Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Chasing Cars

Who, being in the form of God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the form of a servant,
being made in human likeness.


-Philippians 2:6-7 (NIV)

Moreover, it appears that the meaning of "being in the form of God" may have been presumed as apparent and known to the intended readers, for the text does virtually nothing to explain this interesting phrase.

Larry W. Hurtado
Chapter 3: A "Case Study" in Early Christian Devotion to Jesus
How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?

This is probably premature and I'm sure I have no business posting this opinion on the web without a lot more study to back it up, but it's what's on my mind just now, so here it is. As many of you who read this blog regularly know, I'm pursuing, among other things, some sort of understanding of the deity of Jesus. Just how is Jesus God the Son and how is God the Father also God? Is there a way to understand the "mechanism" of this process and particularly, how early in "the church" it became apparent that Jesus was (and is) divine?

I'm not going to render a detailed analysis of these questions but I've been wrestling with a few thoughts lately.

Ever since reading "The Word became a human being and lived with us, and we saw his Sh'khinah, the Sh'khinah of the Father's only Son, full of grace and truth" (John 1:14 from the Complete Jewish Bible translated by David H. Stern) some years ago, I've tried to imagine the connection between the Shechinah (Divine Presence) as it descended upon the Mishkan (Tabernacle) in the desert and the living, breathing, human Messiah:
And he set up the enclosure around the Tabernacle and the altar, and put up the screen for the gate of the enclosure. When Moses had finished the work, the cloud covered the Tent of Meeting, and the Presence of the Lord filled the Tabernacle. Moses could not enter the Tent of Meeting, because the cloud had settled upon it and the Presence of the Lord filled the Tabernacle. When the cloud lifted from the Tabernacle, the Israelites would set out, on their various journeys; but if the cloud did not lift, they would not set out until such time as it did lift. For over the Tabernacle a cloud of the Lord rested by day, and fire would appear in it by night, in the view of all the house of Israel throughout their journeys. -Exodus 40:33-38 (JPS Tanakh)
This passage, and the analogous event in Solomon's Temple (1 Kings 8:10-11), indicates that the Shechinah is not just a cloud of fog and a fancy lights show, but that it is the physical manifestation of God in our world. It isn't the totality of God, however:
Thus says the LORD: "Heaven is my throne,
and the earth is my footstool;
what is the house that you would build for me,
and what is the place of my rest?
-Isaiah 66:1
If God can't (or won't) squeeze His total "self" into the Mishkan or Temple, what was in Solomon's Temple and where was the totality of the God of the Universe? Are we talking about two Gods here or different manifestations of God's nature?

Ever since I read Levertoff and the FFOZ/Vine of David commentary on his work, I have been approaching a closer understanding of the Jewish Messiah as, somehow, mystically, metaphysically, a "container" or "expression-in-flesh" of God's Shechinah (which is considered a feminine aspect of the Divine, making things all the more interesting). Looking at the JewishEncyclopedia.com definition under "In the Targumim":
The majestic presence or manifestation of God which has descended to "dwell" among men. Like Memra (= "word"; "logos") and "Yeḳara" (i.e., "Kabod" = "glory"), the term was used by the Rabbis in place of "God" where the anthropomorphic expressions of the Bible were no longer regarded as proper. The word itself is taken from such passages as speak of God dwelling either in the Tabernacle or among the people of Israel...
No, this doesn't get any easier and in fact, it gets even more off the beaten path (at least my beaten path). I think the reason the whole "deity" issue is so hard to grasp is that, in Christian circles, we tend to try and understand it all through completely rational, intellectual means, or just abandon all hope of coming to any understanding at all. Engaging in a mystic understanding is pretty tough for most believers to accept.

Now let's compare the Shechinah to another concept, this time from Kabbalah as described at AynSof.com:
Ayn Sof (sometimes transliterated as Ein Sof) refers to the infinite Divine (or G_d). In Hebrew Ayn Sof means "Boundlessness", but is usually translated as "Without End." Often it is referred to as the "Infinite No-Thingness." It should be understood that this does NOT mean that Ayn Sof is "nothing" for It is NOT a THING, but is a "somethingness" that we cannot define in human terms. Ayn Sof, in the Kabbalistic tradition, is the ultimate source of all creation or existence!
Ayn Sof, at least as far as my limited understanding can describe it, is the infinite, invisible, unknowable, non-object object, non-entity entity, ultimate creative force, God (God the Father?).

I hate to reduce these concepts down and make them too simple, but would I be so far out of the ballpark to suggest that there is an infinite, invisible, non-corporeal, God, and then suggest there is some part of Him that He can shrink, humble, extend, and intersect with the created Universe; a part of Him that He can allow us to see, touch and some part of Him with which we can interact? Can I then apply that part of Him with which we can interact, that part we saw in the Tabernacle and in Solomon's Temple to the existence and being of the Messiah?

I don't propose this as an answer but suggest it as a possibility. I'll probably be pursuing this for years. I'm sure I'll write more about this. Yes, I'm an unqualified amateur. I'm like this guy:
You know what I am? I'm a dog chasing cars. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it.
The Joker (played by Heath Ledger)
The Dark Knight (2008)
I'm a dog chasing cars. I'm not sure I'd know what to do with one if I ever caught it, but I just can't help chasing cars.


The road is long and often, we travel in the dark.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

I have no physical or biblical evidence to support my thoughts this morning. I am practically "chasing God."

Nevertheless, Jesus caused something to happen in the Western world: the message of Judaism--ethical monotheism--spread across the globe. Isn't that the real purpose of "the chosen people"? To reveal God's presence in our lives as a single, divine entity.

Jesus became the messenger, to some degree. If Jesus is not the messiah, he is the messenger of monotheism to the "gentile" world.

If he is not God, he certainly brought a very personal revelation to the earth that other Jews and "Gentiles" had previously discovered and expressed but maybe not to the extent of the Jesus movement.

Shalom!
--Jon

James said...

Hi Jon. Thanks for stopping by and commenting. :-)

I think Jesus was/is the Messiah and a unique, divine being that can be compared to no other living entity. It seems that he pre-existed. The writer of Hebrews practically comes out and says he's Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18-20, Psalm 110:4, Hebrews 7:11-17), and God used the "Word/Torah" to create the universe and that same "Word/Torah" "became flesh and dwelt in/among us" (John 1:14).

Judaism's objection to Jesus (among other things) is that the Christian proposition that he is co-equal with God the Father amounts to polytheism by creating a "dinitarian" (two gods in one) God. Hurtado (I'm not quite halfway through his book) considers (at least up to the point where I've read) the relationship between Jesus and God to be "binitarian", that is, there is a "co-relationship" between God and Jesus whereby Jesus is granted divine honors and glory by God, but not necessarily by *being* God. Hurtado (again, up to the point of the book that I've read so far) sees Jesus as subordinate to God the Father (that's going to ruffle a few feathers), so Jesus is divine in nature, but not precisely equal to God or Ayn Sof, the ultimate, infinite Creator.

Levertoff makes some very interesting points in relation to the Shechinah and Jesus, as if this special part of God that He "empties" or "humbles" (Exodus 33:21-23, Phillipians 2:8) which we've seen manifest when God showed his "glory" to Moses, and when God inhabited the Tabernacle and Solomon's Temple, somehow "inhabited" or "manifest" as a human being...Jesus. There's also a connection to the Sukkah (temporary dwelling or tent) if we look at the divine temporarily dwelling in human flesh but ultimately returning to the Heavenly Court as divine sparks fly up out of the fire and return to the Creator.

For me at least, it's the only concept that makes any sort of sense and that ties the divine nature of Jesus back to previous physical manifestations of God. It does require investing a lot of "faith" in a Jewish mystical viewpoint of the nature of God and the Messiah, which is a long road to travel for a fellow who is 100% dyed-in-the-wool Gentile.

All that said, yes, I agree that Jesus did and does something unique on earth (actually a lot of things) in that he becomes a doorway for the non-Jewish world to access God and to connect to the Creator just as the people we are (as opposed to converting to Judaism).

Anonymous said...

As you may know, I have a love/hate relationship with the Gospel of John, which is a treatise or theological argument rather than an historical representation of Jesus (in my opinion). The Gospel clearly plays with Greek philosophy. Word = Logos in Greek. In the beginning was Logos, or thought. God willed his thought to create the universe, John argues. The Word made Flesh obviously alludes to Jesus as the embodiment of thought in the world. This thought has always been with God.

Does that argument mean that Jesus, an historical person, has always been a spiritual being with God before the beginning of time? Does John really mean that when he is obviously working through a gnostic, hellenized version of the Christ story (in my opinion)?

Or, does it simply mean that God's plan was to reveal fate to human beings through the messenger (not the deity) Jesus, whose understanding of Judaism and God's plan is not necessarily known to him, although the Gospel writers make various assertions. He is the messiah. He is the risen Lord. He is the Word (logos) made flesh. He has the power to forgive sins. And so on.

Deity status, of course, is mainstream Christianity, and I hear many Christians praying directly to Jesus, to Mary, and to others to help guide them toward a path, yet Jesus focused on the notion that we should at least pray to God and not Jesus: "Our father, who art in heaven...."

Is Jesus even the messiah? That question is even deeper than the one of deity status. Seems one must accept the messiah concept before they can even move to the next step: deity or no deity status.

I, for one, have not made that leap. Jesus is a wonderful prophet whose message created an entirely new religion, but I do not think it is wrong to view Jesus as the message or intermediary to a relationship with God. We all have divine status, as we are made in the image of God, but God clearly states that his thoughts are not our thoughts. He cannot be defined in such terms we place on or mythologize in Yeshua, a son of God like all of us.

Peace!

Jon

James said...

As you may know, I have a love/hate relationship with the Gospel of John, which is a treatise or theological argument rather than an historical representation of Jesus (in my opinion).

Actually, I don't think any of the Gospels are, strictly speaking, "hardcopy", historical, eyewitness accounts of the events described, although I do believe many of the events portrayed actually happened, or are events commonly attributed to Jesus (Yeshua) that relate important information about him. The Gospel of John (which in all likelihood, wasn't written by the John who walked with Jesus and may have more than one author), is the latest Gospel, the Gospel that most definitely asserts the deity of Jesus, and is probably, the most mystical of the Gospels.

I think it was you who suggested Scripting Jesus by Michael White (and I haven't gotten to reading this book yet), but Derek Leman's book Yeshua in Context takes a similar stance, saying that the Gospels are "stories" about the life and teachings of Jesus that are crafted, not to provide factual, eyewitness accounts, but to relate to different audiences what the writers thought they (we) needed to know about him.

If we accept what the writer of Hebrews tells us, Jesus did have a human pre-existence in the form of the Priest/King Melchizedek (who encountered Abraham...and Abraham seemed to know him) back in Genesis 14. If we accept that, again in Hebrews, Jesus exists "now" as the High Priest in the Heavenly Court (Aaron in the Tabernacle in the desert was his first human analog), then was Jesus also the High Priest "before" his incarnation as the "Jesus" we see in the Gospels?

I use "now" and "before" in quotes because, once you enter into a discussion in realms metaphysical and mystic, things like "before", "during", and "after" become pretty sketchy.

Part 1 of 2

James said...

Part 2 of 2

Judaism considers the "Torah" to be an entity all of its own, operating in some ways, almost independently of God. "Wisdom" is considered in a similar light, so it's at least conceivable that Jesus, in some manner or fashion, existed with God since the beginning, but in what form, I honestly cannot say. If we factor the Shechinah into the argument, then perhaps there's a closer relationship between the "glory" of God in the Tabernacle, and the existence of the human, yet in some way divine, Jesus.

There's a tendency in me to try and jump to a conclusion, and I think the tendency is entirely human, so that there can be closure on the highly controversial and unsettling "status" of who (and what) Jesus is, but I don't think I can get from A to Z so fast. Most Christians just say that Jesus is part of the Trinity, God the Son, co-equal with the Father and the Spirit, and let it go at that. The story is finished and the conclusion is written as far as they're concerned. The mechanics of how the "Trinity" works is not only unknowable from their perspective, it's irrelevant.

I think there's more to know or at least, more to attempt to discover. There may be no definite and concrete answer to the divinity (or lack thereof) of Jesus, but I don't think it's a dead end issue, either.

I agree that Jesus never said to pray directly to him but only to God. He did say to pray in his name (John 14:13-14 1 John 5:14-15) which, according to Levertoff and the FFOZ/Vine of David commentary, is analogous to a Jew praying to God in the merit of a tzadik, such as a great Rebbe (it would be perfectly normal in Chasidic Judaism for a disciple of a great Rebbe to pray in the merit of his Master). This certainly establishes Jesus as a Jewish holy man and a righteous teacher (which is how Levertoff saw him). If we consider Jesus to be *the* most righteous being ever to exist in human form, his merit before the Father must be equally great.

The issue of the Messiahship of Jesus is one that I've assumed, for the sake of argument, but I can't imagine him as such a righteous man and prophet, being (from what I can see) so closely connected to the divine in such a unique way, and *not* being the Messiah (although traditional Judaism doesn't see him that way).

I know this is a difficult thing to discuss and I'm probably stepping on many toes by writing all this (hopefully not yours, my friend), but no one delves into their own spirituality and faith and brings out worthwhile results by playing it safe.