On how western individualism distorts our reading of Scripture

In There Is No “Me and Jesus” in the Bible, the Internet Monk continues reviewing the 2012 Richards  and O'Brien volume Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible.  Here's an excerpt:

...the authors say, “It is difficult to present the values of a collectivist culture in a positive light to Western hearers.” What is a virtue in one society is often considered a vice in the other. This is extremely important to grasp, for it means that the deep presuppositions and outlooks that form us as individualistic people in the contemporary world do not reflect the cultural ethos represented in Scripture.

We do not, cannot read the Bible accurately until we face up to these blinders.

The authors show how we have westernized and individualized the Christmas story into a tale of a small nuclear family who traveled alone and overcame personal challenges to bring the Christ-child into the world. In reality, it likely happened in the context of a clan of relatives: “The birth of Jesus was no solitary event witnessed only by the doting parents in the quiet of a cattle fold. It was likely a noisy, bustling event attended by grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins.”

We imagine Paul in terms of romanticism’s ideal: the lone writer, agonizing over his words and pouring out his heart under God’s inspiration to express profound spiritual ideals. However, “Paul would not have locked himself away in some private room to write. …He more likely would have sat in a public place: the breezy, well-lit atrium of a prosperous home like Lydia’s or in an upstairs balconied apartment. Family and friends walking by would have stopped to listen [as he dictated out loud to his secretary] (ancients read out loud) and to offer advice (it shows you care).”

We routinely ignore the NT testimony to the fact that Paul had co-authors and that he always functioned as part of a team when he was able to do so. Many of the NT epistles were probably collaborative efforts as Paul and his partners discussed the needs of the congregations they were addressing and how to deal with them.

Richards and O’Brien also discuss the radically different perspective that collectivist cultures have about conversion and religious faith. “We are used to our decisions, and thus our conversion, being personal and private affairs.” However, the NT records household conversions. And more collective societies still have this perspective. They cite Duane Elmer, a missionary who testified:

…when he shared Christ  with Asian adults he “was constantly told that they could not make a decision to follow Christ without asking a parent, uncle, aunt or all three.” At first he thought this was an evasive maneuver, a ruse to avoid making the hard decision of faith. Over time he realized that this is simply how collectivist cultures work. People “do not make major decisions without talking it over with the proper authority figures in their extended family.” This is hard for us Westerners to understand. We believe they are simply doing what the authority figure(s) said and not making decisions for themselves. My (Randy’s) Asian friend speaks of his conversion this way: “My father is wiser than I am. If he says Jesus is better, then I know Jesus is better.” My friend has a faith as strong and rooted as mine. His certitude about Jesus came a different way than mine, but it as firm.

One of the most common ways we misread the Bible through Western, individualistic eyes involves our failure to understand the plural pronouns in the NT. In English, we use the word “you” in both singular and plural contexts. Therefore, we regularly misread teachings and instructions which are directed to entire congregations as being spoken to “me” as an individual.

 This is very relevant for Messianic Jews, as Judaism and Jewish culture are in many ways more collectivist than individualistic.

John Fischer on Hebrews 13:13's "Let us go outside the camp"

Rabbi Dr. John Fischer writes in one of his chapters (entitled "Yes, We Do Need Messianic Congregations!") of Zondervan's 2003 release How Jewish Is Christianity?: 2 Views on the Messianic Movement (p. 54):

The phrase "outside the camp" ... is misconstrued and therefore misused. "Outside the camp" in Exodus 33:7 describes the very heart of Judaism, the original Test of Meeting. when God revealed himself to his people at Mount Sinai, he met them "out of the camp (Exodus 19:17). "Outside the camp" is the place of ceremonial cleansing with the ashes of the red heifer (Numbers 19:9) and the location of significant elements of the Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) ritual, as the bodies of the sacrifices are taken here and the scapegoat is released here (Leviticus 16:21-22, 27). So "outside the camp" serves as the core of Judaism and does not imply a separation from it.

Rudolph's "A Jew to the Jews" available on Google Books

I thought it was worth highlighting that David J. Rudolph's groundbreaking (yet expensive) monograph  A Jew to the Jews: Jewish Contours of Pauline Flexibility in 1 Corinthians 9 is available on Google Books.  Check it out here:

 A Jew to the Jews: Jewish Contours of Pauline Flexibility in 1 Corinthians 9

New Testament scholar Larry Hurtado expresses 'puzzlement and disappointment' with his friend Tom Wright's reading of Romans 9-11

When I first discovered N. T. Wright in college, I was thrilled by his papers and lectures on Jesus and Paul.  Wright has a special knack for reading Biblical texts as both a historian while simultaneously bringing out their relevance for today's church and today's world.  (I still recommend learning from Wright's reading of the New Testament: just head on over to ntwrightpage.com and select the first thing that looks interesting!

It was only after reading and listening to Wright for several years did it suddenly dawn on me that, although Wright's new perspective on Paul had hugely impacted my own thinking, I actually had progressed beyond his position towards a reading now referred to as "the radical perspective on Paul."  While I continued to appreciate his erudition, I was no longer convinced by his reading of Paul, which to me was supersessionist.

It turns out that I'm not the only one confused by Wright on this point.  In Paul and Israel's Salvation: In Dialogue with Tom Wright, respected New Testament scholar Larry Hurtado writes:

I’ve re-read his essay on Romans 9–11 several times now, and my copy is heavily marked with indications of my puzzlement and disappointment at numerous points. I will simply say that I remain of the view that in Romans 9–11 Paul’s protracted and repeated concern is the fate of his people, fellow Jews, in light of his firm conviction that Jesus has been made now the one source of salvation, and the large-scale rejection of the Gospel by his people. For Paul, it seems to me, the issue boils down to this: If his ancestral people have simply gone into a ditch permanently, then “the word of God has failed” (Rom 9:6), and/or God has abandoned his people (11:1) to whom he made promises. And if God can be so defeated by Jewish unbelief in the Gospel, or can turn from his promises to Jewish ancestors, then God’s character and redemptive power are under suspicion.

I don’t see how one can read 11:25-32 as envisioning anything other than Paul’s surprising declaration that God will ultimately triumph over the present Jewish unbelief in Jesus and secure the redemption of all. Just as Paul asserts that in God’s secret plan (“mystery”) the large-scale Jewish unbelief actually is serving (in Paul’s time) to promote the “fullness” of Gentile salvation (11:25), so Paul seems to me to say that God will double back and bring also the corresponding “fullness” of Israel (11:12) into salvation. Just as all people (including Israel) have been disobedient, so God will scoop all nations (including also Israel) into eschatological salvation (11:32). And for Paul that means salvation through the Gospel of God’s Son.

 If you want to read a brilliant analytical mind at work, don't miss Hurtado's responses to his commenters.

HT: Derek Leman, who beat me to the punch in publishing a post on this very same article.

Jacob Fronczak on Hebrews and Supersessionism

Readers interested in non-supersessionist readings of Hebrews may want to give Messianic blogger Jacob Fronczak's graduate-level paper on Hebrews a read.  Surveying the current scholarly conversation on supercessionism in Hebrews, he covers the perspectives of Richard B. Hays, Mark Nanos, Walter Breuggemann, and Markus Bockmuehl, among others.  In addition to reviewing an argument by Morrison in favor of a Jewish audience for the book*, Fronczak also presents Jesper Svartvik's appeal to Middle Platonism as undergirding the book's thinking---an observation which, according to Fronkczak, can help to resolve what otherwise appears (to Nanos and others) to be an over-realized eschatology on the part of the author of Hebrews. 

Fraonczak also includes this gem from Markus Bockmuehl:

“The superiority of the New Covenant introduces not a new people of God so much as a newly energized worship of God – constituted around the definitive and permanently efficacious sacrifice. It is that difference in which the discontinuity of the covenants subsists, not in the identity of the people of God or even in their faith.”

Fronczak concludes by presenting his own developing view, which "substantially vindicates the broader Evangelical perspective that sees Hebrews as fairly interpreting and appropriating Old Testament scriptures, and building strong continuity with the Old Testament people of God....[yet] differs from the standard Evangelical reading of Hebrews in that it retains a high view of Judaism, the Jewish people, and the Mosaic Law." One last quote from his view:

Hebrews’ community, in the light of Jeremiah’s oracle, may have perceived itself not as a new people of God to the exclusion of (the rest of) Judaism. Rather, their existence is evidence of the coming age, and the imminent fulfillment of God’s promises through Christ. Like Christ Himself, they are the first-fruits, a down payment, as it were, on the promises of God, which remain yet to be fulfilled.

Looking to dig into the book of Hebrews?  Let Fronczak shed some light on it for you:

Response to Nanos: Renewed Covenantalism, Not Triumphalism or Supersessionism

* Keep in mind that the title Hebrews was applied later by tradition, which is understood to have been inferred based on the content, rather than on direct knowledge of the audience.

Joel Willitts Reviews Daniel Boyarin's The Jewish Gospels

If you're not following New Testament scholar Joel Willitts, you should be.  He's the one working with David Rudolph on Zondervan's forthcoming compendium of essays entitled Introduction to Messianic Judaism.


In his review of Daniel Boyarin's recent release, Willitts focuses in particular on Boyarin's claim that "Son of Man" is actually a divine title, derived from Daniel chapter 7.  This leads Boyarin to the surprising conclusion that

The theology of the Gospels, far from being a radical innovation within Israelite religious tradition, is a highly conservative return to the very most ancient moments within that tradition, moments that had been largely suppressed in the meantime-but not entirely . . . It follows that the ideas about God that we identify as Christian are not innovations but may be deeply connected with some of the most ancient of Israelite ideas about God (47).

Willitts has this to say:

Irrespective of the highly speculative nature of Boyarin’s argument, the claim that Daniel 7 contains both ideas,  individual and corporate, with one not outstripping the other is interesting. What’s more, the assertion that two divine beings is a thoroughly Jewish idea is extremely provocative. I have not studied the issue of the Son of Man sufficiently enough to have any definitive evaluation. However, I think Boyarin’s argument could open up new trenches for research.

Read the entire review here: The Divinity of Jesus in Early Judaism

(Belated) Happy Birthday to E. P. Sanders

That's Covenantal Nomism (Not Covenantal Gnomism)!

With everything going on in the calendar last week, I almost missed the opportunity to point out the birthday (April 18) of New Testament scholar E.P. Sanders.   "Who's that?" you might be asking.

E. P. Sanders is known for achieving a paradigm shift in how New Testament scholars understand first-century Judaism.  Stuart Dauermann explains:

Sanders is one of the grandfathers of the New Perspectives on Paul.  In his blockbuster first book, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, and in subsequent texts, he set out to consider methodologically how to compare two (or more) related but different religions; to destroy the view of Rabbinic Judaism which is still prevalent in much, perhaps most, New Testament scholarship; to establish a different view of Rabbinic Judaism; to argue a case concerning Palestinian Judaism (that is, Judaism as reflected in material of Palestinian provenance) as a whole; to argue for a certain understanding of Paul; and to carry out a comparison of Paul and Palestinian Judaism.

He is best remembered for his exploration of what he terms “covenantal nomism.”  This term names his conviction that for  Judaism, “obedience maintains one’s position in the covenant, but it does not earn God’s grace as such. It simply keeps an individual in the group which is the recipient of God’s grace.” (Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 420) In other words: “obedience is universally held to be the behavior appropriate to being in the covenant, not the means of earning God’s grace.” (p. 421). For Sanders, “Israel’s situation in the covenant required the law to be obeyed as fully and completely as possible … as the only proper response to the God who chose Israel and gave them commandments” (p. 81).

In the conclusion to his Messianic Jewish response to Sanders' "new" perspective on Paul, Dauermann writes:

This is certainly not the Paul I was introduced to fifty years ago. But also, this is not the version of Judaism that most Christians I know of entertain . . . We can and should still commend the gospel. But we absolutely do not have to nor should we denigrate Judaism to do so!

Thoughts on Messiah Journal #109

Below are some thoughts on the most recent issue of Messiah Journal.

(Full disclosure:my own book review of the Jewish Annotated New Testament is published at the end of this issue.  I did receive a free copy of the journal.)

• Tzvi Sadan's article ("Halachic Authority in the Life of the Messianic Community"): I was glad to get to read this and glad that it's been put into print, since it articulates a number of important arguments in a succinct and eloquent way.  That said, in his treatment of Matthew 16, I was a little surprised that he failed to directly address verse 12 (unless I missed it)--in which it says that Yeshua "was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees."  I take it that Sadan reads this verse through the lens of Matt 23:1-2 and Luke 12:1, but I think it only weakens his argument for him not to state this explicitly.  (And even stated clearly, I think this is the one of the weak points in his argument...and this is coming from someone who shares Sadan's convictions in this area.)
• James Pyle's article ("Origins of Supercessionism in the Church") provides a helpful overview of supersessionism in Christian history.  I'm looking forward to his followup article on supersessionism today.
• Update (forgot to include this in my initial post): I enjoyed Rabbi Russ Resnik's initial article in a series he will be doing on "Living the Greatest Commandment" (the Shema) and very much look forward to further entries.  I'm particularly interested in seeing what Rabbi Russ brings out get integrated into our communal understanding, practice, and articulation of the Shema, including in public worship.
• Toby Janicki's article ("A Gentile Believer's Obligation to the Torah") has been a long time coming.  I've thought a number of times that the current discussion about Acts 15 is too reductionistic on the Gentile side of the equation--the "four prohibitions" of the Apostles aren't just four singular practices.  Rarely does anyone actually map the prohibitions onto the teachings of Paul or the other apostles, and I've longed for an ordered exploration of this topic.  Not only is Toby's article a great contribution towards that effort, but he also includes helpful forways into later Jewish and Christian interpretation on the issues.  A couple observations:
• I had never heard anyone propose the interpretation Toby proposes for Paul's perplexing reference to "baptisms for the dead" in 1 Cor 15:29.
• I also appreciated his take on Paul's reference to "the cup of blessing" in 1 Cor 10:16.   
• Another great scholarly take on the ritual demands of Paul's gospel to the Gentiles with respect to the Temple is Paula Frederksen's article Paula Frederiksen "Judaizing the Nations: the Ritual Demands of Paul's Gospel". 
• I also am intrigued by his proposal that Gentiles are enjoined to keep the "remember" portion of the Shabbat commandment (with respect to creation) but not the "guard" portion which relates to the exodus from Egypt.
• I do wonder about some of Toby's "these would only make sense if..." arguments, where he suggests that early Messianics must have been familiar with certain practices (such as benching), otherwise Paul's statement would make no sense.   Clearly, the Lord's Supper (even at it is practiced today) has its roots in mealtime blessings, but does the fact that few Christians today bench after meals prevent them from understanding Paul's reference to "the cup of blessing that we bless"?  So even though I wonder about the degree of adaptation that had already happened, I'm not at all threatened by the idea or by Gentiles recontextualizing the "cup of blessing" to reclaim .
• Aaron Eby's article ("The Writing on the Wall") is the second in a series on the destruction of the Temple; this time he surveys rabbinic responses to the Temple's descruction.  This series has been helpful for me in relation to discussions I've been having about the NT's theological evaluation of the Temple.
• The Levertoff excerpts are really great.  Keep 'em coming, FFOZ!
• The book reviews section includes two great book reviews from Jacob Fronczak (Scot McKnight's The King Jesus Gospel and David Rudolph's A Jew to the Jews).  The latter is rather expensive ($88.15 on Amazon.com), so Fronczak's review gives readers with a more limited budget an idea of what Rudolph covers in exquisite detail.  Also, Jacob's voice is relatively new to me (I discovered his blog, Hope Abbey, last summer), but I immediately welcomed his insightful contributions to the Messianic conversation.
• Last and least, my first contribution to Messiah Journal, a review of the Jewish Annotated New Testament.  I'll leave it to others to comment.  :-)

The Jewish Annotated New Testament

 

In case you haven't heard, the Jewish Annotated New Testament was just released.  This volume is a study edition of the NSRV translation of the New Testament with commentary and essays by Jewish Biblical scholars (including Jewish New Testament scholars) such as Marc Zvi Brettler, Amy-Jill Levine, Daniel Boyarin, and Mark Nanos.

Being the first study Bible of its kind, it's getting some attention on the web; here are some of the articles I've come across so far:

The Rosh Pina Project blog posts a review by Mark Oppenheimer entitled "'The more I study New Testament,' Dr. Levine said, 'the better Jew I become.'"

An article by Reform Rabbi Larry Bach entitled "My New, New Testament," in which he writes, "the New Testament — this New Testament, in particular — is a book that belongs in every Jewish home."

Rebecca at the Mystical Politics blog, who herself contributed the JANT article on diving beings, points to a New York Times article on the JANT quoting Amy-Jill Levine and herself. 

Said New York Times article.

John Hobbins from the Ancient Hebrew Poetry blog asks in "Jews Reading the New Testament": "Is that just another way of saying, 'Jews behaving badly'?"

And the most extensive review I've seen, by Messianic Jewish rabbi/author Derek Leman.

Feel free to post further reviews in the comments section as you come across them.  (It looks like this volume might make a great holiday gift!)

Disclaimer: I have not received a free copy of the Jewish Annotated New Testament.  However, I would welcome one!

Messianic Jewish scholar launches new online resource

Messianic Jewish New Testament scholar David Rudolph has launched a new online resource: MJStudies.com.  The site is described as "a gateway to post-supersessionist New Testament scholarship."

What is post-supersessionist interpretation? A page on the site explains:

Messianic Jewish (MJ) post-supersessionist interpretation maintains that the New Testament writers affirmed (1) God’s covenant fidelity to the Jewish people, (2) that Jesus was Israel’s Messiah and participated in the unique identity of the God of Israel, (3) that Jesus-believing Gentiles were full members of God’s people without becoming Jews, and (4) that Jesus-believing Jews should continue to live as Jews in keeping with Israel’s calling to be a distinct and enduring nation.

Already the site is burgeoning with references to post-supersessionist books, essays, journal articles, conference papers, lectures and videos.  I intend to use it as a go-to reference to scholarly works on various scriptural and theological issues.

The next time you find yourself looking for a commentary on a book or passage in the Apostolic Writings / Brit Hadasha, you can go to mjstudies.com and see what's been published from a post-supersessionist vantage point.  And if you come across a resource which isn't on the site, you can suggest it via the site's contact form.

So check the site out by clicking below!  Or better yet--follow the MJStudies blog to stay up-to-date on the latest resources!

On a related note, last month Tikvat Israel Messianic Synagogue of Richmond, Virginia welcomed Dr. Rudolph as their new rabbi.  I, for one, am very glad to have Dr. Rudolph back on the east coast (and not too far from the D.C. area!).  Given his history of providing helpful resources for the Messianic Jewish movement and beyond, I am excited to see what Dr. Rudolph will bring to Tikvat Israel, which is already a dynamic Messianic Jewish community.  Mazel tov!

Update: Robin Parry of Theological Scribbles now has a blog post up highlighting the new site.