Can Jews Accept Jesus?

 

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 14^th 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.