers. So, if someone finds that believing in the Trinity helps them draw closer to God, I’m not here to tell them otherwise.
That said, if someone is determined to propose DOCTRINE as truth, then we have lots of debate over linguistics, history, paradigms, etc. But none of this, in my opinion, is crucial to salvation. So, in answer to your second reply, if you tell someone, “Oh, Skip wrote something about this years ago. It might be helpful, although I know that he has changed his view of some of it,” then it’s useful. Otherwise, we would all be accountable for everything we ever said but later learned we were wrong.
O.K…got it. :-)))
So did Yeshau come to declare God. And Paul claims to introduce the unknown God…
Why would Yeshau declare or define or introduce the living God to his chosen people. If
To set things straight. Glorifying and exalting god was the way of worship. But was that what god wanted… No personal relationship just a procedure relationship do this, this way, do that that way etc.
Did this not bring the divide?
Now there were many other nations and thought patterns that influenced the Jews including the different sect approaches.
Yeshau came to redeem from all these wrongs. So maybe the Greek thought was the desired thought as repetitious worship did not bring about the personal relationship.
Redemption was…deny yourself, take up your cross and follow me. That sounds kind of precise requirements. No longer Jewish but renewed way. Not refurbished way.
Just maybe…
So all along we have been instructed to view things through a Second Temple Period world view; but if those in that Jewish era had already been influenced by Greek thinking, partly through rabbinic thought and traditions where does that leave our search for purity of paradigm? Going back further into the rabbit hole of time if Hellenism had been influenced by previous cultures to any degree, especially by the Babylonians in their religious/supernatural schema (think Mesopotamian Apkallu and the Greek gods Zeus, Apollo et al …and the Genesis 6:1-4 Nephillim/ Watchers) to what prescription should our paradigm glasses NOW be ground in order to see everything, including Torah, YHWH, reality and ourselves more clearly? Or is the quest and question quintessentially Greek?
Maybe the goal of “purity of paradigm” is the problem. Maybe we don’t EVER find purity of paradigm because our knowledge of what happened and why is always incomplete and influenced by our own views. Maybe all we really need is to recognize how ideas are influenced by other ideas, how the history unfolded and then CHOOSE to live according to a way that makes the most sense so far. OH, so it appears that the quest as you outline it is really about certainty, and that, my friend, is already troublesome. I’m not sure God asks us for certainty about anything. HE does ask for trust, and it seems to me that trust requires a degree of UNCERTAINTY.
So if the recipe for Trust calls for 3 teaspoons of “Uncertainty” I am certain that I been using the wrong leavening agent. It is no wonder my affact is flat, my crest fallen and my paradigm pureed. My new motto may be: Long live Qualm, Quandary and Query.
Michael, if you are already there, all you need to do is hold still and wait for the rest of us to catch up with you! (Now, where did I sweep my all my qualms, quandaries and queries under?)
Laurita, IF. A small word combining the word I with the letter F, connoting a failed or failing grade. So when you ask IF I have reached there already and am waiting for the rest of you to catch up, I can only say “IF ONLY”.
Skip, that sounds like you took a paragraph out of the Chaos Theory and modified it with a few word changes. Don’t tell me spiritual laws mirror the physical ones?! That is just going to blow the entire basis for dualism out of the water. What are you going to be telling us next? That the Creator is mirrored in His creation?
My bipolar God (geburah / chesed) is balanced by the Lithium of the Messiah. 😉
Isn’t that nice. I always wondered what the role of the Messiah was? 🙂
One of His roles. Executed through servitude not co-equality.
You guys make my head spin! I don’t have the education nor am I well read and most times you converse above my head and I spend a lot of time looking things up..For myself, I have been blessed by ALL of you in your love of YHWH. BUT, I believe that the Word was written for His chosen, and those who come after (Christians) are the adopted with equal rights to the inheritance, we who follow should look at the writings of the sages. If I’m not mistaken, G-d has /will forgive our iniquities, if we confess our sins, follow the way (teachings)(Yeshua/Jesus) and become HUMBLE to our G-d. YHWH asks for OUR love to Honor Him and HIS creation. It isn’t about US, It’s about HIM and HIS creation. WE do a GREAT injustice to HIS creation and DISHONOR HIM when we when we make living and OUR ideas about what WE think is right. YHWH didn’t make it difficult to understand…..WE (mankind) did that. What did Yeshua say? You must be like little children…believe, trust and let Father guide you.in HIS ways.
Blessings to ALL.
David, you hit the nail on the head. Its the difference between ‘knowing’ (Greek certitude) and doing (Hebrew action). Your head, I am sure, is spinning because that is what heads do if actions are not happening concurrently. We who have been suffering from Certitude are now slogging our way back out of that swamp to the simplicity of obedience WITHOUT HAVING TO KNOW.
Speaking for myself, stupid is as stupid does, and, when it comes to YHVH, there is nothing more stupid than thinking(!) I have to ‘know’ before I do! John 7:17 is my new motto: “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine”. This means, too, that when I come across any ‘knowing’, my immediate reaction should be to get it out of its box and require it to walk around on its own legs. If it can ‘do’ that, then I know I am safe to ‘do’ it. Head to follow after.
Hebrew head, I think I understand Skip to say, describes what it is observing (function in reality). Knowledge is an effect, then, of action; not the cause. If my car looks weird because I am having to drive it in reverse, its because I haven’t finished getting the cock(y) pit switched over to the backside of the car yet so that I can drive forwards; backing into the future the right way by watching (knowing) where I have come from (head spinning again).
Have a great day!