Notes in Impurity/Uncleanness

I decided to wait on the posts about “Post-Missionary Messianic Judaism, Three Years Later” until Sunday or Monday.

No point opening up such an important topic when everybody is partying and not in a theology frame of mind. I’m sure everyone will be more serious by Monday after all the partying.

These are some notes I wrote to explain the Biblical laws of purity and impurity. They are, of course, only a summary, but I think you might enjoy thinking about them . . .
…………………………………..
Summary
It is no sin to be unclean. A woman who has a baby becomes unclean. A son who cares for his father’s dead body becomes unclean. Sometimes it is a sin not to become unclean. Yet God taught Israel that certain things made them unclean and gave them procedures to cleanse themselves. He said it was a sin not to cleanse themselves (Lev. 15:31; Num. 19:13), but he never said it was a sin to be unclean.

What, then, does it mean to be unclean? Every cause of uncleanness is symbolic of either death or loss of life. (Note: I discovered these truths from the commentary on Leviticus in the Anchor series by Jacob Milgrom.)

Explanation
Lev. 12: Childbirth. Loss of blood is a loss of life.
Lev. 13: Skin Disease. Causes a person to look like a corpse (whitened skin).
Lev. 14: 33ff. Mildew. Mildew grows on dead things.
Lev. 15: Semen, Menstruation, and other genital discharges. Loss of semen or blood is loss of life.
Num. 19: Touching a corpse. A corpse is death itself and touching a corpse makes one unclean for seven days.
Lev. 11: Eating any meat other than the allowed animals. Restricted death to a handful of species in Israel, so that the land would not be a land of death.

Symbolic impurities, that represented death, polluted God’s sanctuary along with sins of the people. God’s does not desire for his presence to dwell in the midst of sin and death.

Death was God’s punishment for our sin in the Garden. God originally created us for life. Sin is what causes death, and is repugnant to God.

Uncleanness, if not cleansed, polluted God’s Temple (Lev. 15:31; Num. 19:13).

When a woman in the northernmost part of Israel gave birth to a child, her loss of blood symbolically caused pollution at the sanctuary. When a man in the southern regions of Israel cheated his neighbor on a sale, the sanctuary was polluted. It required a cleansing. If the sanctuary was not cleansed often, then God’s presence would have to withdraw from the sanctuary and from Israel. That is exactly what happened in the end, in 586 B.C.E., when the sin of Israel hit the breaking point and God abandoned the temple. After that, the Babylonians destroyed the temple and sent the people into exile.

Essential Books: Messianic Judaism, Israel, and Christianity

There are several books I consider must-haves for those who want to get into the theology of Messianic Judaism, Israel, and Christianity. Of course it is important to have books on Biblical studies and Biblical commentary. It is important to have books on rabbinic thought, tradition, and prayer. It is vital to have books on Church History, Jewish History, and Christian Theology.

But when it comes to Messianic Judaism, Israel, and Christianity, I have a short list of books I would not want any informed person to be without:
1. Oskar Skarsaune, In the Shadow of the Temple
2. Oskar Skarsaune, Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries
3. R. Kendall Soulen, The God of Israel and Christian Theology
4. David Stern, Messianic Judaism, formerly known as Messianic Jewish Manifesto
5. Mark Kinzer, Post-Missionary Messianic Judaism

Coming tomorrow and in days ahead, I will be commenting on a paper just delivered by Rabbi Mark Kinzer called, “Post-Missionary Messianic Judaism, Three Years Later.”

The book is academic theology written for people who regularly read academic theology. Thus, when I recommended it to a very bright member of our congregation, she came back and said, “This book is hard and it is taking me forever.”

I will explain the basics of Rabbi Kinzer’s book and those who don’t read academic theology should be able to understand my explanation easily enough.

But having said that: don’t think you should not buy this book simply because it might have jargon or be a little over your head. If you are up to a challenge and you care deeply about this Messianic Jewish movement, you need to read Rabbi Kinzer’s book. It will challenge you and it will open your mind to new things.

Seven Developments in Resurrection From Judaism to Yeshua

I have said many times that my favorite New Testament scholar, by far, is N.T. Wright. And this is despite the fact that I find his view on Israel and Jewish people sadly deficient. He is a conundrum on this point, a man who knows his Judaism better than almost any Christian scholar and yet who continues to cling to an Anglican supersessionism (the common Christian view that the church replaces Israel).

Anyway, in this article, I am explaining just another little piece of brilliance from Wright . . .
………………………………….

In December 2007, N.T. Wright delivered a lecture called, “Can a Scientist Believe in the Resurrection?” The article is brilliant without being difficult, a rare balance of clarity and genius. In other words, it’s the kind of thing we have come to expect from N.T. Wright. Access the full article by Wright HERE.

In one portion of his paper, Wright explains seven developments in the concept of resurrection from Judaism to the New Testament. What I will do is list and briefly summarize these seven developments and then include Wright’s own words for your reading pleasure.

To meditate on these seven developments will expand your concept of resurrection and bring you into the pleasures of good theology.

Listing and Describing the Seven Developments

1. Moving from Judaism’s diversity of resurrection concepts to the unified theology of resurrection in the New Testament. Whereas Second Temple period (500 B.C.E to 70 C.E.) Jewish texts record varying concepts about the details of resurrection, the New Testament concept of resurrection is remarkably unified and detailed.

2. The vastly increased importance of resurrection for Yeshua’s followers as compared to its lesser importance in Second Temple Judaism. Resurrection is not a frequent or central topic in ancient Jewish texts, but is the backbone of New Testament faith.

3. Moving from an unspecified view of the resurrection body to a specific view: that we will have transformed bodies both continuous and discontinuous with our present bodies. The key text is 1 Corinthians 15, where we learn the resurrection body will be perfected, sinless, and immortal as well as the concept that it will be a spiritual body (Wright interprets this as a body animated in a different fashion, by the Spirit). By contrast, Second Temple Jewish texts show variation about the kind of body we will have.

4. Moving from a one-stage resurrection to one that is two-stage. Whereas Judaism anticipated a general resurrection at the end of the age, the New Testament introduces a novel development: Yeshua first and the rest of the redeemed at the end of the age. This would have been a surprising twist, for example, for Paul when he heard Yeshua’s voice on the road to Damascus.

5. Moving from the not-yet resurrection of ancient Judaism to the now-and-not-yet resurrection of the New Testament. Since Yeshua has already inaugurated the age to come, his followers believed that God had called them to make this world better in the present. This is nearly identical to the Jewish concept of Tikkun Olam, but I believe Wright is saying that the New Testament thought of the concept first.

6. The development of a metaphorical use for resurrection. Just as in Ezekiel 37, where resurrection is a metaphor for the nation of Israel being reborn, so in the New Testament, resurrection is used metaphorically for the new life a person lives when following Yeshua.

7. The development of resurrection as a cardinal doctrine of Messiahship. As Paul says in Romans 1, Yeshua was “designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection.” In ancient Judaism, there was no idea that Messiah would die and be raised. Though this concept is in Isaiah 53, it was not fleshed out in Jewish texts from the Second Temple period and never became part of Judaism. It is in the New Testament that resurrection and Messiahship come together, so that the resurrection is the primary evidence that Yeshua is Messiah.

Wright’s Own Words
The following excerpt is from N.T. Wright’s paper (mentioned above):

The first modification is that there is virtually no spectrum of belief on this subject within early Christianity. The early Christians came from many strands within Judaism and from widely differing backgrounds within paganism, and hence from circles which must have held very different beliefs about life beyond death. But they have all modified that belief to focus on one point on the spectrum. Christianity looks, to this extent, like a variety of Pharisaic Judaism. There is no trace of a Sadducean view, or of that of Philo. For almost all the first two centuries resurrection, in the traditional sense, holds not only centre stage in Christian belief about the ultimate future but the whole stage.

This leads to the second mutation. In second-Temple Judaism, resurrection is important but not that important. Lots of lengthy works never mention the question, let alone this answer. It is still difficult to be sure what the Dead Sea Scrolls thought on the topic. But in early Christianity resurrection has moved from the circumference to the centre. You can’t imagine Paul’s thought without it. You shouldn’t imagine John’s thought without it, though some have tried. Take away the stories of Jesus’ birth, and all you lose is four chapters of the gospels. Take away the resurrection and you lose the entire New Testament, and most of the second century fathers as well.

The third mutation has to do with what precisely resurrection means. In Judaism it is usually left vague as to what sort of a body the resurrected will possess; some see it as a resuscitated but basically identical body, while others think of it as a shining star. But from the start the early Christians believed that the resurrection body, though it would certainly be a body in the sense of a physical object, would be a transformed body, a body whose material, created from the old material, would have new properties. That is what Paul means by the ‘spiritual body’: not a body made out of non-physical spirit, but a physical body animated by the Spirit, a Spirit-driven body if you like: still what we would call ‘physical’, but differently animated. And the point about this body is that, whereas the present flesh and blood is corruptible, doomed to decay and die, the new body will be incorruptible. 1 Corinthians 15, one of Paul’s longest sustained discussions and the climax of the whole letter, is about the creator god remaking the creation, not abandoning it as Platonists of all sorts, including the gnostics, would have wanted.

The fourth surprising mutation within the early Christian resurrection belief is that ‘the resurrection’, as an event, has split into two. No first-century Jew, prior to Easter, expected ‘the resurrection’ to be anything other than a large-scale event happening to all God’s people, or perhaps to the entire human race, at the very end. There were, of course, other Jewish movements which held some kind of inaugurated eschatology. But we never find outside Christianity what becomes a central feature within it: the belief that the resurrection itself has happened to one person in the middle of history, anticipating and guaranteeing the final resurrection of his people at the end of history.

I am indebted to Dominic Crossan for highlighting what I now list as the fifth mutation within Jewish resurrection belief. In a public debate in New Orleans in March 2005, Crossan spoke of ‘collaborative eschatology’. Because the early Christians believed that ‘resurrection’ had begun with Jesus and would be completed in the great final resurrection on the last day, they believed also that God had called them to work with him, in the power of the Spirit, to implement the achievement of Jesus and thereby to anticipate the final resurrection, in personal and political life, in mission and holiness. If Jesus, the Messiah, was God’s future arriving in person in the present, then those who belonged to Jesus and followed him in the power of his Spirit were charged with transforming the present, as far as they were able, in the light of that future.

The sixth mutation within the Jewish belief is the new metaphorical use of ‘resurrection’. I have written about that elsewhere. Basically, in the Old Testament ‘resurrection’ functions once, famously, as a metaphor for return from exile (Ezekiel 37). In the New Testament that has disappeared, and a new metaphorical use has emerged, with ‘resurrection’ used in relation to baptism and holiness (Romans 6, Colossians 2—3), though without, importantly, affecting the concrete referent of a future resurrection itself (Romans 8).

The seventh and final mutation from within the Jewish resurrection belief was its association with Messiahship. Nobody in Judaism had expected the Messiah to die, and therefore naturally nobody had imagined the Messiah rising from the dead. This leads us to the remarkable modification not just of resurrection belief but of Messianic belief itself. Where messianic speculations existed (again, by no means all Jewish texts spoke of a Messiah, but the notion became central in early Christianity), the Messiah was supposed to fight God’s victorious battle against the wicked pagans; to rebuild or cleanse the Temple; and to bring God’s justice to the world. Jesus, it appeared, had done none of these things. No Jew with any idea of how the language of Messiahship worked at the time could have possibly imagined, after his crucifixion, that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed the Lord’s anointed. But from very early on, as witnessed by what may be pre-Pauline fragments of early credal belief such as Romans 1.3f., the Christians affirmed that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, precisely because of his resurrection.

Dating the Afterlife

If you somehow thought I typed the title wrong and meant “dating IN the afterlife,” you came to the wrong place.

These thoughts sprang from a little reading in Simcha Paull Raphael’s Jewish Views of the Afterlife. It’s an interesting book, marred in my opinion by questionable assumptions, but useful because of the nice summaries and citations from literature all the way from Bible to modern Judaism.

What I have below is really not some final product or well thought out paper, but some notes I decided to make about dates for various key texts in the development of the Jewish view of the afterlife in Second Temple Judaism (516 B.C.E. to 70 C.E. plus or minus).

The impetus for doing this was my sense that Raphael was not being careful in putting references in 1 Enoch in their likely chronological order.

What might interest you, the reader, is to think about approximate dates for the emergence of certain ideas. Just how old are various ideas about the afterlife (inasmuch as we can tell from the writings that have survived to date).
………………………………………………..

The Origins of Resurrection
First, how soon did the idea emerge in the Biblical era that life goes on after death? Aside from a few possible hints, such as in Ecclesiastes 12:7 (”the spirit returns to God who made it,” but the date of Ecclesiastes is debated) and perhaps certain ideas about Sheol or being “gathered to his fathers,” the first clear mention of the afterlife is in Isaiah:

Isaiah 26:19 (c. 740 B.C.E.) “Your dead shall live, their corpses shall rise. O dwellers in the dust, awake and sing for joy. For your dew is a radiant dew, and the earth will give birth to those long dead.”

Arguably, since many scholars think Daniel was written in or after the time of the Maccabees (I don’t), the next mention is in Daniel:

Daniel 12:1-2 (c. 535 B.C.E) “Many of those who sleep in the dusty ground will awake–some to everlasting life, and others to shame and everlasting abhorrence.”

Resurrection, which means a bodily afterlife, is a unique idea to the Jewish people. The Greeks developed non-material views of the afterlife, disembodied souls in a kind of spiritual paradise. Only Israel believed the physical is good (see Genesis 1) and that afterlife is physical existence on a renewed earth.

A Word about 1 Enoch
The book we call 1 Enoch survives primarily in fairly modern manuscripts in Ethiopic. The earliest complete copies are from the 1400’s or so. Some Greek fragments go back to about the 700’s. Most importantly, some Aramaic fragments have been found at Qumran among the Dead Sea Scrolls (before 70 C.E. to be sure).

Yet 1 Enoch is not one book written during one period of time. Evidence is rather good that Enoch is a collection of writings from different periods. No one can say for sure what was written when, so dating Enoch is not a lot better than a shot in the dark. The dates I will give for various parts of Enoch are from the Charlesworth edition of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, and the article on it by E. Isaac:
–1 Enoch 1-5, Late Pre-Christian (say 100 or later B.C.E.).
–1 Enoch 6-11, Late Pre-Maccabean (say 200 B.C.E.).
–1 Enoch 12-16, Early Pre-Maccabean (say 400-200 B.C.E.)
–1 Enoch 18-19, 104-105 B.C.E.
–1 Enoch 37-71, 104-63 B.C.E. with some earlier texts incorporated within
–1 Enoch 72-82, 110 B.C.E.
–1 Enoch 83-90, 165-161 B.C.E.
–1 Enoch 91-107, 104-105 B.C.E. with some earlier texts incorporated within

Paradise: The Garden
The word paradise comes from a Persian word (pardes) meaning a garden. The idea of a garden of God, either a return to Eden or a new and better Eden, goes back to 1 Enoch:

1 Enoch 61:12 (c. 104-63 B.C.E.), “All the holy ones who are in heaven will bless him, and all the elect who dwell in the Garden of life.”
1 Enoch 77:3 (c. 110 B.C.E.), “…garden of righteousness…”
1 Enoch 90:23 (c. 165-161 B.C.E.) “…the garden of the righteous…”

Resurrection in 1 Enoch
1 Enoch really doesn’t make new ground here, but it affirms resurrection, as in Isaiah and Daniel, and even the separate destinies of the righteous and wicked at the resurrection, as in Daniel:

1 Enoch 51:1-3 (c.104-63 B.C.E.), “In those days, Sheol will return all the deposits which she had and Hades will give back all that it owes. And he shall choose the righteous and holy ones from among the risen dead, for the day when they shall be selected and saved has arrived.”

Denial of Resurrection in 1 Enoch?
Raphael gets it wrong here. He writes as if Enoch also contains a denial of the resurrection. However, the following quote is what sinners will taunt the righteous with at death. Therefore Enoch is affirming resurrection here also. Nonetheless, it is likely that different opinions existed, just as later with the Sadducees (no resurrection) and Pharisees (definitely resurrection):

1 Enoch 102:6-8 (c.104-105 B.C.E.), “As we die, so do the righteous die. What then have they gained by their deeds? Behold, like us they have died in grief and darkness, and what have they more than we? From now on we have become equal . . . from now on they shall never see light forever.”

Londonistan, Introduction

I’m reading a dozen books (what’s new) including Londonistan by Melanie Phillips (get it HERE). She is a journalist in the UK who is often, I read, the token conservative on BBC panels.

Londonistan is a frightening but important read . . .
…………………………………………..

I’m not the news junkie that I’m sure many of you are. I confess to being woefully under-informed about current events.

Furthermore, even when I am relatively caught up on major headline news, I tend to forget quickly. Everyone in America remembers the date September 11, 2001. In England the date is July 7, 2005, the day four suicide bombs went off simultaneously in London. I need books like the one by Phillips to remind about such things and how they came about. It’s great to have someone remind and also connect event in a causal relationship and make sense of it all.

I didn’t remember, for example, that all the bombers were born and bred in England. I didn’t remember that these were not impoverished, underprivileged Muslim men beaten down by society and taking revenge. These were middle class, well-educated members of UK society who were radicalized by Islamic clerics whose nefarious activities were committed right under the noses of MI5 and Britain’s homeland security.

Phillips reminds me that Abu Hamza, who is thankfully now in prison, was preaching racial hatred and genocidal murder in a mosque in England with the full knowledge of authorities who let it pass for a long time. Hamza is missing both hands and his left eye. There are various stories but at least one witness says this happened in an accident in a terrorist camp. Hello! A hate-preaching Islamic cleric missing body parts? And it took a while to figure out he should be in jail?

That’s one example of many on Phillips’ book about the dangerous self-hatred of the British for their own culture and history. There is an atmosphere of self-loathing, as the official line seems to be, “We Brits are the bad guys of history, whose primary legacy is imperialism and domination.”

Yeah, England has committed atrocities. Welcome to the human race. But what about constitutional freedom and literature and the spirit of the British who fought off Nazi fascism in World War II? Doesn’t the UK have a lot more positive legacy than mere imperialism?

Phillips is going to argue that this self-loathing and accommodation to every culture except Britain’s own has made London into a Muslim capital. After all, she argues, al-Qaeda started in England! An estimated 16,000 British Muslims actively support terror. An estimated 3,000 have been trained in al-Qaeda terrorist camps.

Londonistan indeed. Let’s pray for a turn-around.

Messianic Jews in the Israeli News, June 2008

The following is a front page story on jpost.com today. I could not afford to go to Jerusalem for the conference this year, so I am sitting home wishing I was there. As far as I know the protest is not sponsored by the UMJC. But notice how well Russ Resnik and the UMJC come across in this article.

You can see the article in its original setting at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1214132688698&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull.

Or just read it here…
…………………………………………
Messianic Jews to Protest Discrimination
Jerusalem Post (jpost.com)
June 26, 2008
By Matthew Wagner

A contingent of about 300 Messianic Jews from the US will protest this weekend against what they call Israel’s discriminatory immigration policy against Jews who believe that Jesus is the messiah.

The Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations, an umbrella body for about 80 US congregations, is holding a three-day conference in Jerusalem that starts Thursday.

During the conference a number of issues will be discussed - including the recent public burning by haredim of New Testaments distributed by missionaries in Or Akiva, a bomb attack that seriously wounded the son of well-known Messianic Jew in Ariel and the attempt to disqualify a Messianic Jewish high school girl from this year’s International Bible Quiz for Jewish youth.

“We are planning to call on the Israeli government to address the problem of discrimination against Messianic Jews who wish to make aliya,” said Rabbi Russ Resnik, executive director of the US-based Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations.

“Messianic Jews see Israel as the place of our past, from the earliest visit by Abraham to the modern rebirth of the Jewish state. And it is the place of our future, which will culminate in the messiah’s return,” Resnik said.

“We are avid supporters of Israel in the present, and that’s why we brought our conference here. But we are also concerned about recent expressions of violence against Messianic Jews.”

Messianic Jews include all people with Jewish ancestry who identify as Jewish but who believe that Jesus is the messiah, Resnik said.

Like Reform Judaism, Messianic Jews recognize both matrilineal and patrilineal descent. Orthodox Judaism recognizes only matrilineal descent.

There are an estimated 12,000 Messianic Jews living in Israel, most of whom made aliya under the Law of Return. There are about a quarter of a million Messianic Jews living in the US.

According to the Law of Return, anyone with a Jewish parent or grandparent is eligible for automatic Israeli citizenship. The law was designed to turn Israel into a safe haven for any Jew in the world who would have suffered persecution under the Nazi regime’s Nuremberg racial laws.

In principle, the Law of Return grants automatic citizenship to all descendants of Jews, regardless of religion.

Nevertheless, in 1962 the Supreme Court ruled that Daniel Rufeisen, a Polish Jew who converted to Catholicism and became a Carmelite monk, could not be granted citizenship under the Law of Return. The court based itself on “common sense” criteria, assuming that the average person would agree that Rufeisen was not Jewish.

The Chief Rabbinate argued at the time that Rufeisen should be considered a Jew since according to Halacha a Jew can never repudiate his or her Jewishness.

Since then the Supreme Court has ruled that Messianic Jews whose mothers are Jewish can be denied Israeli citizenship. In contrast, those who are Jewish solely through their fathers cannot be denied citizenship. This is based on an interpretation of a 1970 amendment to the Law of Return.

“An absurd situation is created in which Messianic Jews have to prove they are not Jewish in order to make aliya,” said Calev Myers, a Messianic Jewish attorney who specializes in immigration cases. “The Law of Return as envisioned by David Ben-Gurion was originally created to ensure that if you are Jewish enough to die in Auschwitz you are Jewish enough to be granted automatic Israeli citizenship. But that is no longer true.”

Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, head of the Ataret Yerushalayim Yeshiva and a leading religious Zionist leader, said Messianic Jews should not be considered Jews.

“It is true that a lot of righteous people were persecuted and murdered by the Nazis,” Aviner said. “But that does not make them Jewish.”

He said that Messianic Jews living in Israel should be marginalized and distanced from Jewish communities.

“Those people are proselytizers. They should not be allowed to have an influence on Jews who might be too weak to resist,” Aviner said.

Resnik admitted that he wanted to spread the word about the “good news of the messiah” among the Jews.

“People need to hear that message. But just because it is such a vital message does not mean that everything goes. Our way is by showing solidarity with the Jewish people, by being part of the people,” he said.

Responding to Reader Questions on John 8

Judah Himango asked me to render an opinion about the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 8. Wasn’t Yeshua violating Torah? (I know Judah doesn’t think Yeshua violated Torah; he was probing).

I responded as follows:

The story of the woman caught in adultery is not in any of the early texts, is found in more than one location in later (less reliable) texts, and may or may not be authentic. Possible interpretations of the story are numerous. One thing is certain: that if this story really happened it was a trap. If Yeshua supported stoning, he was in violation of Roman law. And it could be argued he violated Torah if he opposed the stoning. Many unanswered questions plague interpretation (where was the man also caught? what did Yeshua write in the sand?). The story is problematic no matter how you look at it.

Then another reader (judeoxian) responded:

John 8 may be shaky from a textcrit point of view, but I think it’s solid theologically.

The Master did exactly what any qualified Torah-judge would do, scrutinize the witnesses. Given that this story closely parallels the apocryphal story of Susanna, and that Daniel disqualifies the witnesses in this story, so does the Master in John 8.

The issue of testimony is a strong theme throughout the Gospel of John. John 8 is no different. The accusers had no valid witnesses. Yeshua sees through this trap. If he had said, “Stone her,” he’d be guilty of more than just violating Roman law. He would have made a premature judgment that did not align with Torah or halacha.

As for your blog, you hit the nail on the head regarding the Jewish Gospel.

…………………..

Now, let me say a little more.

I’m not writing to solve the puzzle of John 8. It’s arrogant to assume that we can always find answers. Let’s be honest and say that ancient texts are sometimes mysterious. What we don’t know often outweighs what we do know.

A common but insufficient interpretation of this story is that Yeshua is just nicer than the “God of the Old Testament.” No one has suggested that (yet) on this blog. But many commentaries will say that Jesus had compassion and didn’t want to let the woman die even though God commanded it in the Law (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22). There might be different ways of explaining this. Some would say Yeshua came to overturn the unnecessarily burdensome laws (relaxing the Sabbath, overruling the dietary law in Mark 7, and weakening capital punishment here in John 8).

This type of interpretation is exceedingly weak historically, exegetically, and theologically. The scribes and Pharisees would never have walked away if Yeshua were overturning Torah. A Jewish leader of that time would never suggest such a thing, so why assume Yeshua would? And theologically it divides God into the mean God of Israel and the nice God of the Christian Age.

Judeoxian attempts to resolve the passage by saying that it parallels a piece of 2nd Temple Jewish literature (Susanna, an addition to Daniel) and that this is a clue to what Yeshua was doing. Like Daniel in the story of Susanna, perhaps Yeshua was disqualifying these men as judges. Really? How? And finding an idea in one story does not carry over into a different story and fill in the gaps of the narrative. The case for a parallel here is not so strong. I do appreciate Judeoxian’s scholarship and his opinion, but I find this argument insufficient evidence to give meaning to the John 8 story. It remains a possibility, but one with little evidence to support it.

Judeoxian says the scribes and Pharisees had no witnesses. How does he know that? The text does not say. Rather the text says “this woman was caught in the act,” as jonboze aptly pointed out in his comment.

Jonboze said that death penalty was considered by the rabbis the most severe and was avoided without the most certain proof. I have read that somewhere also and it may be relevant here. Yet it is not enough to go on and it may be a later opinion not relevant to the first century (anyone who knows specifics about the halakhah of capital punishment, we’d love to hear from you).

What we know for sure is as follows:
1. John 7:53 - 8:11 may not be historical and does not belong in the Gospel of John even if it is historical.
2. The scribes and Pharisees are attempting to trap Yeshua into violating either Roman law or Jewish law.
3. Yeshua would never violate Jewish law (Torah).
4. The man was apparently not present or on trial with the woman, which throws the entire trial into question since both were to die.

The story of John 8 remains a mystery. If anyone has more information that could illuminate this discussion, please comment. Speculations, such as those of Judeoxian, are fine, though they should be worded as speculations and not as definitive arguments. For example, it is fine to say, “Yeshua may have been disqualifying these men as witnesses or judges as Daniel did in the apocryphal book of Susannah, though how he disqualified them is not clear in the story.”

The Tom and Jerry Afterlife?

In his book, Heaven, Christian author Randy Alcorn begins with an inspiring thought which I will paraphrase. Suppose you had the kind of job that was so great you would move anywhere in the world to keep it. And suppose that you heard a strong rumor that the company was moving to New Zealand within a decade.

If you knew you would be living in New Zealand within the next ten years, what would you do? I would guess that you would get travel books and read about New Zealand. You would research the history of New Zealand. You would find out what city you might live in and what life is like in New Zealand. Wouldn’t you want to know everything you could about New Zealand?

A famous pastor, J.C. Ryle, once said:

Now surely, if we hope to dwell forever in that better country, even a heavenly one, we ought to seek all the knowledge we can about it.

Well, my newest book, The World to Come, has finally arrived (get it HERE or on amazon.com).

Studying and imagining the World to Come is the most inspiring thing I have done since the early days of my discovery that God is real.

Here is an excerpt from the preface about Tom and Jerry faith:

I wasn’t raised in a religious home, so my earliest thoughts about the afterlife came from cartoons like Tom and Jerry. Whenever a character died, they became transparent, grew wings, found themselves in a white robe, and ascended into heaven. Heaven, apparently, was a purely spiritual or non-material place. Cartoons can be surprisingly influential in a person’s worldview. Although I considered myself an atheist as a young adult, I defaulted at times to my earlier view of the afterlife. I wanted to believe in something.

Most people believe that death is not the end. The hope that death is not the end is too important for most people to dismiss. It is not common to find someone who will baldly assert that death leads only to non-existence.

Yet there are voices opposed to the idea of the hereafter and occasionally they even come from religious leaders. A friend was shocked when attending a liberal Jewish funeral where the rabbi implied that we live on only in the memory of loved ones. Where was the powerful Jewish hope, “All Israel has a share in the World to Come”?

Then there is the perspective of famed atheist Isaac Asimov:

I don’t believe in an afterlife, so I don’t have to spend my whole life fearing hell, or fearing heaven even more. For whatever the tortures of hell, I think the boredom of heaven would be even worse.

In some deep place, I think many people fear that the afterlife will be boring. The Tom and Jerry version of heaven, floating on the clouds in a white robe, is an uninspiring vision to be sure. Who wants to spend eternity as a ghost with angel’s wings?

In fact, that Tom and Jerry heaven is more than just an idea in a cartoon. Certain very real philosophical ideas stand behind a view of the afterlife as ghostly and non-material. Are material things somehow unspiritual and unworthy of eternal existence? Is the body a prison for the soul? If our view of the afterlife is non-material, then we will look at material things in this world as less important than the “spiritual.” Ideas about the afterlife have relevance for living life in the present.

What is the World to Come? Why does Jewish tradition use this term for the afterlife? Why not talk about going to heaven or to the great beyond? Many and varied views of the afterlife present themselves to us.

Can we know too much about the World to Come? Can the details of this subject be in any sense boring?

Well, it certainly would be boring if the hereafter was anything like the Tom and Jerry version.

It’s not just Isaac Asimov who worried that the life to come would be boring. Randy Alcorn, in an informal survey, found that many followers of Jesus were worried about exactly that thing. Why?

Their thinking goes something like this: “I like going to worship at congregation. I enjoy singing 3, 4, or maybe 6 or 7 songs. I enjoy being with other believers. I like the atmosphere of joy and celebration. I like it, that is, for about an hour, hour and a half. But for eternity? Come on!”

Many people are absolutely convinced that the life to come is one unending church service!

That can only be the view of someone who has not studied the World to Come.

I will share a few bits and pieces of the book in the weeks ahead. But I’d love it if you ordered one and read the whole thing. If you read this blog regularly, then the book should be right in the center of what interests you. And you could never have too many books on this topic anyway.

The Jewish Gospel of Jesus, Part 4

Though the word gospel has different connotations today, and none of them Jewish, I assure you the gospel of Jesus is a Jewish message. Gospel, as part 1 explained, is a middle English word translating an ancient Greek concept: a message of life and hope delivered by a messenger, usually in a time of fear and war. The gospel of Jesus is found in full form in Mark 1:14-15:

Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel.”

The idea of times or epochs being fulfilled is a concept straight from the pages of the Jewish prophets. The kingdom or rule of God, which is neither a time nor a place, is practically the core message of the Hebrew scriptures. The gospel of Jesus is a Jewish message indeed.

In this fourth installment, we come to the key word, “repent.” There could hardly be a more Jewish idea. Repentance is embodied in the Torah, Psalms, prophets, and the life and teaching of Jesus. It is also a major theme in Judaism since the time of the Bible.

“Great is repentance,” said Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish, “which converts intentional sin into unintentional.” This is a subject worthy of study and focus on its own. The sacrifices of Leviticus and of Numbers 15 are said to be for unintentional or inadvertent sin as opposed to high-handed sin. We would all despair of ever hoping to know God’s love had the Torah (and the rabbis) not clarified that repentance is what turns an intentional sin into a sin of straying (cf. Numbers 5:5-8, for example).

Jesus certainly agreed. In his example, a major sinner and an upright religious man prayed to God. The major sinner beat his chest and confessed that he was unworthy while the upright religious man thanked God for not being a major sinner. It was the repentant man who was forgiven, while the relatively righteous but unrepentant man had at least temporarily cut himself off from God (Luke 18:9-14).

“Better is one hour of repentance and good deeds,” said Rabbi Yaakov, “than the entire life of the World to Come.” This deliberately scandalous saying is meant to drive home a simple, insightful truth. In the World to Come there will be no repentance since there is no sin. The one who desires reward in the life to come needs to practice repentance now.

Yet perhaps the most telling Jewish expressions of repentance come from the prophets and Jesus’ interpretation of their words as he mediated interactions between sinners and religious leaders.

There is a persistent theme in the prophets which values obedience above worship, humble acceptance of God’s rule over elaborate shows of prayer, fasting, sacrifice, and giving. The theme is so common, I will give only a few examples from many.

In Isaiah’s first chapter, God asks Israel who commanded them to carry on these feasts and sacrificial ceremonies? God says they are nauseating. Of course the reader knows that God is the one who commanded the ceremonies. So something intriguing is going on. A careful read indicates that the problem is not prayer or sacrifice or God-ordained feasts, but the way the people are doing them. They are following all the commands for worship, but their hearts are not with God and obedience is less common than a leopard without spots.

In Micah’s sixth chapter the prophet sarcastically portrays the people suffering under God’s national judgment shaking their fingers at God and asking, “What do you want from us, rivers of olive oil, thousands of rams, my right arm?” God’s response is a well-known classic, “No, all I ever asked was that you walk humbly, love faithfulness, and pursue justice in the land.”

Hosea, in his sixth chapter, has a similarly surprising twist, “I desire faithfulness, not sacrifice.” (Note: Most translations say mercy and the Hebrew word is notoriously hard to capture in English).

The grandfather of all these passages, however, is in 1 Samuel 15, where the prophet says to the clueless King Saul, “To obey is better than sacrifice.”

This prophetic theme has everything to do with repentance, which is the prerequisite to obedience and humbly walking with God.

Jesus not only preached repentance, but he elevated it and demonstrated it in relationships. This was not because Jesus sinned, which he didn’t, but because he welcomed sinners.

Jesus has a consistent critique for the religious leadership of his day. His critique is that they are missing the essential ingredient for speeding God’s kingdom. Some think they can bring the rule of God by making the temple worship grand (Sadducees). Some think they can bring it by violent revolution (Zealots). The most popular group thinks they can bring it by enforcing increasingly stringent practices circumscribing the Torah (Pharisees) and even eliminating heretical groups from the land (Paul in his early days as a Shammaite Pharisee).

When some from the Pharisees criticize Jesus’ disciples for plucking and eating grain on the Sabbath (a practice not directly in violation of Torah since the principle is eating and not harvesting), Jesus says, “And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless” (Matthew 12:7).

Jesus’ response to these critics bears investigation. It might seem that the root idea is mercy and the lack of which is exhibited by the Pharisees in criticizing hungry Jews picking grain to eat on the Sabbath. But this interpretation misses completely the original meaning of Hosea 6:6, which I am sure Jesus did not miss at all.

Jesus was accusing these particular Pharisees of fumbling the Torah football, of hitting wide of the mark. Their concern for matters of tertiary vigilance against any encroachment of Torah disobedience was straining gnats and swallowing camels. While these Pharisees were busy decreeing that hungry people might not eat food readily available on the Sabbath, the disciples, by contrast, were doing the right thing. They had recognized and were following God’s representative on the earth. They were speeding the coming kingdom while these Pharisees were contributing to its inevitable delay.

A related theme in Jesus’ teaching was that the kingdom would not come by violent revolution. This is not because Jesus opposed righteous war, which is in the Torah. It is because Israel’s problem was not the domination of the Romans, but their own failure to repent and believe.

The rule of God would not come by religious cleansing or by violent revolution. It would come by repentance. As in the days of the judges, Israel was dominated by foreign powers by virtue of faithlessness. The faithful ones who responded to John the Baptizers message and to Jesus’ were the real revolutionaries.

Repentance is the cornerstone of the gospel. Our modern age has seen an emphasis on faith without repentance. Jesus’ own age saw an emphasis on scrupulous Torah vigilance without repentance.

Jesus’ Jewish message of good news calls out to us, “Repent and believe.”

Experimenting Again With Comments

Fellow blogger Judah Himango had some things to say about blogs and comments today. Please don’t make fun of his eyes. He can’t help it.

But seriously, Judah said:

I love writing of the things I’m passionate about. This blog has given me the soapbox to stand on, and I think things have worked out well.

But even more, I love the discussion that follows in the blog comments . . .

. . . Like prolific tech blogger Jeff Atwood, I feel that a blog without comments isn’t a blog. If it doesn’t have comments, you’re not getting feedback, you’re not getting discussion; the end result is a not a blog, it’s a dissertation, an essay, or newsletter. It’s not a blog.

Jeff likens a blog without comments to a preacher at a church:

“It’s more like a church pulpit. You preach the word, and the audience passively receives your evangelical message. Straight from God’s lips to their ears. When the sermon is over, the audience shuffles out of the church, inspired for another week. And there’s definitely no question and answer period afterward.”

I heartily agree. I follow about 60 blogs (mostly tech-related) using the free RSS Bandit reader, and of these, perhaps only 2 or 3 of these blogs disable comments. I’m routinely frustrated by these few that disable comments; so many times I have wanted to discuss one of Derek Leman’s excellent posts on the Jewish gospel of Jesus, for example, only to be disappointed when I remember he doesn’t allow comments.

Discussion is my favorite part of blogging.

Okay, enough already. I will experiment with turning comments on again for new posts, starting with this one. I stopped taking comments for several reasons: (1) I was spending too many hours reading and answering comments, (2) the arguing got bothersome, (3) I had a few nasty commenters, including one serious personal attack.

So, I’ll try it again and here are questions for you: how important are comments on a blog like this one? Do you think Judah is right that blogs without comments are preachy?

Derek

A Reader Asks About the Jewish Gospel of Jesus

A perceptive reader asked a question that I thought was worth posting. I’m sure a lot of other people would wonder the same thing. Feel free to send questions to derekblogger@gmail.com and I will answer if I can.

Also, if you have something to add or want to suggest I have got it wrong, I’d love to hear from you. Discussion makes us all better.

The question was:

Hope this email finds you doing well. I’ve been enjoying your posts on the The Jewish Gospel of Jesus. As I read through your latest one, I wondered, “Why?” So I thought I’d solicit your thoughts. Why do you think that over time Christianity, especially contemporary, Western Christainity, has lost sight of the Jewish nature and heritage of the gospel? Perhaps you’ve already answered this question elsewhere. If so, just point me in the right direction!

My answer . . .

There are several reasons why Christendom has lost sight of the Jewish origins of the gospel:
1. Conflict with synagogues in the late first and throughout the second century.
2. Competition with synagogues in some places in the third and fourth century (many were choosing Judaism instead of Christianity, causing Chrysostom to preach a series of anti-synagogue sermons).
3. The temptations of syncretism to spread the influence of the church.
4. A preference for Greek philosophy and culture which led to a lack of interest in Hebrew thought and culture.
5. The spread of tradition over the centuries moved Christendom further and further away from Judaism.
6. It is difficult for a large movement to go back and change with all the momentum of centuries moving away from Judaism.

The good news is we are seeing movement back toward a recognition of Jewish origins in academic theology as well as in many forms of popular Christianity.

Derek

The Jewish Gospel of Jesus, Part 3

So far I’ve explained that gospel translates a Greek word meaning a message of life and hope and rescue from death delivered by a messenger in the ancient world. In Part 2 I explained that when Jesus said in Mark 1:15 that “the time is fulfilled,” he was speaking of God’s plans announced through Israel’s prophets to redeem and restore.

It is easy for modern followers of Jesus to be confused about what the gospel is. Too often contemporary religion has emphasized the mechanism, the decision, or the smallest parts of the gospel, neglecting its cosmic scope and unparalleled beauty.

The gospel is as Jesus aid in Mark 1:14-15:

Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel.”

What is the kingdom of God? How did Jesus’ audience hear this message?

The kingdom of God is neither a time nor a place, though it involves them both. It is the rule of God, his reign as king. Of course God is king whether people recognize him or not and whether the creation is broken or not. Yet the rule of God is full where it is recognized and when all time and space are redeemed and restored and all people and creatures are redeemed and perfected.

The kingdom of God is something revealed by Israel’s prophets. It is also something Jesus demonstrated constantly by his actions.

The early part of Genesis shows the world rejecting the rule of God. The serpent had already left prior to the story and was already there to bring humankind down with him. When humankind chose a path other than God’s rule, all creation went with us, as symbolized by our ejection from the Garden.

God’s plan to restore the kingdom begins with Abraham. God said he would bless all the families of the world through one family, the family of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The kingdom of God comes to the world through the Jewish people and spreads to every family on earth.

God’s kingdom is blessing, not curse. It is healing, life, love, peace, and restoration.

At various times in history, God has revealed things about the time of his rule, when his kingdom overtakes all the failed kingdoms of man. Moses and the Israelites got an early taste in Deuteronomy 30. God said one day he would change the hearts of people (Israel, specifically), and circumcise hearts so that there would be no barrier to perfect love.

In this present darkness, love is imperfect and often seems weak. In the time of God’s rule, love will conquer all.

Jesus lived out the kingdom, demonstrating it like an Israelite prophet would often live parabolically, teaching not just with words but with symbolic actions.

Jesus healed every blind, hurting, or dying person he encountered because in the kingdom of God there is no pain, illness, or death. When a friend of Jesus died, he did not accept the death stoically or even make pious statements about life after death. He wept. And he called his friend Lazarus back out of the tomb. In Jesus’ weeping we can understand that God weeps over death and pain. It is not his will and has no place in the time of his rule.

Jesus said the kingdom of God is at hand. His hearers might have differed a little on the specifics, but everyone understood this meant the time of Israel’s restoration and God’s takeover of at least the land of Israel and ultimately the world.

The gospel is not simply about the afterlife or escaping punishment. It is about God transforming the cosmos, healing and restoring and perfecting all things.

The gospel cannot be reduced. It should not be understated. The gospel is the dawning of the World to Come.

The Jewish Gospel of Jesus, Part 2

Last time we talked about the word gospel. Its ancient meaning is like the message brought by a runner to a city whose armies have gone out to defeat the marauding foe. The messenger stops to catch his breath and shouts, “We won!” The message means there will be no death and suffering. It means life and hope. So Jesus came to bring a message of life and hope replacing despair. That is the gospel.

Our key texts for this series are Mark 1:1 and 1:15:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God . . . Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel.”

The gospel always was a Jewish message, though the world forgot, and it continues to be a Jewish message, as more and more people are discovering. The Jewish reclamation of the gospel is well underway, to judge from books of theology and biblical studies. The gospel is a Jewish man talking to the Jewish people about the Jewish God and the fulfillment of his plans as revealed long ago to the Jewish prophets. This is not in any way to deny that the gospel belongs to non-Jews as well. The prophets specifically said it would. Nonetheless, the Jewish origin and meaning of the gospel must not be forgotten.

The first phrase in Jesus’ gospel is “the time is fulfilled.”

This is a statement at once about personal time and world time. It is a statement declaring God’s ownership of time. It is a statement that cannot be made by human beings, but only by the Holy One, the Lord of time, and his prophets. No human can declare when the times are fulfilled since we are contingent upon time and not transcendent above it as God is. God rules time and we experience it. That is a huge difference.

God had much to say about time in the Jewish scriptures. He said things like, “this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days” in Jeremiah 31:31. He said things like “It shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established” in Isaiah 2:2. A common phrase in the prophets is bayammim ha-hem, in the last days.

Daniel talks about times. He said of God to the emperor of Babylonia, “He changes times and seasons; he removes kings and sets up kings” in Daniel 2:21. He said of the ultimate times to come:

At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time; but at that time your people shall be delivered, every one whose name shall be found written in the book. And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. –Daniel 12:1-2.

Very significantly Daniel spoke of the times and epochs to come as a sequence. He said, “I heard him swear by him who lives for ever that it would be for a time, two times, and half a time; and that when the shattering of the power of the holy people comes to an end all these things would be accomplished” in Daniel 12:7.

The Jewish prophets said there would be times. There would be a time of the Gentiles, a time for trampling God’s court and putting Israel in exile. There would be a time when God would rescue Israel and bring Israel into the land and give Israel a new heart and a new spirit. There would be a time of Messiah, a time of peace and an end to war. And there would be the unending time of the world to come, with God dwelling in the midst of his people in an agricultural paradise.

The times are fulfilled, Jesus said. Only God or a prophet could say that. No man knows the day or the hour.

The time is both personal and global. Global time follows a pattern foretold in the prophets of wars, famines, exile, and evil followed by rescue, redemption, peace, and unending joy.

But personal time is important too. The rabbis have a saying, “Repent one hour before you die.”

The sharp disciple says to his master, “But how can a man know when he will die?”

“Thus,” says the rabbi, “repent now in this very hour.”

Take a Break for Music and for Peace

The Jewish Gospel of Jesus, Part 1

Popular religion can be as confusing in its blend of ideas as a shelf of products at a mega-supermarket. Do I want extra strength or maximum strength? Lite or fat free or “made with Splenda”? Is Acme brand really better than Brand X or is generic just as good?

Listen carefully to religious talk and you will hear ideas being affirmed that are completely contradictory. A thinking person will hear one side of an issue, like predestination versus free will, and what a speaker is saying will sound reasonable. Then another speaker will advocate the other side and it will sound reasonable too. Right. Both right. They can’t both be right. That’s right too!

So in all this confusing array of religious ideas shouldn’t we be unflinchingly certain what the gospel is? But do we really have a firm hold on what is the bedrock message of our Messiah whom we are busy following? Or is the gospel just another area in which we are confused by a plethora of voices?

I encourage myself and anyone reading this to make the text of scripture a place of frequent meditation in thinking about such questions. Traditions and competing ideas in popular religion are not going to be helpful for answering a question like this. Question everything you hear and think deeply.

Gospel is a coined word from the Old English “godspell,” that fails to capture the original meaning of the New Testament word: evangelion. Far from being a religious word, evangelion was a concept of wartime and messengers and people huddled in their city walls fearful of a coming invasion. The army had marched out to meet the coming enemy and the people behind the city walls knew if their army failed, there would be a siege. There would be death, starvation, and brutality.

But along comes a messenger, a runner approaching the city walls from the front lines of the battle. The entire city would hold its collective breath. Is the message good or evil? Will it be life or death?

A good report from the battle was called evangelion, good news, a good report, a message of life and hope.

Today we translate the word as “gospel,” which has various connotations such as “the truth” or “a religious message delivered by a big-haired television evangelist.” We need to see gospel as “good news that means life and hope.”

Jesus came to bring a message of life and hope, a message that benefits those who believe and live it out.

The good message that Jesus brought has been poorly understood by too many for too long. It is not that the message has been misunderstood or that it has somehow become garbled. That would be too strong a condemnation of popular religion. Rather, the message has been emasculated, relieved of its profundity and mystery and rendered as a simple business proposition or divine lottery.

What is the gospel? In this short series we will consider the Jewish gospel of Jesus. Its glory and majesty come not just from its Jewish origin, but also from its cosmic scope and the beauty of hope.

As we begin to consider this topic, it is good to realize that gospel is not a term chosen by popular religion, but is the scripture’s own word. Mark, the first evangelist to record Jesus’ story, describes it as “the beginning of the gospel of Jesus” (Mark 1:1). He says that when Jesus began his work in this world, he “went into Galilee and proclaimed the gospel of God” (Mark 1:14).

What is this gospel? What good news that meant life and hope did Jesus bring? In a world fearful of war, brutality, and death, Jesus came like a runner from the front lines of the battle and spoke a word so inspiring and hopeful, that those who had ears to ear sighed collectively and rejoiced.