I found many of your points enlightening. One tiny correction: e-ducere is Latin, not Greek
But our current crisis impacts on your discussion. We have now become very acquainted with narcissism. Perhaps the Hebrew conviction that their tiny religion would attract all the gentiles can be viewed as narcissistic--the ultimate chutzpah. We now know all too well the vulnerability of the human mind to malignant narcissism.
D’oh, thanks for the catch! I did know that the root was Latin, but I thought I remembered, mistakenly, that the Latin was dependent on some Greek original. (I even think I know how I fell into that confusion, but it’s too embarrassing to recount!)
I think you are right to say that that there was a certain sense of chutzpah in the Israelite expectation that their deity would one day be worshiped by the other nations. That said, I would resist applying the concept of narcissism.
To be fair, I don’t know if there’s an ancient literature in the world that is completely devoid of triumphalist or narcissist strains. In the Hebrew scriptures, though, this is offset by a remarkable anti-exceptionalism. It is not because of any special quality of their own that the creator of heaven and earth has chosen the Israelites and revealed himself to them.
For example, Deuteronomy 7 notes that God did not choose the Israelites because of their numbers or strength, since in fact they were the fewest of all the nations. Rather, God loves his people in fidelity to his covenent with their ancestors. Deuteronomy 9 also makes it clear that God does not uphold his people out of any great virtue on their part, since in fact they are “stiff-necked” or stubborn and have rebelled against him over and over. The prophets Ezekiel and Jeremiah went so far as to say that Jerusalem was *worse* than the pagan nations—more corrupt even than Sodom according to Ezekiel, and less faithful to the true god than pagan nations to false gods according to Jeremiah.
So I would say that the Israelite chutzpah, if we want to call it that, was rooted, not in narcissism, but in their conviction that while they are not the greatest, their God is.
This is a beautiful piece. I say that as an Orthodox Jew. I think you understand the monotheistic impulse of Judaism perfectly.
And you quote the mouse that roared!
Many Christians have trouble understanding why exactly Jews do not accept Jesus as a Messiah. There are a number of reasons. The usual one advanced is that God promised in Deuteronomy the commandments would never be abrogated and that the Jews would never be replaced. But of course, many interpretations of Christianity still require Jews to keep the commandments and avoid replacement theology. So that is not the sole reason.
The main reason is actually what makes Christianity Christian, which is that Jews cannot accept that a Monotheistic God placed himself inside a body, seemingly in violation of the first two of the ten commandments. It is this rejection of the omniscient monotheistic impulse that Judaism has an issue with, and if there would be an interpretation of Christianity where Jesus was a messenger or God but not God himself that would be fully compatible with Judaism.
Thanks so much, Ash! I don’t recall where or how I first ran into you, but I remember enjoying your piece “Why I Believe the Torah is True” some time back. One of the most precious things in the world to me is to hear from someone else that I have described their views or beliefs with understanding! It is so much easier to shoehorn other people’s beliefs into our own framework.
Personally, I have no trouble understanding why most Jews did not and do not accept Jesus as Messiah! In so many obvious ways he didn’t look like anything like a messiah. He wasn’t a king. He didn’t renew the Davidic dynasty. He didn’t liberate Israel from its enemies. Far from renewing Temple worship, he seems to have prophesied its imminent destruction. His relationship with the Torah is at best complex and controversial, and far from a clear vindication.
I’m sure you are familiar with Rabbi Jacob Neusner’s A Rabbi Talks with Jesus, yes? As you may know, Pope Benedict XVI, in his multi-volume study Jesus of Nazareth, appreciatively engages Neuser’s book at length. With Pope Benedict, I find great significance in the dialogue that Neuser writes between his self-insert character, who dialogues with Jesus, and the rabbinic sage who later questions him about Jesus:
The rabbi relates from the Babylonian Talmud how the expectations of Torah, originally enumerated as 613, were reduced by David to 11, then by Isaiah to 6, and then 2, and then 1 by Habakkuk: “But the righteous shall live by his faith.” The master asks, “Is this what the sage, Jesus, had to say?”
“Not exactly, but close.”
“What did he leave out?”
“Nothing.”
“Then what did he add?”
“Himself.”
Following Pope Benedict, I give to Neusner the same great compliment that you gave me: He has written about Jesus and about Christianity with deep understanding, and has furthermore expressed the crux of the issue between Jews and Christians with great explanatory power. For Christians, Jesus is at the center of our relationship with God; nothing in Judaism offers any foundation or analogy for this. How can it not seem idolatrous?
I have more thoughts about this, but I don’t want to drop another LONGREAD here in the comments! More later, perhaps!
I wouldn't say nothing in Judaism has analogy to this: Hasidism has the concept of a Tzadik who acts as an intermediary between man and God. Sometimes referred to a Rebbe. This has led to criticisms of Hasidism that it is similar to Christianity! But the line always drawn is that that man is man and not God.
(Can you enlighten me how Christianity deals with the issues of the ten commandments explicitly rejecting God has physical form? Thanks!)
Oh, and I forgot about the tradition in the Talmud that Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochais death atoned for everyone in his generation. (Of course not for all eternity, which is a contrast. But the concept of a death of a righteous person bringing atonement is actually well sources in Judaism).
Ash, since you mention Hasidism—and since you expressed appreciation for my last movie reference—it occurs to me that I’ve seen at least two movies set in Haredi communities: the 2012 Israeli film למלא את החלל (English title: Fill the Void), set in Tel Aviv, and the 2017 U.S. film מנשה (Menashe), set in Brooklyn. Have you seen either film?
Very interesting about the Tzadik in Hasidism, and also the atoning death of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochais! This interpretation of tzadikim seems to me perhaps in some ways similar to (though not the same as) the kohen during the Temple periods? A kohen also is a mediator between human beings and God, though in an institutional, ritual, and hereditary context. Understood this, way, tzadikim would offer some analogy, at least dimly, to the role in Christianity of Jesus, to whom Christians accord the triple titles Kohen, Navi, Melech (for those reading along: priest, prophet, king). Not the same, but some analogy.
To your question about the Decalogue and God not having physical form, I would say there’s a short answer and a long answer! I would put the short answer this way: Christian theology, nourished by its Jewish roots, affirms that the Divine Nature is unchanging, eternal, unbounded, absolute, infinite, and transcendent, and, as such, indeed has no physical form, and can have no physical form. God is pure spirit, and cannot undergo conversion or transformation into anything else. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever!
What Christian believe Jesus represents is *not* a change or transformation in the Divine Nature (God being transformed into a human being), but rather a uniting of human nature to the changeless God. In the traditional language of the Athanasian Creed: “Christ is not two, but one … not by his divinity being turned into flesh, but by God’s taking humanity to himself.” The humanity of Jesus includes a physical body; his divinity is unchanged—pure spirit with no physical form.
Tbh, I do not understand the answer or how it answers the question. How can God have a form - in a way that differentiates from Idol worship? I can hardly imagine the sole reason Jesus is God and a statue is not is because God simply chose not to as opposed to a theological difficulty in the essence of Godhood.
The Divine Nature does not, and cannot, have a physical form. Nothing in Christianity changes this! From my perspective, we are agreed on that!
What divides us is the Christian belief that, in Jesus, the formless Divine Nature has (without in any way changing, or acquiring a physical form, which it cannot have) united to itself a human nature—which necessarily does have a physical form, a human body.
In other words, in discussing and defining Catholic beliefs, we consider it important to distinguish what is divine in Jesus from what is human. What we say is that Jesus is one person with two natures: a Divine Nature and a human nature. Jesus’ human body belongs to his humanity, not his divinity. The Divine Nature does not and cannot have a physical form; the humanity of Jesus must have and does have a physical form.
As for images, they can depict only the physical humanity of Jesus; the invisible and formless divinity (being invisible and formless) literally cannot be depicted in images. So a crucifix, for example, depicts only Jesus’ visible humanity; it does not, and cannot, depict his invisible divinity.
I don’t expect you to have no problem with this! What Jesus proposes, and what Christianity proposes, is incredibly shocking! I am just trying to offer some insight into how we understand our belief that Jesus, a historical human being who was born with a physical body that could be seen and touched and crucified, is divine, yet the divine nature itself remains invisible and without physical form.
I thought of you when I was publishing this piece, B, for a relatively trivial reason: As you know well, Ciseri’s “Ecce homo,” which I used as the hero image at the top of this piece, is also on the cover of Ann Wroe’s Pontius Pilate, which I bought some time ago on your repeated and enthustiastic recommendations, but have yet to manage to read! Maybe next summer!
To accept Christianity is to see in Jesus the foundation for how we think, act, and live. His life shows God’s character in a way no other story does. He is merciful yet just, gentle yet rigorous, welcoming the marginalized while challenging the powerful. In following Him we learn how to live in light of God’s plan, seeing history, our lives, and the world through the lens of His love and purpose. Christianity is not just a set of beliefs. It is the story of God drawing the world to Himself and inviting us to participate.
I found many of your points enlightening. One tiny correction: e-ducere is Latin, not Greek
But our current crisis impacts on your discussion. We have now become very acquainted with narcissism. Perhaps the Hebrew conviction that their tiny religion would attract all the gentiles can be viewed as narcissistic--the ultimate chutzpah. We now know all too well the vulnerability of the human mind to malignant narcissism.
D’oh, thanks for the catch! I did know that the root was Latin, but I thought I remembered, mistakenly, that the Latin was dependent on some Greek original. (I even think I know how I fell into that confusion, but it’s too embarrassing to recount!)
I think you are right to say that that there was a certain sense of chutzpah in the Israelite expectation that their deity would one day be worshiped by the other nations. That said, I would resist applying the concept of narcissism.
To be fair, I don’t know if there’s an ancient literature in the world that is completely devoid of triumphalist or narcissist strains. In the Hebrew scriptures, though, this is offset by a remarkable anti-exceptionalism. It is not because of any special quality of their own that the creator of heaven and earth has chosen the Israelites and revealed himself to them.
For example, Deuteronomy 7 notes that God did not choose the Israelites because of their numbers or strength, since in fact they were the fewest of all the nations. Rather, God loves his people in fidelity to his covenent with their ancestors. Deuteronomy 9 also makes it clear that God does not uphold his people out of any great virtue on their part, since in fact they are “stiff-necked” or stubborn and have rebelled against him over and over. The prophets Ezekiel and Jeremiah went so far as to say that Jerusalem was *worse* than the pagan nations—more corrupt even than Sodom according to Ezekiel, and less faithful to the true god than pagan nations to false gods according to Jeremiah.
So I would say that the Israelite chutzpah, if we want to call it that, was rooted, not in narcissism, but in their conviction that while they are not the greatest, their God is.
You're right about the anti-exceptionalism theme—thanks for pointing it out.
This is a beautiful piece. I say that as an Orthodox Jew. I think you understand the monotheistic impulse of Judaism perfectly.
And you quote the mouse that roared!
Many Christians have trouble understanding why exactly Jews do not accept Jesus as a Messiah. There are a number of reasons. The usual one advanced is that God promised in Deuteronomy the commandments would never be abrogated and that the Jews would never be replaced. But of course, many interpretations of Christianity still require Jews to keep the commandments and avoid replacement theology. So that is not the sole reason.
The main reason is actually what makes Christianity Christian, which is that Jews cannot accept that a Monotheistic God placed himself inside a body, seemingly in violation of the first two of the ten commandments. It is this rejection of the omniscient monotheistic impulse that Judaism has an issue with, and if there would be an interpretation of Christianity where Jesus was a messenger or God but not God himself that would be fully compatible with Judaism.
Great post!
Thanks so much, Ash! I don’t recall where or how I first ran into you, but I remember enjoying your piece “Why I Believe the Torah is True” some time back. One of the most precious things in the world to me is to hear from someone else that I have described their views or beliefs with understanding! It is so much easier to shoehorn other people’s beliefs into our own framework.
Personally, I have no trouble understanding why most Jews did not and do not accept Jesus as Messiah! In so many obvious ways he didn’t look like anything like a messiah. He wasn’t a king. He didn’t renew the Davidic dynasty. He didn’t liberate Israel from its enemies. Far from renewing Temple worship, he seems to have prophesied its imminent destruction. His relationship with the Torah is at best complex and controversial, and far from a clear vindication.
I’m sure you are familiar with Rabbi Jacob Neusner’s A Rabbi Talks with Jesus, yes? As you may know, Pope Benedict XVI, in his multi-volume study Jesus of Nazareth, appreciatively engages Neuser’s book at length. With Pope Benedict, I find great significance in the dialogue that Neuser writes between his self-insert character, who dialogues with Jesus, and the rabbinic sage who later questions him about Jesus:
The rabbi relates from the Babylonian Talmud how the expectations of Torah, originally enumerated as 613, were reduced by David to 11, then by Isaiah to 6, and then 2, and then 1 by Habakkuk: “But the righteous shall live by his faith.” The master asks, “Is this what the sage, Jesus, had to say?”
“Not exactly, but close.”
“What did he leave out?”
“Nothing.”
“Then what did he add?”
“Himself.”
Following Pope Benedict, I give to Neusner the same great compliment that you gave me: He has written about Jesus and about Christianity with deep understanding, and has furthermore expressed the crux of the issue between Jews and Christians with great explanatory power. For Christians, Jesus is at the center of our relationship with God; nothing in Judaism offers any foundation or analogy for this. How can it not seem idolatrous?
I have more thoughts about this, but I don’t want to drop another LONGREAD here in the comments! More later, perhaps!
I wouldn't say nothing in Judaism has analogy to this: Hasidism has the concept of a Tzadik who acts as an intermediary between man and God. Sometimes referred to a Rebbe. This has led to criticisms of Hasidism that it is similar to Christianity! But the line always drawn is that that man is man and not God.
(Can you enlighten me how Christianity deals with the issues of the ten commandments explicitly rejecting God has physical form? Thanks!)
Oh, and I forgot about the tradition in the Talmud that Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochais death atoned for everyone in his generation. (Of course not for all eternity, which is a contrast. But the concept of a death of a righteous person bringing atonement is actually well sources in Judaism).
Ash, since you mention Hasidism—and since you expressed appreciation for my last movie reference—it occurs to me that I’ve seen at least two movies set in Haredi communities: the 2012 Israeli film למלא את החלל (English title: Fill the Void), set in Tel Aviv, and the 2017 U.S. film מנשה (Menashe), set in Brooklyn. Have you seen either film?
Very interesting about the Tzadik in Hasidism, and also the atoning death of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochais! This interpretation of tzadikim seems to me perhaps in some ways similar to (though not the same as) the kohen during the Temple periods? A kohen also is a mediator between human beings and God, though in an institutional, ritual, and hereditary context. Understood this, way, tzadikim would offer some analogy, at least dimly, to the role in Christianity of Jesus, to whom Christians accord the triple titles Kohen, Navi, Melech (for those reading along: priest, prophet, king). Not the same, but some analogy.
To your question about the Decalogue and God not having physical form, I would say there’s a short answer and a long answer! I would put the short answer this way: Christian theology, nourished by its Jewish roots, affirms that the Divine Nature is unchanging, eternal, unbounded, absolute, infinite, and transcendent, and, as such, indeed has no physical form, and can have no physical form. God is pure spirit, and cannot undergo conversion or transformation into anything else. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever!
What Christian believe Jesus represents is *not* a change or transformation in the Divine Nature (God being transformed into a human being), but rather a uniting of human nature to the changeless God. In the traditional language of the Athanasian Creed: “Christ is not two, but one … not by his divinity being turned into flesh, but by God’s taking humanity to himself.” The humanity of Jesus includes a physical body; his divinity is unchanged—pure spirit with no physical form.
There is a longer answer, but it’s … longer! :-)
Tbh, I do not understand the answer or how it answers the question. How can God have a form - in a way that differentiates from Idol worship? I can hardly imagine the sole reason Jesus is God and a statue is not is because God simply chose not to as opposed to a theological difficulty in the essence of Godhood.
The Divine Nature does not, and cannot, have a physical form. Nothing in Christianity changes this! From my perspective, we are agreed on that!
What divides us is the Christian belief that, in Jesus, the formless Divine Nature has (without in any way changing, or acquiring a physical form, which it cannot have) united to itself a human nature—which necessarily does have a physical form, a human body.
In other words, in discussing and defining Catholic beliefs, we consider it important to distinguish what is divine in Jesus from what is human. What we say is that Jesus is one person with two natures: a Divine Nature and a human nature. Jesus’ human body belongs to his humanity, not his divinity. The Divine Nature does not and cannot have a physical form; the humanity of Jesus must have and does have a physical form.
As for images, they can depict only the physical humanity of Jesus; the invisible and formless divinity (being invisible and formless) literally cannot be depicted in images. So a crucifix, for example, depicts only Jesus’ visible humanity; it does not, and cannot, depict his invisible divinity.
I don’t expect you to have no problem with this! What Jesus proposes, and what Christianity proposes, is incredibly shocking! I am just trying to offer some insight into how we understand our belief that Jesus, a historical human being who was born with a physical body that could be seen and touched and crucified, is divine, yet the divine nature itself remains invisible and without physical form.
Very good piece, wow.
Thank you, Thomas! I’ve been noodling this topic for a long time!
This was fascinating, Steven. I'm sure I'll go back and reread it a time or more, the better to not race and to appreciate it. Bravo.
I thought of you when I was publishing this piece, B, for a relatively trivial reason: As you know well, Ciseri’s “Ecce homo,” which I used as the hero image at the top of this piece, is also on the cover of Ann Wroe’s Pontius Pilate, which I bought some time ago on your repeated and enthustiastic recommendations, but have yet to manage to read! Maybe next summer!
It’s a lovely thing about books: They wait for you!
To accept Christianity is to see in Jesus the foundation for how we think, act, and live. His life shows God’s character in a way no other story does. He is merciful yet just, gentle yet rigorous, welcoming the marginalized while challenging the powerful. In following Him we learn how to live in light of God’s plan, seeing history, our lives, and the world through the lens of His love and purpose. Christianity is not just a set of beliefs. It is the story of God drawing the world to Himself and inviting us to participate.