Messianic Judaism Quest

Perhaps the best example of the “struggle” with G-d that might be found in the Hebrew Scripture is the dialectic between Job and his friends. G-d of course intervenes quite forcefully at the end, but G-d’s own questions to and confrontation with Job reveal the fact that man is limited in his ability to comprehend the expansiveness and complexity of both G-d and His involvement in creation. That inability explains why Judaism allows for variation in many theological areas. This is something important to remember I believe.

The complexity of G-d is one of the reasons that Kabalistic thought (not to complicate things too much) in Judaism assigns G-d the name “Ayn Sof” which may be rendered as “infinite; without end, and by extension unknowable.” In Judaism, the struggle of man is to know G-d who on the one hand is unknowable and on the other reveals Himself in history.

That being said, I think its appropriate in light of  my reference to Job to state that Judaism recognizes the complexity of the Divine and therefore chooses to describe G-d and his nature in relation to His actions on behalf of Israel. G-d is described in terms of his character traits (e.g. mercy, justice, etc.). Judaism chooses to describe because understands man’s existence in the same fashion. (E.g. Man is made in the image of G-d, but is also made from the dust of the earth; he is a little lower than the angels, yet is like the grass of the field).

Here I believe is a fundamental difference in the approach espoused by classical Christianity and classical Judaism. Christianity has sought to define the nature of G-d rather than describe it. This is in large part connected to the philosophical predisposition of the early Church Fathers and continues albeit unknown to most evangelical Christians to this day. This desire or need to define ultimately leads to, in my opinion unnecessarily complicated and at times even decisive and destructive theological dilemmas.

I mention this because your question regarding the passages in Numbers and Hosea which state in both passages that “that G-d is not a man” encompasses the aforementioned issues.

Your question of course is ultimately centered on how Yeshua can be both man and G-d in light of these passages. I would offer as answer to the question “Is Yeshua both G-d and man” a complicated “Yes and no and but…”

I know this is confusing. Let me explain my convoluted statements.

Christianity defines itself by certain beliefs which deviation from will render the individual a heretic. The cornerstone of Christian theology is the Trinity. This is of course based in part on the tri-part formulas found in various places in the New Testament. However the Trinitarian statements regarding “G-d the Father, G-d the Son, etc.” and the various formulations found in for example the Creed of Nicea or the Athanasian Creed are attempts to define the nature of G-d. They attempt to define what the Bible has sought to describe.

They of course begin with the assumption that a full equivalence between Yeshua and G-d (Yeshua=G-d) is critical and base this on a number of passages (e.g. John 1:1). Hence the need to have Yeshua fully man and fully G-d is established from a Christian perspective. He must, as far as classical Christianity is concerned be defined and classified. His sacrificial death is valid only if Yeshua is G-d, since according to the normative view a “sinless man” is not possible. On the whole, Judaism does not require a Divine messiah, and the majority of rabbis would find such a view deeply problematic to the level of idolatry. In the Jewish mystical tradition, the notion of a divine messiah is more of a possibility, though these things are not established doctrinally.

My issue here is not to detract from the view that Yeshua is G-d; nor to detract from the view that Yeshua is both G-d and man; on the other hand it is not to dogmatically support these views either, but instead to point out that I believe these issues reflect the fundamental disconnect between approaching the Bible Jewishly and non Jewish approaches. These are not, for the most part Jewish concerns, nor does Judaism require such hard and fast definitions.

That being said, I do believe that there are certain passages in the New Testament that lend credence to the view that Yeshua is divine and that he is G-d. But I also believe there are passages that lend credence to the view that he is not.  A review of early Christian history reveals that the final formulation of Yeshua as G-d and man took centuries to be finalized and was challenged by a variety of other views espoused by competing movements at the time. This reveals the complexity of the problem when approached from a philosophical approach informed by  a Hellenistic tradition.

That being noted, all texts seem to point unequivocally to his status as the “Son of G-d/Messiah” who sits at the right hand of the Father. Of all the claims that Yeshua makes, it seems his statement “…that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins” connects Yeshua to the passage in Daniel that speaks of “one like the son of man:

Daniel 7:13-14 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

For most Christians, and most Messianics, the thought of a Messiah that is not fully G-d or is “simply” divine, but not G-d, is anathema. Why this is so appears to be linked to their view that the validity of Yeshua’s sacrifice is predicated on the view that a sinless life demands that he be divine. This view however does not necessarily address the statement made in Luke regarding Zechariah and Elizabeth who were said to be blameless before the L-RD keeping all the commandments.

Of all possible sources, a Catholic Richard Bauckham proposes an interesting idea which in fact is connected to a view compatible perhaps with Kabbalistic perspectives. The view in short states that “Yeshua bears the character of G-d without bearing the title.”  Kabbalistic thought entails the idea that in order for G-d is so expansive that he “contracted” Himself (metaphorically) to make room for the world. In Genesis we read “Bereshit bara Elokim” which is typically rendered as “In the beginning G-d created …” The Kabbalist offer another rendition “BEGINNING (that this Hashem) created G-d (a notion of glimpse of Himself, that might be understood by man’s limited ability to comprehend the Divine.  Since G-d is holy and even the angels, which are spiritual beings declare “Holy, Holy, Holy is the L-RD G-d almighty” (where Holy may be rendered as separate and distant), G-d manifests Himself in creation through the Sefirot (Emanations) of his character (e.g. power, spendor, loving-kindness, wisdom, etc.)

I believe this is a model that might be used to understand Yeshua, “… in whom the fullness of the deity dwells” as Phillippians states, without requiring us to establish complicated ontologies.

So in short, I know I have not answered your question as simply as you would have liked, but felt compelled to address the fundamentals suppositions that give rise to that issue.

The concern for me is possibilities. For me the critical issue is the description of G-d’s work and the character (i.e. midot)  of G-d that Yeshua reflects, embraces, and claims authority to and not definitions addressing complicated questions which bear little impact on a practical life of Kedushah (holiness). The question of whether Yeshua is G-d may in fact be a needless question especially when one looks at history realizes that Aryans and Catholics fought each other to the death on such an issue.

Share This