So it’s not as if Yeshua came on the scene in Galilee and started a new theology of God. Nor is that the apostles took some pure monotheism of Judaism and corrupted it with Greek philosophy. I know many people, Jewish and not Jewish, think something like this must have taken place.

Perhaps this suspicion is because the church fathers were steeped in Greek philosophy (for example, Origen used concepts from Aristotle to formulate his explanation of the Son eternally generating from the Father). Using Greek philosophy was the right thing for them to do. Their audience needed the ideas of the Hebrew Bible and the Jewish Messiah and apostles put into categories more familiar to them. And Judaism itself was from early on influenced by Greek philosophy as well.

Although I find no fault in Greek thought and I am not advocating some kind of pure Hebrew-ism as an alternative to Western thought (the so-called Hebraic vs. Hellenistic mindset idea), I do think it interesting to try and describe the Divine Messiah and his relationship to the Eternal God in terms that are drawn from Judaism and the Hebrew Bible.

I think the Jewish apostles already did this for us. Their approach was first and foremost one of story. Whereas the Greek philosophical way includes defining things and relationships with precision, the Israelite way was to define things with story.

The Fourth Gospel (John) does this by saying, “All things were made through him” (1:3). Paul does this by saying, “For by him all things were created” (Col 1:16). How did they find a connection between Yeshua (the very human person in whom they believed) and the creator of all things? They came to the conclusion that Yeshua was the Spoken Word who was God’s agent in creation.

You may ask, “Did God use an agent in creation?” Genesis says, “And God said . . . and there was . . .” In other words, God sent forth his voice, his Spoken Word, and all things were made. The apostles were not the first to speculate on the Spoken Word of God being an aspect of God but not the totality of his being. Philo of Alexandria and the Aramaic Targums (paraphrases) speculated about it. Neither were the apostles the last Jews to consider the mystery of God’s Word as an aspect of his being (rabbinic writings contain many such speculations). See Daniel Boyarin’s The Jewish Gospels for an in-depth exploration (you can see my review here).

If, in fact, Yeshua was more than a man — if he was the Word born as a man — then he was divine. He was not all there is to God. The Spoken Word in Genesis was an aspect of God’s being without being the totality of God.

Did Yeshua really have the power to create the universe? The Fourth Gospel reveals Yeshua in an act of creation (turning water into wine, 2:1-12). A story like that is intended to say, “There is more to this rabbi from Galilee than may appear on the surface.”

Were the apostles justified in equating Yeshua with this Spoken Word of God? Where would they get such an idea?

A good hint is found in the Fourth Gospel. John 1:1 gets a lot of attention. John 1:18 gets less. Before I quote it, you may notice various translations disagreeing. This is because there are three different readings available in the manuscripts. But see Raymond Brown for the compelling reasons to follow this reading:

No one has ever seen God;
it is God the only Son,
ever at the Father’s side,
who has revealed him.

This saying should raise some questions. No one has seen God? What is he talking about? Clearly Moses and others saw God, right? Not so, as texts like Exodus 33:20 make clear, “you cannot see my face, for man may not see me and live.”

Moses saw a manifestation of God, not his direct being. Yeshua alone has seen God’s direct being. In fact, it becomes apparent, Moses saw the Son (the pre-existent Yeshua) and not the Father.

The Jewish apostles became convinced of this after the resurrection. Before that, Yeshua seemed to them just a man. At his death they disbelieved (see Mark 14:50). After his resurrection they understood. The many mysterious things Yeshua had said about himself started to make sense. He was more than a man. The way he talked about the Father, of his absolute unity with the Father, only made sense once Yeshua’s Glory was revealed.

So, all this to say, what is an early Jewish way of describing the divinity of Yeshua? I think the following points are all early and formed a chain of understanding for the Jewish apostles:

• Yeshua spoke of God as his Father in ways that went beyond any ordinary person’s relationship to God.
• Yeshua’s hints of his divinity were vindicated as true by his return from death and ascension to glory.
• There was a longstanding background in the Jewish faith of God’s Agent sharing his power and nature, but not being the totality of his being.
• The Word in Genesis and the Glory in the Pillar and the Presence above the Cherubim are all examples of an emanation or radiance from God’s being who is equal with God but not the full being of God.
• The analogy of Son to Father is like Word to God and like Glory to Adonai; the Glory is God but not all there is to God.
• Men have seen some levels of the Glory, but have not seen the direct being of God ever.
• The Word and the Glory are the aspect of God he sends into the world to reveal and to act.
• Yeshua is this Word and this Glory.
• Yeshua is the Radiance (emanation) of God’s glory (Hebrews 1:3); as light and heat come from the sun without being the totality of the sun.

In a much later development in Judaism, kabbalistic thinkers described God in his direct being as the Ein Sof (the Without End) who cannot be seen or known by finite humans. We know God, said these kabbalists, though his emanations (Sefirot) which come to us at varying levels of potency.

In kabbalistic language, we could say Yeshua is not Ein Sof, but that he is rather the sum of all the emanations.

In the later development of Christianity, the church fathers described the Father as eternally generating the Son. Generating and radiating and emanating are all similar ideas. They also used another metaphor, that of begetting or conceiving. Conception of a child, unlike birth of a child, is something that happens virtually instantaneously. It would be wrong to describe Yeshua as the Son born of the Father. But to say he is the Son begotten of the Father comes closer to describing the mystery.

Yeshua existed before he was born. He was always at the Father’s side before time.

WANT TO READ MORE?

• See “Is the Divine Messiah Worth Believing In?”
• See “Mystical Messiah”
• You can order Yeshua Our Atonement here.

First, Larry Hurtado has made what is perhaps the best case that the worship of Yeshua (which itself implies divinity) was early, very early, during the predominantly-Jewish stage of the movement (see his book How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?). A huge piece of evidence? Philippians 2, which is a hymn Paul is quoting because he knows the Philippians give it credence. So this hymn has been around long enough to be considered authoritative. That means it could easily be from the 40′s or at latest the 50′s.

Second, and what this post is all about, in John 5, we see Yeshua making an argument related to his divinity, which is thoroughly Jewish in character and not something which would arise in a Greco-Roman type of thought. Raymond Brown, in his commentary on the Gospel of John, points out that Yeshua’s argument about why he does his work on the Sabbath (rather than waiting for the six working days) is a Jewish argument.

The controversy and Yeshua’s response are explained as follows:

THE CONTROVERSY: And this was why the Jews were persecuting Jesus, because he was doing these things on the Sabbath.

YESHUA’S RESPONSE, PART 1: But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.”

REACTION: This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

YESHUA’S RESPONSE, PART 2: So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel. For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
(John 5:16-24 ESV)

What is the Jewish argument which Yeshua is making?

1. What we are to do on the Sabbath is to imitate God in his rest (Gen 2:2).
2. All life on earth is continually sustained by God, even on the Sabbath.
3. Therefore it is lawful to sustain life on the Sabbath as this is what God is doing (“my Father is working until now,” i.e., even on every Sabbath since creation).

God did not completely cease work on the Sabbath, men were born and died, and only God can give life. Yeshua has just healed a man so incapacitated he cannot even move on his own. In giving this man mobility, Yeshua is giving him fuller life. Thus, Yeshua fixes his redemptive work on the Sabbath in light of God’s work.

This style of argument is Jewish in nature. It is based on a text, an idea strongly rooted in Judaism. Yeshua does not cite Genesis 2:2, nor does he have to. The Sabbath principle is foundational. But it is not foundational in Greco-Roman thought. On the contrary, the Roman sources lampoon the Jewish people for laziness for needed a seventh day rest.

Brown alludes to other commentaries which list rabbinic arguments that God does not get tired or need to rest and that no child would be born and illness healed on the Sabbath if it was thought that God ceased all his labors on the Sabbath. It is not from life-giving but from creating that God rests on the Sabbath.

It is not the kind of argument that would suit later Christianity. This section in John 5 is profound, reflecting on Yeshua’s transcendent authority (vss. 20-24), at resurrection (vss. 25-29), the judgment according to works (vss. 22-23, 30, 45), the judgment given over to the Son (vs. 22), the Son as Life-Giver (vs. 21), the witnesses to Yeshua’s identity (vss. 30-44), and Yeshua as the ultimate subject Torah points to (vss.45-46). Yeshua’s teaching that he works as his Father works and does what his Father is doing is saying, in essence, “Life does not cease on the Sabbath and my Father works to sustain life as do I.” The implication is not that Yeshua, by virtue of his identity, is exempt from the Sabbath law. It is, rather, a halachic statement: doing whatever promotes life on the Sabbath is permitted and Sabbath restrictions should not promote death or suffering to continue.

John 5 is one more piece of evidence that the divinity of Yeshua is an early development, a Jewish one, and not a late, Greco-Roman-inspired doctrine.

Yeshua Affirming Messianic Identity

• Luke 19:40 The Stones Would Cry Out
• Matthew 21:16 Mouths of Babies
• Matthew 16:17 Flesh and Blood Has Not Revealed This
• Mark 14:62 I Am and You Will See the Son of Man

Yeshua Affirming Exalted Status
These claims go beyond the role of teacher or prophet.

• Matthew 11:27 All Things Have Been Handed over to Me by My Father
• Matthew 12:6 One Greater Than the Temple
• Luke 22:30 Eat and Drink at My Table in My Kingdom
• Mark 2:10 Son of Man has Authority on Earth to Forgive Sins
• Mark 8:38 Son of Man Comes in Glory of His Father
• Mark 10:40 To Sit at My Right or Left Is Not Mine to Give
• Luke 4:18 He Has Sent Me to Proclaim Release
• Luke 7:22 Tell John What You Have Seen
• Mark 10:45 To Give His Life as a Ransom
• Matthew 28:18 All Authority Has Been Given to Me

Yeshua as Prophet

• Mark 6:4 No Prophet Without Honor
• Mark 8:28 Some Say Prophet
• Luke 7:16 A Great Prophet Has Arisen
• Luke 7:39 If This Man Were a Prophet
• Mark 13:2 [Foretells Temple Destruction]

THE YESHUA STORY, HIGH VERSION
The story of Israel is not simply on earth, but in heaven. The Ancient One would give dominion to the Divine One who is like a man (the Son of Man). In Galilee a man became known for his miracles and kingdom teaching. His followers thought he was simply a human Messiah, but some things did not fit. He did not heal by prayer, but by his authority. He forgave sins. He said he was Lord of the Sabbath. He said the Son of Man would suffer Israel’s tribulation in himself. He rose and ascended and then they knew him to be the Divine Messiah and Redeemer, the Son of Man who received all authority from the Father. God himself, the Son and not the Father, had become a man. God himself took on humanity to raise humanity toward divinity. God himself experienced death to free us from death. The Radiance of God has been among us and will come again.

What difference does it make which version we believe?

So, it might surprise you to know that Boyarin thinks Judaism and Christianity are compatible. His goal, stated on pages 6-7 is to help Christians and Jews to stop vilifying each other. He doesn’t follow Jesus and isn’t asking fellow Jews to do so. But he demolishes all ideas that Christian devotion to Jesus is contrary to Judaism or that Christianity is anything other than a Judaism to which mostly non-Jews have been drawn. Jews in the time of Jesus were looking, he says, for a divine messiah. And Jesus’ earliest followers were kosher Jews. The sad separation and enmity of Judaism and Christianity is something to get beyond, not something to perpetuate.

Among the themes of the book are some startling claims which deep six the status quo that Judaism and Christianity are separate and incompatible ideas about God and faith:

• Jews in the time of Jesus were expecting a divine-man Messiah figure.
• Many Jews already believed in something very much like what Christians call the Son and Father.
• Some accepted Jesus as divine-man and some did not; both groups were Jews; one of these groups we now call Christianity and the other Judaism.
• Christianity is a Judaism.
• It is not just that Jesus is a Jew, but Christ, the exalted and divine figure, is also a Jew.
• The doctrinal police represented by some rabbis and church fathers are the ones who sought to make Judaism and Christianity incompatible (he gives the specific example of Jerome who rejected people with orthodox faith who wished to remain Jews, saying they had to renounce Jewishness to be true Christians).
• Early Messianic Jews (Christian Jews) called Nazarenes must have been a sizable group even in the fourth century.
• The false boundary between Judaism and Christianity needs to be blurred.
• “Son of God” originally meant the human Davidic ruler; “Son of Man” originally was a divine figure equal with God though submitted to him.
• The roots of the All-Transcendent God [Father] and the Immanent Agent God [Son] go back even to pre-Israelite days as Canaanites sought to understand deity as both.
• The Similitudes of Enoch (part of the book called 1 Enoch) give the lie to the notion that Judaism rejected a divine redeemer who is a God-man.
• The Similitudes, written about the same time as Mark, parallel the ideas of a divine man almost identically to Mark, but neither text was aware of the other.
• Yeshua (Jesus) and his early followers were kosher (he documents how Mark 7 and the “all foods clean” passage have been misunderstood).
• There was a history of faith in a suffering Messiah (Isaiah 53 style) before Jesus and the usual debate about whether Isaiah 53 concerns Israel or Messiah is a moot argument.
• The liberal Christian notion that the church developed the suffering Messiah idea by misinterpreting the Hebrew Bible is false.
• The Gospels are a conservative return to an earlier idea of a Second Divine Figure, who represents the Immanent Aspect of God.
• Jesus, or Mark, knew his way around a halakhic argument.

Boyarin also gives many intriguing solutions to long-held puzzles about Christology, the theology of the divinity of Jesus and his humanity, and how the Gospel texts are using the Hebrew scriptures and dealing with the seeming paradoxes of Yeshua (Jesus):

• The debate about “Son of Man” as “human one” or “divine redeemer” can be resolved if we understand “Son of Man” as a simile: one who is divine but it is like he is human.
• Contrary to much Christian scholarship, Yeshua (Jesus) saw himself as Son of Man from the beginning, not just at the Second Coming.
• Daniel 7 has two ideas in tension: Son of Man is divine redeemer but also Son of Man is Israel.
• The root of Jesus’ saying “the Son of Man” must suffer is Dan 7:25-27 where Son of Man is Israel and must suffer a time, times, and half a time. Jesus midrashically reads this as the Son of Man (himself) suffering for Israel as Ideal Israel.
• Christianity long ago deemed adoptionism a heresy (Jesus became divine at his baptism when filled with Spirit). This idea is called apotheosis (a man becomes divine by indwelling divine spirit). Yet the gospels contain this theme, especially Mark, argues Boyarin (though he becomes God at his ascension, not his baptism). However, see the next bullet point.
• The opposite of adoptionism (apotheosis) is theophany (incarnation, God becomes man) and the divine man is shown to have pre-existed and been divine before birth as a human. This theme is also in the Gospels and is emphasized over the apotheosis theme.
• Boyarin sees both theophany (God became man) and apotheosis (a man became God, Jesus became God as his ascension) in the Gospels. Are these two incompatible streams? See my thought below.

What about Boyarin’s notion that the Gospels have both apotheosis (Jesus becomes God at the ascension) and theophany (Jesus was already God who became man at his birth)? As he shows extensively, the same thing happens in the Similitudes of Enoch, which Enoch chapters 70-71 seemingly contradicting what had been said earlier about Enoch. While earlier it seems Enoch became the Son of Man when, as it says in Genesis, he “walked with God and was not,” in truth, he was already Son of Man before he was born, according to chapters 70-71. Are these ideas really a contradiction? Perhaps they are relative to whether Enoch is viewed from the earthy viewpoint or the divine. This is a way to take Boyarin’s notion that in the Gospels Yeshua (Jesus) both becomes God and already was God. In reality, he already was God, but in appearance his divinity was revealed at his ascension. This way of reading it is compatible with the creeds of Christianity and the strong divinity statements in Paul, Hebrews, and Johannine writings.

The Jewish Gospels is a short, approachable book. Even people who don’t read academic literature can enjoy it and understand most of it. Boyarin gos out of his way to define terms in simple language. The body of the book is only 160 pages.

I can’t honestly think of a sound reason to criticize the book, although it seems my review may be weak for lack of finding fault. I found the entire book engaging and finished it in about three hours. In my opinion, this is a great step forward in Jewish-Christian relations and is a mind-opener worthy of being read by many thoughtful Jewish and Christian thinkers.

Divinity1

• Water to wine – Jn 2:9
• Catch of fish – Lk 5:6
• Calming the storm – Mk 4:39, Mt 8:26, Lk 8:24
• Feeding five thousand – Mk 6:41, Mt 14:15, Lk 9:12, Jn 6:5
• Walking on water – Mk 6:49, Mt 14:25, Jn 6:19
• Feeding four thousand – Mk 8:8, Mt 15:32
• Coin from the fish – Mt 17:27
• Cursing the fig tree – Mt 21:19
• Second catch of fish – Jn 21:6

• The Man in the Capernaum Synagogue, Mark 1:23-27 (Lk 4:33-36).
• The Gerasene Demoniac, Mark 5:1-20 (Mt 8:28-34; Lk 8:26-39).
• The Syro-Phoenician Woman’s Daughter, Mark 7:25-30 (Mt 15:21-28).
• The Deaf and Mute Spirit, Mark 9:14-29 (Mt 17:14-20; Lk 9:37-43).
• The Blind and Mute Man, Matthew 12:22-24.
• The Bent Woman, Luke 13:10-16.

• Royal official’s son – Jn 4:46
• Exorcism in Capernaum synagogue – Mk 1:26, Lk 3:35
• Peter’s mother-in-law – Mk 1:31, Mt 8:14, Lk 4:38
• Leper Cleansed – Mk 1:41, Mt 8:3, Lk 5:13
• The paralytic – Mk 2:3, Mt 9:2, Lk 5:18
• Lame man Bethesda pool – Jn 5:5
• Man with withered hand – Mk 3:1, Mt 12:10, Lk 6:6
• Centurion’s servant – Mt 8:5, Lk 7:2
• Raising a widow’s son – Lk 7:11
• Exorcism of a blind, mute man – Mt 12:22, Lk 11:14
• Gadarene/Gerasene Demoniac(s) – Mk 5:1, Mt 8:28, Lk 8:26
• Raising Jairus’ daughter – Mk 5:42, Mt 9:18, Lk 8:41
• Woman with bleeding – Mk 5:25, Mt 9:20, Lk 8:43
• Two blind men – Mt 9:27
• Exorcism of a mute man – Mt 9:32
• Daughter of Canaanite / Tyrian Woman – Mk 7:25, Mt 15:22
• A deaf and speech impaired man – Mk 7:33
• Blind man at Bethsaida – Mk 8:23
• Son with Seizures – Mk 9:26, Mt 17:14, Lk 9:37
• Ten Lepers – Lk 17:12
• Man blind from birth – Jn 9:1
• Raising Lazarus – Jn 11
• Exorcism of a disabled woman – Lk 13:11
• A man swollen with fluid (dropsy) – Lk 14:2
• Two blind men near Jericho – Mk 10:46, Mt 20:30
• Servant of High Priest – Lk 22:51

Yeshua is the Moses-like Prophet-to-Come, the New Moses, whose agency as the Voice of the Father reveals depths of God unknown or ambiguous in previous revelation.

I listed for readers the findings of Paul Anderson regarding the prophet-like-Moses theme in the fourth gospel, which is not a minor motif but a guiding principle of the entire Gospel of John (see my post “Moses-Like-Prophet in John” here).

In searching out examples of how Yeshua revealed greater depths of God than had previously been known, I first went down a path seeking in the teaching of Yeshua new revelation. I think to some degree I was on the wrong path. I came up with a list of nine existential questions about God and us that are addressed in Yeshua’s teaching and wrote a blog post about it (see “The Son Has Spoken” here).

Yet as I taught this material at our synagogue, a perceptive woman and friend said, “But, Derek, none of that is new. That’s all good interpretation of what’s already in the Hebrew Bible.”

I quickly realized she was right. In terms of Yeshua’s teaching about God’s nature, nearly all of it is accessible in the Hebrew Bible if you avoid certain pitfalls. Judaism has, like Christianity, fallen into a number of pitfalls in this area (e.g., the Saadian and Maimonidean ideas about God’s unity and transcendence in utter denial of real Presence).

Not long after realizing that I was searching in the wrong place — looking for Yeshua’s new revelation of the depths of God in his teaching — I came across some good thoughts on the New Moses theme in Matthew in a book by Darrell Bock (Jesus According to Scripture). His comments on Matthew 13:16-17, 52, made me realize that Yeshua’s purpose in teaching was often to clarify what was already in the old. The new wine was mostly new because the shepherds of Israel did not, in Yeshua’s time, understand the message of the prophets.

Those prophets, according to Matthew 13:16-17, desired to look into Yeshua’s time, to see in his identity and teaching the completion of what they envisioned. And the good scribe of the kingdom (the scribe who knows the King, Yeshua, and looks for his kingdom to come) brings forth both new and old. That is, the old (Hebrew Bible) is inextricably connected with the new, and the scribe brings forth the connections (but most writing about “messianic prophecy” has been terrible and has not followed scribal patterns at all).

Where I needed to be looking, to find the new revelation of the Sent-One, was not in Yeshua’s public teaching, per se. I needed to be looking more at his deeds (somewhat in combination with his teaching). It is more in the deeds and hints at the identity of Yeshua that we find the new things coming forth from the old.

I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children.
Matthew 11:25 (and Luke 10:21).

What are some of the things revealed to little children that may be referenced here?

The following list is subject to more evidence that I am planning to give here. I am not pretending that in listing these points I have demonstrated my case for them. This is an initial presentation of some themes and ideas presented in the gospels that cry out for closer scrutiny. Also, it is important to me not to simply draw from the fourth gospel, where the exalted identity of Yeshua is especially emphasized. Any meaningful portrait of what is new in Yeshua ought to draw from the synoptics as well as John.

• The Way of Surrender. I was struck by a phrase in an essay by Marianne Meye Thompson: the path that God designates . . . giving power up in surrender of one’s life and service to others (“Jesus and His God” in The Cambridge Companion to Jesus, 2001). Yeshua not only described his own messianic career as being about surrender of his life and service, but said repeatedly that disciples were to lose their life, that the last was greatest, and that his followers should be servants to all. This is not simply social justice (the message of the Israelite prophets). It is a radical step beyond. It is Messiah killed being the real glory of Messiah. It is kingdom subjects not only working for justice, but selling everything for a pearl of great value. This is not an incidental theme, but is central in all four gospels (the messianic secret, the Sermon on the Mount, the kingdom for the poor, the lifted up Son of Man, and many other themes).
• Ransom theology. This is an outgrowth of the first point. In surrendering all, Yeshua accomplishes a ransom. The famous ransom passage (Mk 10:45; Mt 20:28) is greeted with skepticism by many scholars (a late addition? it sounds too churchy, say some). Ransom theology goes beyond the way of surrender theme. Not only does Yeshua give up power in service to others, but his surrender to death, but this act of sacrifice is a necessary transaction for people to have life. This is cross theology. It grows out of the Exodus-Passover story.
• Faith as inclusion in the kingdom. I do not think Yeshua in any way denies the election of Israel, which is a carnal election (via birth, not faith). I think, rather, he introduces a concept of a second requirement beyond election. The renewal movement of Yeshua suggests it is not enough to be Israel. God has not yet sent the messianic age because Israel has to go beyond being the Elect. Israel must believe and act according to belief. And in making belief the requirement for renewal, Yeshua opens the door for those in the Nations as well. This is where Yeshua’s universalism (that the divine covenant promises cover the whole world and not only Israel) comes through the door. Paul’s “works of the Law” equal presumption of rightness with God via birth as Jews (or conversion). Paul’s “salvation by faith” equals Yeshua’s call to “believe in me.” This is where Matthew 13:16-17 is really explained: the prophets called for faith and action, but the object of that faith and action was waiting to be seen. Yeshua claims to be that object of faith. And the action required is belief in his identity and message. The irrevocable election of Israel remains important, for in the fulness of time, Israel will also come to the renewal of faith, as the prophets had already foretold. And now that Yeshua has come, that faith can only be in the Messiah himself.
• Word made flesh (incarnation). It is not only John, as some think, but all through the gospels, that we see Yeshua as the Exalted One, whose identity is more than a man. It is a mystery, because the nature of God as both transcendent (the Eternal, the Beyond-Knowing) and immanent (the Word-Glory-Presence) is mysterious. Yeshua is more than the Prophet-like-Moses, ultimately, but is the Prophetic-word incarnate. He is Living Torah. All things have been handed over to Yeshua by the Father. Even the wind and waves obey him. He comes in the Glory of his Father. He is greater than the Temple. He is before Abraham. Unless we know that he is, we will die in our sins.

Yeshua heals and those with faith are made well. Yeshua defeats evil powers and demons are drawn to oppose him, but they can only obey his greater authority. Yeshua criticizes the shepherds of Israel who have followed the pattern of domination and not surrender. Yeshua gathers disciples for his way of surrender. And Yeshua surrenders to the difficult will of the Father (“he will speak to them all that I command him,” “the word which you hear is not mine but the Father’s who sent me”). And all these things are revealed not to the wise, the shepherds of Israel who deal in power, but to little children.

A friend recently said to me, “Jews are better Christians than Christians.” He was referring first of all to the ethic of Jesus about healing and serving and making this world like the world to come. His claim was that the Jewish community does these things better than Christians. Second of all, he was referring to statistics about charitable giving and service work and those who engage in them. The Jewish community, far in excess of our smaller population, out-gives Christians in the work of feeding, clothing, providing medical aid, and so on all over the world.

He followed this up with a bigger point. Who needs Yeshua? That is, given Judaism — and the wealth of information and tradition about God, ethics, the world to come that Judaism provides — who needs Yeshua? What does Yeshua add to Jewish faith and life?

Instead of turning to an afterlife formula — a typical evangelical Christian idea that Jews need Yeshua or they will be judged eternally in the life to come — I wanted to discuss other reasons Yeshua is needed. I leave the question of final destinies, who is included and who is excluded in the life to come, for others to wrangle over. The question is far from settled in terms of biblical theology, in my opinion, and the evangelical certainty that all but those who explicitly declare faith in Jesus are doomed in the life to come is overblown.

But even if hopelessness in the afterlife without Yeshua is the truth, is that and should that be the only reason Yeshua is needed? Is Yeshua nothing more than “my personal savior,” or a savior who makes no difference in this life but only in the life to come?

The following is at least the beginning of a catalogue of the benefits of knowing Yeshua, assuming already a knowledge of the God of Israel and the ethics of Torah and prophets and rabbis. I will first list the general categories and then expound on them in some detail:

• Yeshua is the Moses-like Prophet-to-Come, the New Moses, whose agency as the Voice of the Father reveals depths of God unknown or ambiguous in previous revelation.
• Yeshua is the Beloved Son whose Union with the Father makes greater union with God possible for those who are in Yeshua (in kabbalistic terms, he makes union with the Ein Sof possible).
• Yeshua is the Dibbur (Word, Memra) made human, the Incarnate Shechinah, joining humanity and deity (note: those who say this is impossible for Judaism to accept must explain how any manifestation or dwelling of God is possible as taught in the Torah).
• Yeshua gives us a clearer picture of the world to come (kingdom of God), making more specific what was ambiguous and affirming bodily resurrection (not reincarnation) and giving a specific organization and working plan for living now as we wait for the kingdom to fully overtake the cosmos.
• Yeshua is, in his person, the completion of the future hope themes of the Torah, prophets, and writings: he is Messiah in the full sense of meaning captured by that term, the One who brings near to God, Ideal Israel, the Son of Abraham, and the Paragon of Prophetic hope.
• Yeshua’s atoning death makes possible what was impossible in the Temple sanctuary: for people to be in the Presence of God without the separation of barriers like the Veil (parochet) or incense or the mediation of prophets like Moses. This direct access is vital preparation for the world to come.
• Yeshua has broken through the problem of death in his resurrection, which is a sign of the coming resurrection at the end of the age. The kingdom or world to come has been inaugurated and our faith in it is made easier by the historical witness of those who saw the empty tomb and the appearances (note: it is inconsistent to believe Sinai is historical and doubt the resurrection).
• Yeshua is enthroned beside the Father, is the appointed Judge at the end of the age, is High Priest to all Israel and the nations, and to know him is to have greater union with and knowledge of God. Prayers to God, knowingly or unknowingly, involve Yeshua as well as the Eternal (the Father, the Ein Sof). Knowing the High Priest by name is an advantage in prayer and access.
• Yeshua is the sender of the Spirit who mediates the Living Presence of Yeshua in the community of disciples (note: the Spirit/comforter/paraclete in the fourth gospel is the vessel communicating Yeshua to his disciples after the ascension).

As a follow-up, see “Moses-Like Prophet in John.”

Luke 10:21-24 is material not found in Mark. It is found in Matthew, but Matthew has it separated into two separate sayings on two occasions: 11:25-27 and 13:16-17. Messianic fulfillment comes in unexpected ways and Yeshua’s identity peeks through the veil.

On that same occasion Yeshua rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your gracious will. All things have been given to me by my Father. No one knows who the Son is except the Father, or who the Father is except the Son and anyone to whom the Son decides to reveal him.”

Then Yeshua turned to his disciples and said privately, “Blessed are the eyes that see what you see! For I tell you that many prophets and kings longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.”

Yeshua rejoiced in the Holy Spirit
As was said of Mary in 1:47. For Luke, this is a mode of worship commended for disciples: seeing signs of God’s work in the world and rejoicing.

you have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent
Yeshua did not come to the Temple leadership or the scribal circles.

revealed them to little children
But he chose disciples from the common people, those who had no power or dominance.

for this was your gracious will
A margin note in the NET translation says this could be rendered, “for [to do] thus was well pleasing before you.” Yeshua understands an aspect of God’s pleasure: to avoid the channels of ego and power and work through the forgotten and ignored.

All things have been given to me by my Father
The idea that Yeshua was the Radiance of the Being of God is not something that waited for John’s gospel. It is an idea already known to Matthew and Luke. Behind such a saying is a Jewish mystical concept: the Being of God does not directly enter the world, but his Word, Image, Spirit, Glory, Presence does. Yeshua has been given all things because he is the Word, Image, Spirit, Glory, and Presence of the direct Being of God (the Father). Philo and the Targums contain this sort of notion of the difference between God’s transcendent Being and immanent Word or Spirit in the world.

No one knows who the Son is except the Father
“Knows” here is a word easily misunderstood. Knowledge includes more than the intellectual. Knowledge is also experiential, emotional, and intuitive. Mystical ways of looking at knowledge even emphasize the experiential. To know God in his Direct Being is not simply to read scripture and deduce theology. To know the Son (Yeshua, Jesus) is not simply to deduce things about his life from the history or from scriptures about messianic figures. True knowledge comes from union with the Ein Sof (the Unending One, the Father, God in his Direct Being).

who the Father is except the Son and anyone to whom the Son decides to reveal him
It is a catch-22 that we cannot know the Being of God except through his Emanation (Son, Yeshua, Jesus) while at the same time we cannot know Yeshua (Jesus, Son) except through the Being of God (Father). This conundrum means that something supernatural must happen, a divinely given intuition. John calls it being born from above. It is an experience that disciples require.

Blessed are the eyes that see what you see
For Luke it is very important that the Yeshua-community understand its blessings. In a time of hardship in the larger Greco-Roman world, the marginalized Yeshua-followers need to understand the glory of knowing the Father and Son.

many prophets and kings longed to see what you see
Such as David the psalmist and Isaiah the seer.

Both Matthew and Luke include these sayings, though in slightly different contexts. The realization of Yeshua’s identity as the mediated Presence of God in the world (the Divine Man) is not something invented by the Fourth Gospel. There is much here for disciples of Yeshua to ponder about God’s preference for channels that circumvent power and domination, about worship as rejoicing at seeing God in the world, about a sense of blessing at knowing Father and Son, about messianic happenings being fulfilled in unexpectedly hidden corners of the world, and about disciples seeking the inner meaning of it all.

Only two out of four gospels have birth narratives about Yeshua. And the two birth narratives we have are so very different. They agree on major points, twelve of them, which I will list, but they are so different in other ways. It has often been said, and I think this is valid, that the gospel tradition developed backwards: the Passion and Resurrection narratives were first. Then the miracles, deeds, and sayings traditions developed. Last were the birth narratives. Childhood stories about Yeshua were not included until later gospels in the second century, gospels which the Yeshua-communities did not accept as apostolic in authority.

Meanwhile, we have the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke. They have agreements such as Yeshua’s Davidic origins, his virginal conception, and his birth at Bethlehem. They have major differences which are often smoothed over with little thought about the difficulties in harmonizing them. Luke doesn’t mention a trip to Egypt. Matthew doesn’t mention that Joseph and Mary were from Nazareth.

The Yeshua-story has birth issues. How reliable are these narratives? Should we who accept them as inspired tradition expect the world to subscribe to them as history? What is at stake in the birth story of the Messiah?

From the outset, I have to say that in a less-than-fifteen-minute talk on the birth of Messiah, I can only summarize large issues. Let me say as well that accepting tradition and theology from the Bible does not depend on historical verifiability. We do not have to limit our faith to things that have strong historical evidence. If we believe that God inspired a set of traditions coming from ancient Israel — the Hebrew Bible — and from the early Yeshua-movement — the New Testament — then our faith is not in historical reconstruction. I highly recommend Luke Timothy Johnson’s chapter in The Historical Jesus: Five Views for those who want more information about this approach.

So, let me begin by stirring the waters and showing some of the problems. These are problems precisely for people who do take the tradition seriously and who read with attention to details.

Consider Mark 3:21 and 31-35. Mary and the brothers of Yeshua come to Capernaum to remove Yeshua from a crowd scene. They heard people saying Yeshua is “beside himself.” They have doubts or concerns about what Yeshua is doing.

But wait! Is this the same Mary to whom the angel spoke in Luke 1:26-38? She was told that this child would be born without a human father, that he would be conceived by the Holy Spirit, and that he will reign as king. How could Mary have doubts about such a son? How could Yeshua’s brothers not understand? How could this all not have become known earlier? Why, when Yeshua comes back to Nazareth in Luke 4:16-30 do his townspeople not know he is a miraculously conceived man destined to be king?

I’m not saying there are not possible ways of understanding both lines of tradition. I’m just saying: we have a tension here between Mary’s knowing the origins of Yeshua and yet doubting him. Mary is not among the disciples before the resurrection, but only after.

And that is another way of showing the tension. It is the resurrection of Yeshua that quite obviously changed the view of the disciples and others about him. How could his greatness have gone relatively unknown until then in light of angels appearing and a virginal conception?

And let’s look at the birth issues surrounding Yeshua another way. The stories in Matthew and Luke are very different. Some believe they can be harmonized. Others do not.

Here is Matthew’s story in outline form: an angel appeared to Joseph in an unspecified location to explain the virginal conception, Yeshua was born in Bethlehem, magi came looking for him and this caused Herod to slaughter babes in Bethlehem, the Yeshua-family fled to Egypt, and after Herod died they came back but settled in Nazareth to hide from Herod.

Here is Luke’s story in outline, leaving out the John the Baptist material: an angel appeared to Mary in Nazareth to explain the virginal conception, the Yeshua-family came to Bethlehem for a census registration and Yeshua was born there, the family came to Jerusalem for a time to fulfill the Torah, and then they returned to Nazareth after the census and obligations in Jerusalem.

Can these stories be harmonized into one account? Some think they can and would place the order roughly this way: Luke 1, Matthew 1, Luke 2, and untold story of a return to Bethlehem, and then Matthew 2 (Raymond Brown mentions this common harmonization in The Birth of Messiah in a footnote on pg. 35). Here is the possible order of events if the stories go together:
…an angel appeared to Mary in Nazareth to explain the virginal conception
…an angel appeared to Joseph in an unspecified location to explain the virginal conception
…the Yeshua-family came to Bethlehem for a census registration
…Yeshua was born there
…the family came to Jerusalem for a time to fulfill the Torah
…the family returned to Bethlehem after Jerusalem for a time, though no gospel mentions it
…magi came looking for him in Bethlehem and this caused Herod to slaughter babes
…the Yeshua-family fled to Egypt
…after Herod died they came back but settled in Nazareth to hide from Herod

This harmonized account is possible. So why have any doubts about it?

First, what are the sources of Matthew’s and Luke’s information? It is not possible that Joseph could be a source. Every indication is that Joseph is dead before the resurrection. If Mary is the source, how could the two accounts be so different?

Second, how can we harmonize two accounts that are so different? Luke knows nothing of a flight to Egypt. Matthew knows nothing of Nazareth as the original home of Joseph and Mary. And why would Matthew omit the Jerusalem scenes, since it is Matthew’s purpose to show Yeshua as a fulfiller of Torah?

Having considered the difficulty in harmonizing, now let us consider what the two accounts have in common. Both Raymond Brown in The Birth of the Messiah and Joseph Fitzmeyer in The Gospel According to Luke I-IX list the common points. I will use Fitzmeyer’s basic points:
(1) Yeshua’s birth is related to the reign of Herod.
(2) Mary is a virgin betrothed to Joseph and they do not live together.
(3) Joseph is of the house of David.
(4) An angel announces Yeshua’s birth.
(5) Yeshua is recognized as a son of David.
(6) He is conceived by the Holy Spirit.
(7) Joseph is not involved in the conception.
(8) The name “Yeshua” is given by God through angels.
(9) Yeshua is proclaimed beforehand a Savior.
(10) Yeshua is born after Mary and Joseph come to live together.
(11) He is born at Bethlehem.
(12) Yeshua settles in Nazareth.

I am not saying that these points must all be taken as verifiable history simply because they are common to both gospels. But consider: the two stories in Matthew and Luke are completely independent. How did they develop? And why do they have similarities as well as differences?

The only reasonable conclusion, with coincidence being unreasonable on so many specific points of convergence, is that Matthew and Luke independently wrote birth narratives based on earlier sources. These could be oral or written. They cannot have exactly the same sources or, if they do, they took a lot of freedom in filling in the gaps.

The possibilities of how these earlier sources could have become known is too complex to consider here. It is possible and even likely that Mary gave testimony in the early Yeshua-movement. But the tension remains: if Mary made her story known, how did the divergences develop?

And the most important issue is the tradition that Yeshua was conceived by the Holy Spirit. Often called the “Virgin Birth,” this story should more properly be called the “Virginal Conception.” How did this tradition develop?

Here is one theory, one I will reject, but which even we believers in the gospels should be aware of:
…Those who came to believe through the resurrection of Yeshua that he was the Son of God realized a problem.
…Yeshua could not have suddenly “become” Son of God at his resurrection.
…So he had to be Son of God before the resurrection, even if his identity was not widely recognized.
…But it does not seem that someone with a human father could be Son of God in the full sense like Yeshua is.
…Therefore, he must not have had a human father.

From here, some people think, early believers turned to pagan myths about divine conceptions.

Some others think that Isaiah 7:14 was interpreted in Hellenistic Judaism as being about a virginal conception. But there is no evidence for this and linguistic evidence is actually to the contrary.

As Raymond Brown says, though, there is no reason to believe that early Yeshua-followers would know about or make use of pagan myths to solve a puzzle about Yeshua’s identity.

But where did the story come from. It is easy to think it may have come from Mary. But why didn’t Mark use it? And why did John skip the birth altogether and solve the origins of Yeshua question another way, with the idea that he is the forever-pre-existent Word of God?

Some people think the pre-existence idea about Yeshua’s identity is not compatible with the virginal conception idea. I don’t agree.

We who believe in the gospels as inspired tradition do not have to assume the evangelists got all their stories “right” in terms of history. As we see in many cases, it is possible for inspired scriptures to have discrepancies.

But the virginal conception is a teaching about which we will have to say that: (a) it cannot be verified historically, (b) it comes from an earlier tradition than the gospels, (c) it has possible sources in eyewitness testimony, (d) it is hard to explain tensions in the divergent accounts, (e) it is hard to explain tensions in the seeming lack of faith by Mary prior to the resurrection, and (f) yet there is no good explanation for it by which it might have been invented fictitiously.

The birth story of Messiah is a good example of why our faith is not based on rationalism or mere historical investigation. History does matter, but it is not the final court of belief. This is not only true in religion, but in all matters of what people believe about life.

Those of us who believe Yeshua is the pre-existent Word of God have no trouble believing that he was conceived by the Holy Spirit. We can simply wonder about the struggles of the evangelists to find out how it all came about and the apparently confusing sources and traditions through which they sought to go back, long after the fact, and find out how Yeshua entered the world.

Aside from the many connections to Moses’ and Israel’s story, the temptation account definitely has a message about Yeshua’s identity. Is it what people think? R.T. France in the New International Commentary on the New Testament series is most helpful.

Some have argued that the temptation centers around Yeshua’s messianic mission:
…(1) if Yeshua could make bread he could get followers
…(2) if he survived a fall from the Temple, this sign would get followers
…(3) if he accepted Satan’s offer of transfer of kingship now, Yeshua could reign as Messiah early.

France says no, that is not it.

It is about Yeshua’s relationship to the Father and the tempter trying to drive a wedge between them:
…(1) Will Yeshua exploit his role as the Son of God? Will he put an early end to the time of testing by making bread from stones?
…(2) Will he require the Father to save him from a fall, pridefully asserting his right as the Son?
…(3) Will he skip the hard road to kingdom decreed by the Father and take a transfer of kingship directly from Satan?

As France observes, Yeshua will face similar temptations as the time of the cross draws near and while he is on the cross.

Raymond Brown discusses the grammar of the “I am” (ego eimi) sayings in the Fourth Gospel (see The Gospel According to John, I-XII, pp. 533-4). These sayings fall into three categories.

First, there are those with a predicate nominative. A predicate nominative is the noun which comes after the verb and which restates the subject of the sentence. So, John 6:35 is a good example, “I am the bread of life.” The phrase “bread of life” is equated with “I”. For grammar junkies, a predicate nominative is the direct object of a to be verb.

Second, there are those uses of “I am” sayings in which it is possible a predicate nominative may be understood but not expressed. So, in John 6:20, “I am, do not be afraid,” the meaning may be, “It is I, do not be afraid.”

Third, there are the most important uses in terms of understanding the statements Yeshua is making about his identity. These are the absolute uses. There is no predicate nominative. John 8:24, “Unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins,” is an example. Many translations supply the word “he,” so that it reads, “unless you believe that I am he.” Yet, even so, who is the “he”?