For I do not desire,
brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should
be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until
the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. (Romans 11:25 NKJV)
Conversely,
before that question too quickly “raises the hackles” of my Jewish brothers, I
will also ask the equally pertinent question:
Can Christians accept Judaism?
(Thus, I fear, I have raised
everyone’s hackles). I offer this blogpost
in the spirit of Jewish midrash—a perspective on scripture that is possibly
true (and possibly not), but worthy of consideration. I will, thus, begin this
discussion by personally answering in the affirmative to that
second question. I
believe that a transcendence is not only possible, but also
advisable
between Christianity and Judaism. I would not be so arrogant as to suggest that
this post is the final word on this matter, but as Henry Fischel taught me, I
see midrash as an attempt to look at any given scripture and glimpse its
possibilities. Then, I take a perspective that may not yet have been elucidated
(often, a twist) and I offer that perspective. As I indicate on page 163 of my
book
Revelation: The Human Drama, the term “transcendence” is explained
by Kenneth Burke as follows: “
Transcendence occurs as a person ‘learns
to take the oppositional motives into account, widening his[/her] terminology
accordingly, . . . [thus arriving] at a higher order of understanding’ (GM 40).”
I comment on page 70, regarding transcendence: “In Platonic dialectic,
something similar to the ‘opposite banks of a stream’ is present. The antithetical nature of the ‘opposite
banks’ may be transcended by the ‘reality’ of the whole stream. It is not necessary in dialectic to disprove
one bank of the stream, in order that the opposite bank may be true.” On page
162, I observe: Burke “uses the term to designate not a mere ‘comparison’ of
disparate goals, etc., but, more importantly, a ‘combination’ of disparate
matters and even of polar opposites. An example
that he offers is ‘[t]he battlefield … which permits rival contestants to join
in battle.’ For Burke, ‘battlefield,’
therefore, allows the contestants to transcend ‘their factionalism, being ‘superior’
to [their factionalism] and ‘neutral’ to their motives’ (RM 11).”
Please,
don’t jump to the conclusion that I am recommending in any way that Jews and
Christians “join” each other as “opponents” on a battlefield of ideas. I am
merely acknowledging the notion that Christians and Jews are often considered
to be “antithetical” or “rivals” or “polar opposites” or “opposite banks
of the stream.” I am saying that “It is not necessary in dialectic to disprove
one bank of the stream, in order that the opposite bank may be true,” so to
speak. Jews do not need to disprove Christianity and Christians do not need to
disprove Judaism for both of them to be true.
My Years Immersed in
Judaism
There
are many happenings in my life that I consider to be providential:
·
Finding
my wife (Linda)—the only woman I have ever met who was perfect for me,
·
Losing
occasional jobs—only to move into much more worthwhile ones,
·
By
chance, becoming an expert on one of the greatest liberal thinkers in America
(Kenneth Burke)—which probably strongly contributed to my being hired to teach
at Loyola University Chicago and Florida State University—even though I was a staunch
conservative and those faculties were liberal (as can be documented by their
almost unanimous political contribution data), and, among others,
·
Discovering
Millard Burrows’s book on the Dead Sea Scrolls just two days after one of the
greatest tests of my faith. (My Jewish professor had pointed out an “impossible
contradiction” in the gospels: The Synoptics say that Jesus celebrated Passover
with His disciples [Last Supper] but John says that Jesus was already dead-and-in-the-tomb
when the Passover was celebrated. Burrows found in the Dead Sea Scrolls that
the Jews had more than one calendar, with different dates for Passover; both
John and the Synoptics could be right.)
One
of the
most providential occurrences of my life was my spending seven
years (from 1971-1977) studying Hebrew language and literature at the feet of Hellenistics
and Rabbinics scholar Dr. Henry A. Fischel, in the Department of Near Eastern
Languages and Literature at Indiana University. Fischel, a Jew, had, in the
1930s, studied philosophy at the University of Berlin and rabbinics at the
Hochschule für Wissenschaft des Judentums in Berlin, before the Holocaust. After
the Kristallnacht Pogrom, in 1938, the Nazis imprisoned him for several months
at the Sachsenhausen concentration camp, north of Berlin. I once asked him if
he had any family still living in Europe and I received a very terse “no.”
After his death, I learned from his obituary that “His mother, nine uncles and
aunts, and three cousins perished in the Holocaust.” Last month, my wife and I
visited the Holocaust Museum in Houston, and I relived (as much as is possible
without actually going through the horror) what his and his fellow Jews’
experiences might have been like. In 1941, Fischel came to Canada, and, later,
became President of the Society of Biblical Literature in Canada. In 1945, he
received the Ph.D. from the University of Edinburgh, Scotland. He was a pioneer
in exploring the relationship between Jewish literature and the Hellenistic
world.
I
had applied for admission to the graduate program in Linguistics at Indiana,
and received a rejection letter just a few days before the Fall 1971 semester
began. (My undergraduate program in biblical studies—including Greek and
Hebrew—at Lincoln Christian University, which I had just concluded, was not considered
appropriate for them, I think.) They, however, transferred my application
materials to the Near Eastern Languages and Literatures Department and I was immediately
accepted into a Master’s in Hebrew program. I took every single one of my Hebrew
courses under Fischel and received A’s in all of them. I was fascinated by the
amount of information about the New Testament I was able to glean from studying
the midrashim, the Mishnah, and the Talmud. I supported myself throughout my
graduate studies as a Christian minister, and the rabbinic thought and
background of the New Testament kept showing up in my sermons. By the time I
began working on a Ph.D. at Purdue University, I had founded (along with two
other elders) a new Christian Church in West Lafayette, Indiana. My constant
references in my sermons to rabbinic thought must have annoyed a couple of men
in the congregation. They nicknamed me Rabbi Stan, thinking they were
ridiculing me; I wore the nickname as a badge of honor.
When
I wrote my Master’s thesis (Anamartetous Fallen Angels), I found
rabbinic angelology to be much more credible (and logical) in describing New
Testament angelology than what I had seen in Christianity. (Billy Graham had
been writing his book Angels, at the time.) The lone New Testament
scholar on my M.A. in Hebrew thesis committee, J. Paul Sampley, once remarked
that my scholarship in rabbinics was much stronger than my New Testament
scholarship. Having attended, in protracted periods, various Christian
Churches, Churches of Christ, Baptist, and Presbyterian churches (plus
less-lengthy stints with Catholic, Disciples of Christ, Episcopal, Methodist
churches, etc.), my experience has been that the overall theology of churches
is much weaker than that of rabbinic Judaism. (I must confess, however, that I
have not attended modern-day Jewish services, except for once, in a Messianic
Church. Fischel, once, shared with me his frustrations that the messages in his
synagogue had become mostly book reviews and critiques of motion pictures—not actual
engagement with scripture.) On the other hand, when I first moved to West
Lafayette, Indiana, I attended the West Lafayette Christian Church which met
Sundays in Temple Israel. I studied the various Jewish artifacts I found in the
building and grounds. I was circumcised as a baby, but that was not due to
religious beliefs. I do not attempt to follow Kosher dietary laws, partially because,
as a gentile, I believe that I am only responsible for following the Noachian
(not the Mosaic) dietary laws. See Acts 15:13-35.) If one glances
through my books and my blogposts, one will find them replete with teachings
borrowed from Judaism. I, therefore, repeat my answer to the question: Can Christians accept Judaism? The answer is “yes.”
What About Jews
Accepting Jesus?
According
to John J. Johnson’s 2000 article in Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society (JETS 43, 229-46), Rosemary Ruether’s 1974 book Faith and
Fratricide asserts: “Christians must be able to accept the thesis that it
is not necessary for Jews to have the story about Jesus in order to have a
foundation for faith and a hope for salvation” (New York: Seabury, 1979: 256). Johnson also cites Gregory Baum in the introduction to
Ruether’s book (p. 22) stating that Christians must “look for a formulation of
the Christian faith that does not negate Jewish existence.” Johnson points out
that “Krister Stendahl no longer believes that Paul’s letter to the Romans [cited
at the first of this post] teaches that Jews must receive Christ as their
Savior in order to experience salvation.” Whether all that is true is not
totally relevant to my purposes, here. Johnson’s article pertained to Christian
and Jewish reactions to the Holocaust and some Christians’ complicity in that
horrific event. Whatever that complicity may have been, at the time, it is now
becoming clear that most conservative Christians (in America, at least) loudly condemn
such Antisemitism. The attack by Hamas on innocent Jews in Israel on October 7,
2023, is condemned by conservative Christians, even if some liberals, agitated
college students, and Muslims disagree. Antisemitism is rearing its ugly head (once
again) in this world, but conservative Christians are not the problem. We
support Jews.
Is
it, then, antisemitic to pose the question: Can Jews accept Jesus? I contend
that it is
not and I turn, once again, to the importance of Burke’s
notion of
transcendence (between Christians and Jews). Those who have read
my previous post on Consubstantiality will notice the similarity between
consubstantiality
and
transcendence. As Burke said, “Transcendence occurs as a person …
widen[s] his[/her] terminology . . . [thus arriving] at a higher order of
understanding.” On page 162 of
Revelation, I further exemplify Burke’s
thought: “Transcendence is accomplished, Burke indicates, by a widening of
circumference.
… The widening of
circumference often involves a Burkean tracing of the fingers back to the hand
(GM xxii), to the point where they meet.” Such tracing of the fingers back to
the hand, to the point where they meet, smacks of Consubstantiality, as when
individual humans trace their family tree back to the point where they have a
common ancestor.
Substance, or Hypostasis,
and the Church’s Trinitarian Errors
When
I suggest that Jews can accept Jesus, I mean that they can accept the Jesus of
the New Testament. I do not necessarily mean that they can easily accept the
Jesus of the various subsequent Church creeds. They might become
non-denominational Judeo-Christians. I concluded my previous blogpost as
follows: “The word ‘substance’ in the Greek New Testament
is hypostasis/ὑπόστασις, with the ‘hypo-/ὑπό-’ meaning ‘sub- or under,’
as in a hypo-dermic needle that goes under the skin (dermis) and the ‘stasis/στασις’
meaning ‘standing.’ Together, the word hypostasis/ὑπόστασις means that
which ‘stands under,’ as when wood ‘stands under’ or is the ‘substance’
of all wooden furniture, etc., and as ‘Faith is the substance (hypostasis/ὑπόστασις)
of things hoped for’ (Hebrews 11:1). This term hypostasis/ὑπόστασις is,
I think, misused by the subsequent Church in trying to explain its concept of Trinity
as a ‘hypostatic (ὑπόστασις) union.’”
The term
hypostasis/ὑπόστασις is very useful,
if one would understand the relationship between God and Jesus. The term is
used only five times in the entire New Testament. While, admittedly, the
following discussion might get down into the weeds, slightly, there are only
five verses to consider, so please bear with me. In 2 Corinthians 9:4 and
11:17, Paul uses the term to refer to his “confidence.” Perhaps, his confidence
is due to his logical thought process—his confidence in his personal
experience with the Corinthians in 9:4 and his confidence in his own personal
resume in 11:17. Both of these applications of confidence would be based
upon Paul’s internal argumentation processes—both inductive and deductive—concerning
himself and concerning the Corinthians.
In the other three instances of the term hypostasis/ὑπόστασις,
the author of Hebrews uses the term somewhat differently. Although Hebrews 11:1
has also been taken by some to convey a sense of confidence
(for example, the NIV translation: “Now faith is confidence in what we
hope for and assurance about what we do not see”), other translations, such
as the KJV, NKJV, BRG, DRA, JUB, MEV, etc., offer a better, more literal
translation of hypostasis/ὑπόστασις as substance: (“Now faith is
the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen”).
Even with this better translation, the term translated “evidence” is still somewhat
problematic. One might expect the term “evidence” to be an exact parallelism or
a synonym for “substance.” The Greek word translated “evidence” is elenchus/ἔλεγχος.
This is a technical term used by Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle to indicate the
Socratic method of argumentation (by asking Socratic questions). The goal of
this method is not so much to “prove” a thesis as it is to “re-prove” (or refute)
a position (or behavior) that had been commonly held (or practiced). According
to Andre Archie of the Department of Philosophy at Colorado State University, ἔλεγχος
is used to liberate someone “from his traditional beliefs, i.e., prejudices,”
forcing the individual to “reconsider and reconstruct from the ground up rational
arguments and propositions on the topic” (‘Socrates, Elenchus and Tradition,’ accessed
at: https://www.academia.edu/35067881/Socrates_Elenchus_and_Tradition?work_id=35067881).
Perhaps, readers of this post will reconsider and reconstruct from the ground
up, also. This concept of “reconstructing from the ground up” sounds as if it
might be parallel to substance/hypostasis/ὑπόστασις, since a sub-stance
is the ground, so to speak, on which something is built. I take the Hebrews
11:1 passage to indicate that faith is the ground upon which we build our hope.
The question, however, is: Faith in what specific substance/hypostasis/ ὑπόστασις?
Whatever that substance/hypostasis/ὑπόστασις may be, we may conclude
that it is “hoped for” and yet “unseen.”
Hebrews
3:14 exhorts Christians to “hold firm” from the beginning (ἀρχὴν) of the substance/hypostasis/ὑπόστασις
to the end (τέλους), thus affirming a point my brother Dennis Lindsay makes
about faith being that which “holds firm.” [See my blogposts Apocalyptic?
#18: Evangelize? Or Hold Fast? (Rev. 2:13, 25, 3:3, and 11) and Apocalyptic?
#19: Does Absolute Truth Exist? (Rev. 3:14).] That substance/hypostasis/ὑπόστασις
in which Christians are exhorted to “hold firm” has both a beginning (ἀρχὴν)
and an end (τέλους), which brings me back to my short definition of entelechy
as “any process that has a beginning (ἀρχὴ) and an end (τέλος).” I believe that
the specific entelechy/process, in this instance, during which Christians are
exhorted to “hold firm” is the process of living their individual lives on Earth.
Hebrews 12:1-2 exhorts Christians to run “with endurance” the race that is set
before them, looking to Jesus the ἀρχηγὸν (from ἀρχὴ) and τελειωτὴν (from τέλος)
of faith. Revelation 3:14 and 22:13 states that Jesus is the ἀρχὴ and
τέλος (the beginning and the end) of creation. Revelation 21:6 states that God
is the ἀρχὴ and τέλος (the beginning and the end). And then we consider this
momentous verse: Hebrews 1:3 refers to Jesus as the exact
expression (χαρακτήρ, transliterated: character) of the hypostasis/ὑπόστασις
of God. Since Hebrews 1:3 is the only location in the New Testament where the
term χαρακτήρ/character is used, its meaning is somewhat debatable.
The possibilities include (but are not limited to) the following:
1.
Jesus is the “image” of the hypostasis/ὑπόστασις
of God (Jews should have no problem with this concept since all humans
are created in the image of God. Hebrews 1:3, however, seems to be claiming
something much more than that for Jesus),
2.
Jesus is the “impression” of the hypostasis/ὑπόστασις
of God, as a coin has an impression of Caesar (Perhaps, Jesus’s earthly body
has the stamp or impression of the substance of God), and
3.
Jesus is the “likeness” of the hypostasis/ὑπόστασις
of God, in the same way that 4 Maccabees 15:4 suggests that children are the “likeness”
of their parents. I prefer this option, as I will explain eventually. It
relates to consubstantiality.
Does God have a substance? In my previous
blogpost, I stated: “There
is a level of consubstantiality between the Cross, the Tree of
Knowledge, the framework of my backyard shed, my bookshelves, and even toilet
paper. They all experience a descent, of sorts, from the trees God created on
the Third Day (Genesis 1:11).” Their common substance is wood, a
physical, earthly substance. I even said that Jesus’s “flesh … [and] bread
and wine, are all biologic, organic material/hulē/ὕλη.
They were all living (biological as opposed to mineral or gaseous) substances
on Earth.” But God does not consist of material/hulē/ὕλη. Perhaps, that is why Hebrews 11:1 can
say: “Now faith is the substance … [and refutation?] of things not seen.”
What did the Church do with this “
hypostasis/ὑπόστασις
of God” concept from Hebrews 1:3? While the Nicene Creed of 325 did not use the
term ὑπόστασις, it asserted that the Father is the “one God” and the “Almighty”
(in agreement with the Book of Revelation—and with Judaism). Then, it asserted
that Jesus Christ is “the Son of God,” having the same being
/homoousion/ὁμοούσιον as the Father. (If the Jews object to this characterization of
Jesus, they cannot say that they objected to it from the beginning of
Christianity, because the creed was not developed until the Fourth Century.) The
Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) changed the language concerning Jesus from “one
in being with the Father” to (the Latinate) “consubstantial with the Father,”
but since the Greek word translated is “same essence/homoousion/ὁμοούσιον,” not “substance/hypostasis/ὑπόστασις,” the term “consubstantial”
in the creed does not carry quite the same meaning as Burke’s term “consubstantiality,
which” I referenced in my previous blog. Nevertheless, I think this newer
translation of the Latin creeds by the Second Vatican Council brings us closer
to a transcendence with Judaism. Actually, the term homoousion/ὁμοούσιον (best
translated as “of the same essence or being”) does not occur anywhere in
the New Testament or in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old
Testament).
The
Church Fathers may have correctly recognized that God has an unseen, immaterial
hypostasis/ὑπόστασις, but, unfortunately, they chose a different word to
describe the doctrine: homoousion/ὁμοούσιον. Furthermore, they also go a
little haywire, later, with their use of the term hypostasis/ὑπόστασις in
the Fourth and Fifth Centuries. Plotinus, a Greek Platonist from the Third
Century, taught a three-fold ὑπόστασις doctrine: the ὑπόστασις of the soul, the
ὑπόστασις of the mind, and “the one.” Perhaps, his doctrine provided some of
the impetus for developing the Trinity theology in the early Fourth Century. Apollinarius,
who died in 382, was the first of the Church fathers to use the term hypostasis/ὑπόστασις
to refute Jesus’s humanity. He taught that Jesus was true God and denied the
existence of a human soul in Jesus. His doctrine was rejected as heretical by
the first Council of Constantinople in 381. One might call Apollinarius a monohypostatic—one
who believed God only had one (mono) hypostasis/ὑπόστασις. Dyohypostatics—those
who believed that God had two (dyo) hypostases/ὑπόστασεις (Father and Son)—developed (also) in the Fourth Century. And, according
to Wikipedia, “the Cappadocian fathers were the first pro-Nicenes to
believe in three hypostases” (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). We may call them Trihypostatic.
Shawn J. Wilhite (Credo Magazine, November 29, 2020 · Volume 10, Issue 4)
writes: “Lewis
Ayres defined pro-Nicene Trinitarianism … [as] those theologies, appearing from
the 360s to the 380s, … about the nature of the Trinity and … Trinitarian
theology.”
But,
are any of these “hypostatic” theologies correct? I do not believe so
for the following reasons:
1.
The
approaches are all non-biblical. Nowhere in the Bible does this language exist.
(The word homoousion/ὁμοούσιον appears nowhere in the scriptures.)
2.
The word hypostasis/ὑπόστασις appears
only five times in the New Testament—twice in Paul (2 Corinthians) and three
times in Hebrews. It never appears in the plural, only the singular.
3.
Hypostasis/ὑπόστασις is applied to God (and Jesus) only once, in Hebrews 1:3.
The Church
in the Fourth and Fifth centuries decided that hypostasis/ὑπόστασις could be plural,
allotting each hypostasis/ὑπόστασις individually to the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Spirit, and then tying them all together as one homoousion/ὁμοούσιον
(a term that doesn’t even occur in the Bible). Hypostasis/ὑπόστασις,
referring to God, in the New Testament is singular, not plural. Can Jewish theologians
conceptualize God and the Logos as having a single hypostasis/ὑπόστασις.
Yes! And, here is where Fischel is still teaching me.
Jews Can Accept Both God and Logos as Preexisting
Fischel,
in his 1946 article in the
Journal of Biblical Literature, entitled “Jewish
Gnosticism in the Fourth Gospel” (pages
173-74), asserts:
“the central theology of the Gospel [of John], particularly of the Prologue …
is in all its essentials parallel to that of the Rabbis. Both for John and for
the Rabbis the ‘Holy Spirit,’ ‘the Spirit of God,’ ‘Wisdom,’ or the ‘Logos’ or ‘Word’
were the agents of creation … and were preexistent.” He cites the Hebrew terms:
דבור, חכמה,
אלהים רוח,
and הקדש רוח.
(The translation of these Hebrew terms were in the ‘’ quotation
marks above.) There
are hints of ὁ λόγος/Logos in the words “the Spirit of God”/ ורוח אלהים and “and He said”/ויאמ in Genesis 1. Unaware
that Fischel had already made this assertion, I have, over the years, made
similar observations. For example, in my July 27, 2022 blogpost Amoeba/Protozoa
Theology (Gospels 1), I observe: “both God and the Logos existed
simultaneously … ‘in the Beginning.’ …
John did not use the explicit term “Jesus” or “son” when he first said that “en
archē” (ἐν ἀρχῇ) was the Logos. The …
words … “en archē” (ἐν ἀρχῇ) …have … meaning in Aristotle’s concept of
entelechy/ἐντέλεχεια. … The Father/Son
relationship, however, is not introduced until the 14th verse of
chapter one. There, the ‘loins of the father’ analogy may contribute to an
understanding.”
In The
“Form” of God and Entelechy (Gospels 6) blogpost, as I had mentioned in my blogpost The Logos and Entelechy (Gospels 3), I stated:
On page 150 of my book Angels
and Demons: The Personification of
Communication, I write:
Jewish scholar G. F. Moore links .
. . three terms . . . together quite easily.
In his chapter entitled, "The Word of God: The Spirit," Moore states, "God's
will is made known or effectuated in the world not only through personal agents
(ANGELS), but directly by his WORD or by his SPIRIT" (emphases mine).
Since John himself (quoting Jesus)
emphasizes that God IS spirit (John 4:24) and the facts that the “Spirit of
God” is hovering over the face of the waters and God is speaking “words” are
all found in Genesis 1:1-3, the possibility of the Logos being identified as
the Spirit of God is a very definite possibility. Identifying the Logos-become-flesh as Jesus
may be a later development in the entelechy [of creation].
Identifying the Logos as the Spirit of
God seems to have some corroboration in Matthew’s description of the virgin
birth. Matthew 1:18 …[and] 1:20 [and] … Luke 1:35 agree … If the Logos is the
Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit, then the statement that the Logos/Spirit of
God/Holy Spirit “became flesh and dwelt among us” would be very consistent.
Rabbinic
Holy Spirit, Spirit of God, Wisdom, Logos, and Word are NOT Hypostases
Various
English words have sprung from the Greek term hypostasis/ὑπόστασις, most importantly among them, the phrase “hypostatic
union.” According to The Oxford English Dictionary (oed.com/dictionary),
the noun “hypostasis” began to be used in English in 1529, followed by the
adjective “hypostatic/hypostatical” in 1561. It was in 1561 that Thomas Norton
translated John Calvin’s Institution of Christian Religion (ii. F. 154)
with the statement: “He being the Word ... did by hypostatical vnion
take vpon hym the nature of man.” (Calvin’s work was first published in Latin
in 1536.) In 1620, Thomas Granger, in Syntagma Logicum 310,
remarked: “To the singular number (Jehovah) his essentiall name, noting the
unity … is added the plurall (Elohim) his hypostaticall, or subsistentiall
name, noting the Trinity.” In 1673, Henry Hickman, in Historia Quinq-articularis Epist.
sig. A4, wrote: “I believe the Hypostatical Union, a Trinity of
persons in the Unity of Essence.” (The phrase “Unity of Essence” is a
translation of the non-biblical term homoousion/ὁμοούσιον.) In 1682, Thomas
Hobbes, in Answer Dr. Bramhall 38 in Tracts,
asserted: “The word Hypostatical Union is rightly retained and used
by Divines, as being the Union of two Hypostases, that is, of two Substances or
Natures in the Person of Christ.” From 1678 on, according to oed.com, “hypostatic/al
union” had two meanings in theology: “Of or pertaining to substance … hypostatic
union noun (a) the union of the divine and
human natures in the ‘hypostasis’ of Christ; (b) the
consubstantial union of the three ‘hypostases’ in the Godhead.”
Christian
theologians since the Third Century have employed derivatives of the term
hypostasis/ὑπόστασις anachronistically.
M. Eugene Boring’s 1992
article ‘The Voice of Jesus in the Apocalypse of John’, NT 34 (4): 354), seems to be referring to phenomena similar to that Fischel which claims
is “the
central theology of the Gospel [of John and]… is in all its essentials parallel
to that of the Rabbis. Both for John and for the Rabbis the ‘Holy Spirit,’ ‘the
Spirit of God,’ ‘Wisdom’ or the ‘Logos’ or ‘Word’ were the agents of creation …
and were preexistent.” Boring, however, cites the Hebrew terms: חמקום, השם,
השכגה, חכמה,
קול בת, and ממרה. Boring uses a later-developed
verb form deriving from hypostasis/ὑπόστασις along the same anachronistic lines as the Third Century
gang when he says: “James Charlesworth [in Scottish Journal of Theology,
1986] has made it probable that John’s tradition … contained … the voice of
God, hypostysized [emphasis mine] as an ‘independent’ figure analogous to
חמקום, השם,
השכגה, חכמה,
קול בת, and ממרה.” Are all of these
Hebrew/Aramaic terms referring to “independent” figures? Let’s unpack these
Hebrew/Aramaic words that Boring suggests (along with Charlesworth) are
hypostysized:
·
חמקום=The Maḳom (meaning existence or substance), Genesis Rabbah s.
68 explains: “in circumscribing the name of the Lord, why do we call him Maḳom?
… because He is the existence (the preserver) of the world, but His world is
not His existence” (Source: Jastrow).
·
השם=HaShem (meaning The Name). The pronouncing of the Tetragrammaton,
YHWH. Since Jews don’t pronounce God’s Name, they sometimes just refer to Him
as The Name.
·
השכגה=Hashkagah (meaning “awakening”?). Did Boring mean השגהה =Hashgahah (meaning “Providence”)?
·
חכמה=Ḥokma (meaning “wisdom”). Personified as existing with God at
Creation in Proverbs 8.
·
קול בת=Bat Kol (meaning “daughter
of a voice,” refers to a heavenly voice). See my
blogpost Excessive
Righteousness 2: Monotheism for a fuller discussion.
·
ממרה=Memra (meaning “Word” or “Logos”). This is a term used
especially in the Targum as a substitute for “the Lord.” (Source: Jewish
Encyclopedia).
Of these terms (cited by Charlesworth), at least Maḳom, HaShem,
and Bat Kol seem to me to be clearly alternative ways of referring to God (or
His name) without sinning (by taking the Lord’s name in vain). The Ḥokma
passage in Proverbs 8 is similar to the John 1 account, but even this use (in
Proverbs 8) is probably just an instance of poetic personification. (Ḥokma,
incidentally, is the only term cited by both Fischel and Charlesworth.) Memra is
very close in meaning to Logos, but the Jewish Encyclopedia views it also
as a substitute for “the Lord.” In other words, Charlesworth (or, at least,
Boring) seems to assert that the process of hypostysizing [sic] amounts
to making these various terms into “independent” figures. Yet these terms seem to me to be simply other ways of referring to God’s name without
sinning. Since Fischel published his comments in 1946, just one year after he received the
Ph.D. from the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, and Charlesworth published
his comments in 1986 in the Scottish Journal of Theology, perhaps, there
was some overlap in thought between Jewish and Christian (Scottish) theologians
on the matter raised by Fischel. Fischel, however, never suggested that his comments
amounted to hypostysizing (or hypostasize/ing or hypostatize/ing—i.e., verbs/verbals
that came into use in the 1880s meaning “treat[ing or represent[ing] something
abstract as a concrete reality”). With the baggage of the “hypostatic union”
view of Trinity, in the background, one wonders if Charlesworth, or Boring, is
not thinking of the substances/hypostases/ὑπόστασεις, such as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Perhaps,
Charlesworth even thought he was borrowing these notions from Fischel. Fischel,
however, uses no terminology derived from hypostasis/ὑπόστασις in his comments regarding the Prologue to John. I believe
that Fischel was asserting that terminology such as “Holy Spirit,” “the
Spirit of God,” “Wisdom,” ‘”Logos,” and “Word” were not simply abstractions, but
were the “agents of creation … and were preexistent.” They are not separate, “independent”
figures or persons, in the Trinitarian sense. They were forces, nonetheless.
Word, Spirit, Logic, Wisdom—these were all part of (and used by) God in creation.
As my comments above indicate, I am suggesting
the possibility that God’s singular (monotheistic) substance/hypostasis/ὑπόστασις
is “spirit.” John 4:24 (NKJV) states: “God is Spirit, and
those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” In line with G.F.
Moore’s chapter entitled, "The Word of God: The Spirit," God, His
Word (Logos/Memra/Dibur) and His Spirit are identical. Word or communication is
God’s very substance/hypostasis/ὑπόστασις. By Word
He created all things. God and His Word/Spirit are NOT two separate substances/hypostases/ὑπόστασεις. There is one God whose sole substance is spirit. Spirit is like
wind (John 3:8) in the sense that it is unseen, just as Hebrews 11:1 confirms
that faith (which always carries a Word/Logos/Memra/Dibur/communication connotation) is the substance/hypostasis/ ὑπόστασις
of the unseen. Since God’s substance/hypostasis/ὑπόστασις (i.e., Logos
in John 1:1-3) created all things, among those things He created must have been
the “flesh” in which the Logos “tabernacled” among us (John 1:14). A tabernacle
is, by definition, a temporary abode, but the Logos (before He became flesh) preexisted
“en
archē” (ἐν
ἀρχῇ). See my blogpost The “Form” of God and Entelechy (Gospels 6).
Entelechy is the midrashic key that unlocks the whole conundrum.
Some advocates of “hypostatic union” theology (Hobbes,
for example, mentioned above) have suggested that Jesus consisted of two hypostases/ὑπόστασεις—one fleshly and one spiritual that were united into a
single substance/hypostasis/ὑπόστασις. Yet, if Logos created the “flesh”
in which He “tabernacled” among us, then the underlying substance/hypostasis/ὑπόστασις
of Jesus’s flesh is Logos, not flesh. A single substance/hypostasis/ὑπόστασις
(God/Logos/Holy Spirit) generated the flesh that began to grow in Mary’s womb
before His birth on Christmas Day. God = Logos = Spirit (=monotheism). Now,
enters my midrashic key of entelechy. John 1: “En archē” (ἐν ἀρχῇ)—just as a seed archē (ἀρχῇ)
already (preexistently) contains within itself, every single development
(roots, stem, tassles, new seeds, etc.) that will ever occur—God/Logos already (preexistently)
contained within Himself every single development of creation and earthly time.
(Heavens and Earth, Light, Sea, Dry Land, Vegetation, Fish, Birds, Animals,
Man, including the human Jesus, His Son). Through what Burke calls the “temporizing
of essence” (meaning that although an essence is grasped in the blink of an
eye, it takes time [temporality] for it to unfold itself) the various
developments (Heavens and Earth, Light, Sea, Dry Land, Vegetation, Fish, Birds,
Animals, Man, including the human Jesus, His Son) came into appearance
over a timeline. God/Logos even contained within Himself the concept of “time”
itself, as a part of creation. To understand how Jesus can be considered preexistent
and yet appearing at a given point in history, one needs only to consider that
Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek when he was in the loins of his great-grandfather
Abraham (Hebrews 7:1-10). See my blogpost Amoeba/Protozoa Theology
(Gospels 1). Although Levi and Abraham eventually became two separate
individuals, they worked as a united entity at the time of Melchizedek. Still, Levi
and Abraham represent a physical/material entelechy and the relationship
between God and Jesus is not physical or material. It is spiritual, unseen,
sharing the substance/hypostasis/ὑπόστασις of God.
The primary claim of Jesus to a divine nature is that He is the “Son” of God (Psalm
2:7, Hebrews 1:5, 5:5, Matthew 3:17, 17:5, Mark 1:11, 9:7, Luke 3:2, 9:35, John
1:14, 3:16, Acts 13:33, 2 Peter 1:17, Romans 1:4, 1 John 5:9-10). Father-Son
is an entelechial relationship that stems from a common substance/hypostasis/ὑπόστασις.
All father-son relationships were at one time united, during which time,
they operated as a unity.
Consubstantiality
Referring
back to my previous blogpost, Burke lists the types of substance that qualify
for consubstantiality, including “Familial substance … [which] stresses common
ancestry in the strictly biological sense.” This sense of consubstantiality has
the advantage of tying in the third translation of the word “exact expression (χαρακτήρ/character)” from Hebrews 1:3 offered earlier: “Jesus is
the ‘likeness’ [χαρακτήρ] of the hypostasis/ὑπόστασις of God, in the same way
that 4 Maccabees 15:4 suggests that children are the likeness of their parents.”
Yet, Jesus
has spiritual/non-physical/non-biological entelechial consubstantiality [or χαρακτήρ/character] with God’s substance/hypostasis/ὑπόστασις. He also has consubstantiality
with Jews (having a common ancestry in the strictly biological sense). Indeed, He
has a closer consubstantiality with Jews (in the biological sense) than He does
with me and other Gentile Christians. God didn’t choose the Chosen People
so that He could turn water into blood or split the Red Sea so much as He chose
the Jews as the people to bring His Son (consubstantiality) into the world.
Transcendence
Similar
to consubstantiality: “Transcendence is accomplished … by a widening of
circumference.
… The widening of
circumference often involves a … tracing of the fingers back to the hand (GM
xxii), to the point where they meet.” Such tracing of the fingers back to the
hand, to the point where they meet smacks of Consubstantiality, as when
individual humans trace their family tree back to the point where they have a
common ancestor.
So,
what are the obstacles to achieving transcendence between Christians and Jews? The
foremost obstacle is the reluctance to widen the circumference, to trace the
fingers back to the hand, to the point where they meet. Clearly, Christians and
Jews meet in the Old Testament/TANACH. We also meet, however, in the New
Testament and early Rabbinic era. There are several different perspectives on
issues, of course, but by and large, every moral issue has champions on both
sides who are in agreement. The single most difficult question facing
Christians and Jews to this day is whether Jews can accept Jesus as the Messiah
or as the Son of God. It is almost as if it has been codified into the Law as
the Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not accept Jesus. Why is that true when
Simon bar Kokhba was hailed by Rabbi Akiba as the Messiah-King in the Second
Century? Moses of Crete became a candidate in the Fifth Century. Dozens of other
candidates have arisen and been promoted as Messiah for the past two millennia,
but no other candidate has even approached the accomplishments of Jesus of
Nazareth in drawing all nations to God/YHWH. If the problem is that He claims
to have preexistence “en archē” (ἐν ἀρχῇ), Fischel’s assertion, as
expanded by entelechial thought can handle the matter. If the problem is the
Trinitarian creeds of the Third Century, discount them, and return to simple non-denominational
New Testament theology, where the possibility of transcendence is much greater.
Even those Third Century creeds, however, have made a small advance toward
transcendence by changing to “consubstantiality” language.
True,
there have been two millennia of fierce invective exchanged between Christians
and Jews, and that historical feud is always difficult to overcome, but
modern-day Jews who cherish hope that the antisemitic invective spewed by
Muslims can be disarmed will surely see that Christians and Jews, as well, can
dispense with their respective invectives. I, for one, have learned to love and
appreciate the Jewish perspectives that I learned from Fischel. I don’t have
the arrogance to think that what I have written here is the final word in
Judeo-Christian transcendence. It is only my midrash from entelechial and
consubstantial considerations and the singular substance/hypostasis/ὑπόστασις
of God. Read my midrash and mull it over. I think we have some potential for
transcendence.
