The Jewish Gospels by Daniel Boyarin

I just finished reading The Jewish Gospels by Daniel Boyarin.  I was very impressed.  Boyarin’s engaging book succeeded in reinforcing some things I knew, in opening me up to accept new possibilities and understandings of the early Jewish Church, and in getting me to think critically about the context of the Gospels.

One thing that intrigued me from the start is that Boyarin is an Orthodox “non-Christian Jew” (to use some of his terminology). I read something a while back commenting on the high volume of books about Jesus coming out recently by Jewish authors such as Amy Jill-Levine’s Jewish Annotated New Testament or Rabbi Shmuley Boteach’s Kosher Jesus.  It seems that the Jewishness of Jesus is getting more exposure, which is encouraging.

Boyarin’s main point was that the Gospels are particularly Jewish in their context, style, and content. He challenges the common view that distinctively “Christian” doctrines such as the divinity of Messiah or the suffering Redeemer led to an early split between Christianity and Judaism.  Instead, he argues that all these ideas were well developed in first century Jewish theology.  The distinction and the controversy was that Yeshua claimed to fulfill these Messianic and divine expectations.

One point he develops early on is that the distinction between Christianity and Judaism was ambiguous for much longer than I had originally thought.  I have usually pinned the Bar Kokhba Revolt (early second century) as one of the defining points driving the wedge between Christianity and its Jewish roots. Boyarin points out that as late as the council of Nicaea and afterwards, sources indicate that the “problem” of Jewish Christians (or Christian Jews from the Rabbinic side of things) was still very relevant.  He cites Jerome (347-420) who talked about a sect referred to by the Rabbis as “minei” or “Nazarenes” who followed Jewish practices but whose beliefs were essentially those of the Nicene Creed.  Apparently, this group of Jewish Christians didn’t fit in with either side of the developing religions of Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism.  Not too much has changed in the past 1600 years. The resurgence of the Messianic movement in the past century suffers some of the same issues.

I really enjoyed the exposition of Daniel 7 about the “one like a Son of Man”.  It’s interesting to see that the concept of a second divine person (eventually to be equated with the Messiah) was present in Judaism well before Jesus. He dates the book of Daniel like many scholars to be written in the second century BC.  I prefer an earlier date for the book much closer to the Babylonian captivity. If that is the case, these ideas were very early players in Jewish theology. And there are other passages in the Prophets that point to a divine Messiah as well.  Boyarin does an excellent job connecting these ideas from the Tanakh and Jewish tradition prior and contemporary to the Gospels with Jesus’ claims in the Gospels.  He focuses mainly on the Gospel of Mark which has challenged me to spend some more time studying that Gospel this summer. He explains some of the scenes in Mark such as Yeshua’s words and actions on Shabbat in light of the Messianic and divine overtones of describing himself as the “Son of Man.” He argues that ironically the title “Son of God” highlights the humanity of Yeshua as the Messiah while “Son of Man” makes his claim to divinity.  I hadn’t thought of that before. He also offers good explanations of Yeshua’s views on ceremonial washing, keeping kosher, and the necessary suffering of Messiah.  He points out that even later Rabbis (into the Middle Ages) held traditions of a suffering Messiah based on Isaiah 53 and other similar passages.  Since these Rabbis admittedly had no great love or sympathy for Yeshua, these ideas must not have originated with him.  He just had the audacity to apply these divine Messianic Redeemer identifications to himself.

A couple small criticisms that didn’t really take away much from the overall point of the book:  It was harder for me to follow the discussion on 1 Enoch and 4 Ezra probably because I’m not as familiar with these non-canonical books. That’s probably something I should look into more though. In this discussion though he spent a lot of time describing how theophany (God manifesting Himself as a man) and apotheosis (a man becoming God) are doctrines that had been developing in the centuries before Jesus and were merged in the Gospels.  I would argue that Christianity is more a story of theophany than apotheosis. It’s almost as if he’s making a case for henotheism much like in Mormon theology. An example of where I would disagree is Boyarin’s claim that at his baptism, Yeshua became God (apotheosis). Yeshua was pre-existent as the divine Messiah but chose to humble himself to live as a man while never becoming any less than God. So there’s no need for the human Messiah Yeshua to ascend to divinity. I know Boyarin is a scholar, so that is the approach he takes, but his tone and discussion of early Canaanite religion and the developing Jewish theology almost makes it sound like God, or the concept of God, is a continually changing entity rather than the immutable creator of all who chooses to reveal Himself to us.

Overall, this was great book.  It was a quick read but there’s so much good stuff in there that I will probably be skimming sections again for a while.

Wise Discussion on Insider Movements

The Gospel Coalition has had a series of posts recently on Insider Movements and Muslim ministry.  I've really liked reading these because they've been insightful looks at the good as well as the dangers on all sides of this controversial issue.  They don't blast any one approach, but try to frame the issue with the Gospel.  I hope more dialogue like this can happen because ultimately the glory of Messiah is our aim.

• Leading Muslims to Jesus: Questions to Consider by L. D. Waterman
• How Islamic Can Christianity Be? by J. T. Smith
• How to Share the Gospel with Muslims by J. T. Smith
• Questions and Biblical Guidelines for Missionaries among Muslim Peoples by Erik Hyatt
• Piper Responds to the Insider Movement by Collin Hansen

Idan Raichel Concert

Idan Raichel was playing in Atlanta the other night with Vieux Farka Touré, a musician from Mali.  It was exciting to go see them since I had been introduced to Idan Raichel in Israel a couple summers ago, but hadn't seen him live before.  I really enjoyed the concert although they didn’t play much of his stuff that I was familiar with. I think he was trying to go for a new feel to the music combining his and Touré’s styles.  The result was a mellow, free form sound that was pretty effective.  It was almost like listening in on a jam session of the four musicians there.  Actually, some of it probably was. Idan Raichel played the keyboards, Touré played the acoustic guitar, a Malian played the calabash, and an Israeli played the bass. They had to deal with a few technical difficulties, but that didn’t detract from the show too much. 

I was really impressed with the musical creativity, especially from Idan Raichel.  He was set up in the middle of three piano/keyboards. He started off playing a grand piano, but he had a really unique style. He played the keys with his right hand and plucked the strings inside with his left.  He even used the key cover as percussion in one piece.  Then he started to play the other types of keyboards (I wish I knew what types they were – they each had a distinct sound).  Then he even played a different one with each hand.  It was pretty epic.

I also really enjoyed the percussion.  Someone from Mali was playing the calabash, a large gourd made into a traditional African drum. He was able to get a wide variety of sounds out of it, which I found intriguing.  Usually it had almost a clicking sound to it, but he was also able to make a rich, deep stoke to emphasize portions of the song.

Probably my favorite pieces were when Idan brought up a friend of his from Atlanta, India Arie.  She was incredible.  I’m going to have to keep a look out for her.  She played the flute and sang.  In the encore, she sang some songs I was familiar with such as “Im Telech” and “Bo’ee” (Idan actually sang that one).  The audience was really excited about that part too.  I wish he had played more of his well-known songs, but I guess that wasn’t his goal with this concert.  It was good anyway.

There were lots of Israelis there.  It was great.  People were speaking Hebrew everywhere.  A couple people even walked over to us and asked if we spoke Hebrew.  You could notice the chutzpah and Israeli attitude in the audience too such as disregarding things like assigned seats.  There was a group behind us that kept growing as more people came over to socialize.  It took the ushers several tries to finally get them to be quiet and disperse.  I loved it, but some people probably got annoyed.  It made me miss Israel.  As I was listening to the concert, I had the desire to go visit Africa and Israel.  So I guess they succeeded in their fusion concept of “Two Cultures, One Voice”.

David Platt on Global Missions

I just finished watching a sermon that David Platt gave at the Together For the Gospel conference recently. He really challenged me to consider the absolute sovereignty of God as the basis for global missions to unreached people groups.  God's sovereignty should give us confidence that His purpose will be accomplished to purchase people from every tribe tongue people and nation.  It gives a new power and significance to the phrase that begins so many prayers and blessings: "Blessed are you LORD our God, King/Sovereign of the Universe..."  As David says,

Our God is in the heavens;
he does all that he pleases. (Psalm 115:3)

Hopefully this sermon will be encouraging to many people.  This site has links to the audio and notes too.

Redemption and Gilad Schalit

Redemption is one of those words that we hear a lot but don’t necessarily have a good grasp on what it means. People may say things like “I’ve been redeemed” or “Let the redeemed say amen” but do we know what we're saying? I was studying redemption in Isaiah 35 yesterday and thinking about some of these things. Yesterday was also the day Gilad Schalit was released after over 5 years of captivity by Hamas. The Israeli government was willing to make an exchange of over 1000 Palestinian prisoners – many of whom had committed heinous terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians – just to get one soldier back. After watching the story unfold, I realized that this situation is a great picture of redemption. Redemption, or geulah גאלה in Hebrew, means to ransom or free something for a price. Israel paid a steep price to free Gilad Schalit. While the nation rejoiced to see him come home, many people have a lot of fear and worry now because the people who killed their loved ones are being released as well.

This shows just how much one man is worth to Israel, but God is willing to pay an even steeper price than that. In the Passover Seder, we drink the third cup, the Cup of Redemption, to celebrate how God freed us from slavery to Egypt. It’s no accident that Yeshua, at his last Passover Seder with his disciples, chose to say about this cup: “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.” (Luke 22:20). Yeshua had repeatedly told stories such as the shepherd who leaves the 99 sheep just so he could find and bring back the one lost sheep. And he is willing to pay the highest price for us. Consider these words:

“but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Messiah died for us.” (Romans 5:8)

“he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.” (Philippians 2:8)

“For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Messiah, a lamb without blemish or defect.” (1 Peter 1:18-19)

“You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.” (1 Corinthians 6:19-20)

The single person, Gilad Schalit, was worth enough to Israel to pay a huge price for his release from captivity. How much more so are you and me worth to God who was willing to pay the price of the death of Messiah to free us from slavery to sin which leads to death?

First Impressions of Islam from the Qur'an

The topic of contextualization of the Gospel (especially among Muslims) keeps coming up.  Maybe it's because "Jesus in the Qur'an" (JIQ) was at Grace Midtown this weekend, but I've been thinking about it a good bit over the past year since I went to JIQ, JIQ 2 and then traveled in Israel speaking a lot with both Jews and Muslims.  I want to comment on that a bit, but I'll preface it with my thoughts after reading the Qur'an summer 2008.  I'm sure my views have developed more since then, but this is a good primer on my first impressions of Islam having had no prior knowledge or experience.
----------------

June 28, 2009

 Last summer, I read through the Qur’an with Anna.  I was hoping to synthesize my thoughts on it much sooner, but never got to it.  I’m going to try to put together a brief overview of my impressions of Islam as seen in the Qur’an from a Christian perspective.  Obviously I can’t hope to give a comprehensive analysis of such a work after one read and another skimming today, so I’ll just point out the things that strike me as the most important.

Overall, I was not impressed by the quality or style of the text.  Granted there’s probably a lot “lost in translation” – beauty, style, meaning, etc.  However, I did not think it lived up to its claim that “If you have doubts about the revelation We have sent down to Our servant, then produce a single sura like it” (2:23).  I won’t say that it was a pleasant read because it was rather grueling.  But it was interesting nonetheless.  I find it interesting and perfectly in line with the tactics of Satan to take the Judeo-Christian tradition and scripture and warp it through ignorance, misunderstanding, and addition to make a text such as this that governs the Islamic world today.  It was obviously based on the Bible because it shares many stories and themes.  However, the overall message does not line up with Judeo-Christian theology at all.

The style is “fire and brimstone” throughout most of the book and it’s hard to see Allah’s merciful side although it claims he is time and again.  This gets aggravating and dismal after a while since Muhammad likes to describe the agony of hell in great detail.  In fact, he gets rather spiteful at times describing the fate of unbelievers: “’Take him!  Thrust him into the depths of Hell!  Pour scalding water on his head as punishment!’  ‘Taste this, you powerful respected man!  This is what you doubted’” (44:47-50).  Far from the Apostle Paul’s attitude of anguished compassion toward unbelievers (Phil 3:18), Muhammad writes “[Prophet], (sic) do not be grieved by those who are quick to disbelieve.  They will not harm God in the least; it is God’s will that they have no share in the Hereafter – a terrible torment awaits them” (3:176).  At best, the Qur’an teaches to be passively indifferent about the fate of the unbelieving world.  All the “Bible stories” are also to this end.  From Noah to Lot to prophets named Hud and Salih, the details are different, but each seems to have the same moral: God will punish the unbelievers and they will burn in eternal hell.  It almost seems like this is the goal when Allah says, “If it had been Our will, We could certainly have given every soul its true guidance, but My words have come true.  ‘I will be sure to fill Hell with jinn and men together’” (32:13).  Contrast this with God’s words through the Prophet Ezekiel: “For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the sovereign LORD.  Repent and live” (Ez. 18:32).  However, Muhammad still asserts the merciful nature of Allah saying that all would be hopeless “If not for God’s bounty and mercy and the fact that He is compassionate and merciful” (24:20).  It seems that this mercy is shown at a whim though, because “if He wills, He can do away with you and bring in a new creation” (35:16).  On the contrary, YHVH promised very early on that “Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood.  And never again will I destroy all living creatures as I have done” (Gen. 8:21).

Probably the most important difference between Islam and Christianity is the plan for salvation as presented in the Qur’an versus in the Bible.  Muhammad says, “True Religion, in God’s eyes, is islam: [devotion to Him alone] (sic)” (3:19).  The very meaning of the word Islam implies a very legalistic merit based religion.  The way by which a Muslim is saved is very simple: “Believe in God and the Last Day and do good” (2:62).  However, by sura 23, we see that believers are actually “those who pray humbly, who shun idle talk, who pay the prescribed alms, who guard their chastity, except with their spouses or their slaves […], who are faithful to their trusts and pledges, and who keep up their prayers” (23:2-9).  This litany describing what it means to be a believer (with various additions and subtractions) is repeated time and again throughout the Qur’an.  Even Muhammad seems to realize, however, that trying to make it by human effort is impossible, as we see when he gives a lot of commands and then comes back with a list of exceptions.  YHVH makes no compromise: “be holy, because I am holy” (Lev 14:44).  Allah, instead requires “reasonable obedience” (24:53) saying “Be mindful of God as much as you can” (64:16).  As well he should.  How else would anyone be able to be good enough for God?  Muhammad does not like the idea of substitutionary sacrifice.  He describes the Day of Judgment as “a Day when no soul can stand in for another” (2:123).  Instead, we see the common metaphor of good deeds outweighing the bad at the final judgment (23:102-103).

Christians, however, believe that there is nothing you can do on your own to be holy, but by Jesus’ death on the cross, we have forgiveness and enter into a relationship with God.  John writes, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).  Paul adds, “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God – not by works, so that no one can boast” (Eph 2:8-9).  Rather than trying to live up to God’s standard, Christians are given a completely new nature in Christ.

Next I want to address Muhammad’s claim that “our God and your God are one [and the same] (sic)” (29:46).  Based on what I read in the Qur’an, I have to disagree.  While Allah and YHVH share many attributes, they differ on very fundamental levels. The first distinction that struck me was the distance of Allah from the human world.  It is almost as though he is so other and holy that he cannot quite condescend enough to have direct personal contact with humans.  The classic case is the fact that while God appeared himself on Mt. Sinai to give Moses the Torah, Muhammad is given his revelation by the angel Gabriel. We are told, “It is not granted to any mortal that God should speak to him except through revelation or from behind a veil, or by sending a messenger to reveal by His command what He will” (42:51).  Moses, however, had the privilege of talking to God directly; it was only when he went out in the camp that he needed to wear a veil because the rest of the people couldn’t handle his radiant face (Ex 34:33).  This is in even starker contrast to the fact that Christians actually have Jesus living in us and “with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord’s glory” (2 Cor 3:18).  Even though the Qur’an does point out that “God took Abraham as a friend” (4:125 cf. Jas 2:23), that doesn’t seem to be a possibility for the rest of us.  Relationship to Allah seems to be more about a fear of Hell than anything else. 

Another thing I noticed that sets Allah apart from the Judeo-Christian God is how he considers his subjects who have strayed.  Jesus tells the parable of the lost sheep in which the shepherd will leave the 99 sheep of his flock to go after the one lost sheep (Luke 15:3-7).  Allah, on the other hand does not seem like one who would pursue one wanderer.  Muhammad says, “He will substitute other people for you if you turn away, and they will not be like you” (47:38).  While God agrees to spare Sodom and Gomorrah from destruction if He can find at least 10 righteous men (Gen 18:32), Allah, in the same situation, tells Abraham “cease your pleading: what your Lord has ordained has come about; punishment is coming on them, which cannot be turned back” (11:76).  Muhammad gives a very one-sided picture of God.  He is very good at describing his wrath and justice but can’t quite seem to grasp his mercy, as I mentioned above.

A more obvious difference is over the issue of the Trinity.  We both agree that there is one God: “truly your God is one” (37:4) and “Hear O Israel, the LORD our God, the Lord is one” (Deut 6:5).  However, Christians believe that He exists in three persons (the Hebrew echad in this verse implies unity from diversity).  Muhammad is very clear that this cannot be: “do not speak of a ‘Trinity’ […] God is only one God, He is far above having a son” (4:171).  He does not understand the concept of divine sonship.  I believe this comes from the idea of Allah being so distant.  A god as holy as he could never bring himself to actually make “himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness” (Phil 2:7).

I’ve already written a lot, so I’ll refrain from mentioning some of the other interesting tidbits and oddities I found.  Overall, I’m glad I read through the Qur’an because it gave me an opportunity to really dig deep into the Bible to discern truth between my faith and one that is similar in many ways but fundamentally different.  I had never really done that before by going “straight to the horse’s mouth” so to speak.  I most likely won’t read it again (except maybe as a reference), but I feel better equipped to discuss my faith with those who profess Islam.

All People

After I got back from Israel this summer, I read through the book of Romans.  I decided to copy out the book myself.  I think I got this idea from Andy Sellmann, but the concept is very Biblical as well.  The king of Israel was required by God’s law to write out a copy of the Torah for himself so that he could meditate on it all the days of his life (Deuteronomy 17:18-19).  It was cool because it forced me to spend significant time in the text and consider every word in the book.  As I wrote, I also included my own thoughts and observations in a different color.  One thing I noticed in the first few chapters was the way Paul described the relationship between believers of different cultural and religious backgrounds.  Here’s a sampling of verses with the Greek words in parentheses and some commentary.

Rom 1:5

we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles (εθνεσιν ethnesin) to the obedience that comes from faith.

The Gospel is for all the ethnicities of the world.  Every tribe, tongue, people and nation (Rev 7:9).

Rom 1:13-14

in order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles (εθνεσιν ethnesin). ¹⁴ I am obligated both to Greeks (Ελλησίν Ellesin) and non-Greeks (βαρβάροις barbaros), both to the wise and the foolish.

Paul is bringing up a distinction between Greeks and barbarians in addition to the original distinction in his mind between Jew and Gentile.  He is further stressing the universal scope of the Gospel: it is not only for the Romans but for everyone – even those that they feel are inferior.  This reinforces the previous statement about a harvest among the other Gentiles (ethnicities)

Rom 1:15-16

¹⁵ That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome. ¹⁶ I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile (Ελληνι Elleni Greek). 

Paul extends the scope of the Gospel from the nations to the very personal and close to home.  Because he is not ashamed, he can take the Gospel to every person.  Why does he go back to his personal cultural distinction?  Possibly to make sure that the Jews are not forgotten in the contextualization of the Gospel to the nations.  He has a lot to say to all parties regarding maintaining unity in the body of Messiah.  He makes a point to prioritize the Jews and immediately include the Greeks and subsequently the barbarians (as seen earlier).  It’s sad that this statement was made to the church in Rome that would eventually be a center of anti-Semitism and forget the Jews except as a nuisance.

Rom 2:9-11

⁹ There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew (Ἰουδαίου Youdaio singular noun), then for the Gentile (Ελληνος Ellenos: Greek, singular); 

We’re back to talking about the inclusivity and universality of the Gospel – both in judgment and salvation.  The Jews who were given the Torah – special revelation from God – are held accountable first.  But note that the Greeks who had no such law – only the law of God made known to them through nature – are not spared from judgment.  The question of those who have never heard brings about a renewed urgency in light of these verses.

¹⁰ but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew (Ἰουδαίῳ Youdaio), then for the Gentile (Ελληνι Elleni: Greek). ¹¹ For God does not show favoritism.

Therefore, the Jews are blessed first as well.  But the point as Paul says in the next verse is that God’s blessing is offered to everyone.

Rom 2:13

¹³ For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

There is no special privilege to being a Jew with the Law.  You must act upon your hearing.

Paul spends the rest of chapter 2 and into 3 addressing both the arrogance of Jewish and Gentile believers and argues that we are one body in Messiah and that there is beauty and purpose to every background God has called us out of.  Barukh HaShem that there is such diversity in the body of Christ.