Tuesday, January 18, 2011

The Dark Night of the Soul

Derek M Larson
Dr. Steven Fetke
BIOT 4123
December 9, 2010
The Dark Night of the Soul

Perhaps there is nothing in this world more beautiful than the treasured
connection between a mother and her newly born baby. The infant opens his eyes for
the first time and sees his motherʼs face—the person that has held him in her womb and
now holds him in her arms. For the next few months, she will continue to hold him close
to her breast, and an attachment of comfort and security is formed. There is nothing so
sweet as that motherʼs milk. And yet, there comes a time when it is proper and healthy
for this loving mother to hide her breast from the baby, who is quickly becoming a child.
Such an event—for a time—can be traumatic for the infant. He may not understand the
actions of the mother, nor will he continue to feel the comfort and security that the
mother has bestowed upon him. No, instead, he must be placed on the ground where
he is to feel the discomfort of change and learn to walk on his own. Such is true of the
Christianʼs own spiritual walk with the Father. The purpose of this paper is to address
the spiritual desert experiences and growing pains encountered in the the growth and
life of a Christian. Sixteenth century mystic, Saint John of the Cross, calls these
experiences “the dark night of the soul.” With a proper understanding of the times of the
apparent absence of the Father, a Christian—whether he or she be young or old,
educated or not—may learn to embrace such moments as progress and seek to gain a
greater awareness of the work of God within these seasons. The following sections
Larson, 1
draw heavily from the works of three authors, Søren Kierkegaard, Saint John of the
Cross, and Thomas Keating. First, the paper will identify the spiritual desert experience
within the context of Kierkegaardʼs philosophy for theology. It will then move to discuss
the precursors and points of necessity for such an experience to take place. The next
section takes selected lines from Saint John of the Crossʼ poem, The Dark Night of the
Soul, and discusses them within the context of such experiences, and following these
points will be a segment regarding the concept of theosis, or spiritual union with God, as
the goal of the dark night. Finally, a “call to action” will be given. An opportunity for
further study may be a deeper look at the influences these authors have had on one
another, and the relationship of Kierkegaardʼs “leap of faith,” Saint John of the Crossʼ
“dark night of the soul,” and Keatingʼs “crisis of faith.”
Søren Kierkegaardʼs Philosophy for Theology

The dark night of the soul is best understood within the framework of the
nineteenth century philosopher Søren Kierkegaard, who developed a series of three
stages or spheres of existence within humanity.1 The first stage, called the aesthetic, is
where the ego is most prevalent. In this stage a person will choose to live freely based
on his or her own desires and passions with no regard to morality—much less any form
of spirituality. Kierkegaard regarded such a stage to be most prevalent among the
majority of people in existence. Basically, the aesthetic does what he or she pleases.
For many that live in such a way, however, comes a time of crisis where a realization
arises that doing whatever one pleases still leaves an enormous amount of
dissatisfaction in life. The person facing this crisis will then adopt the societyʼs form of
Larson, 2
1
Louis P. Pojman, The Logic of Subjectivity (University, AL: The University of Alabama Press, 1984),
76-86.
morality and ethics in search of finding meaning within a larger narrative rather than
simply in his or her own individual desires and passions. This change in direction is
called the ethical sphere or stage of existence. The ethical stage necessarily leads to
the incorporation of some sense of the Divine. Ethics, by nature, imply an ethics maker.
Such a person living in the ethical stage will soon be confronted by thoughts of the
Divine. It is at this point that a person enters into the final sphere of existence, the
religious. The religious stage incorporates the idea of God into the foundation of ethics.
All things are seen as related to God, and rituals, dogmas, and doctrines are adopted
into life in order to interact with the Divine. It is important to note here that these stages
or spheres are mutually interconnected. While the ethical life (consciously or not)
assumes God, it also is lived to gain some sense of satisfaction for the ego. The same
is true of the religious life. The religious person may live ethically under the doctrines
and dogma of the church, while doing so simply to find purpose and fulfill the hunger of
the ego. Because of this, Kierkegaard makes a distinction between what he calls
“Religiousness A” and “Religiousness B.” While Religiousness A is based on humanityʼs
own reason and passions, Religiousness B is based solely on God through a pure and
subjective faith. The distinction at its basic level is simply the shift from ego-based
spirituality to theos-based spirituality.
Religiousness Aʼs problem and the Leap

The move from the ethical sphere to the religious is a great one that should not
be done without great joy and celebration. As a new believer enters the faith, he or she
is engrossed with joy and comfort. The believer exclaims, “I once was lost, but now am
found,” and nestles his or herself in the safe and secure doctrines and charges of the
Larson, 3
Christian faith. This moment can be compared to that infant being nursed at the breast
of his mother mentioned earlier. The beginning Christian (beginning—although this may
last for many years) eagerly desires to do the will of the Father in heaven and takes
great joy in learning the great things of the faith. There may or may not be a sense of
humility in this time, but deeply rooted continues to lie the motivation of self-preservation
and self-satisfaction, hence the need for the shift from ego-based spirituality to theos-
based spirituality. Despite this simple comparison between Kierkegaardʼs two levels of
religious existence, such a “leap” to theos-based spirituality is not a walk in the park.
The self is deeply engrained with sin. Even as the individual becomes more aware of
God and the desires He has for a person, it becomes more apparent at how deeply the
problem of the ego lies. It is within every action committed; it is in every word spoken.
Religiousness A is the place where most Christians live their entire lives. The worshiper
cannot help but worship for the satisfaction that it gives him or her; the good-deed doer
cannot help but give charity for the satisfaction of being looked upon favorably; the
preacher preaches, loving his own voice as it comes from his own lips. The problem
seems inescapable! In Saint John of the Crossʼ book, The Dark Night of the Soul, he
addresses how the seven deadly sins (pride, greed, luxury, wrath, gluttony, envy, and
sloth) affect the infant of faith—even within the charitable actions of good deeds.2 Jesus,
himself addresses these problems in his sermon on the mount. “Be careful not to do
your ʻacts of righteousnessʼ before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no
reward from your Father in heaven.”3 Although a religious life of piety and good deeds is
Larson, 4
2
Saint John of the Cross, The Dark Night of the Soul, trans. E. Allison Peers (Radford, VA: Wilder
Publications, 2008), 20-55.
3
Matthew 6:1 (NIV)
being lived, the problem that arises here is the slippery and sly nature of the ego that
hides itself even in the identification of these problems. One may think to his or herself,
“Look at how godly I am for realizing that I should not do my acts of charity before men;
I must be the humblest person I know!” Contemporary songwriter and poet, Aaron
Weiss, captures exactly this point. “But I walk heavy on delicate ground as I go showing
off again, self-impressed by how well I can put myself down! And there I go again to the
next further removed level of that same exact feigned humility! And this for me goes on
and on to the point of nausea.”4 The leap which Kierkegaard speaks of, eradicates this
problem of the ego by putting it in its right place.5 It takes on the prayer of John the
Baptist, “He must become greater; I must become less.”6

Such an emphasis on the problem of the ego can be found not only in
Christianity, but also in the mystic sect of Islam called Sufism. Robert Frager writes,
“The self is a product of the self-centered consciousness—the ego, the ʻI.ʼ The self must
be transformed—this is the ideal. The self is like a wild horse; it is powerful and virtually
uncontrollable. As the self becomes trained, or transformed, it becomes capable of
serving the individual.”7 Frager later compares this transformation to a major operation.
It cannot be done without pain and much work. Often times, the spiritual seeker may
recognize this problem and pray for God to remove such faults and imperfections. Saint
John of the Cross points out, “but they do this that they may find themselves at peace,
Larson, 5
4
Aaron Weiss and mewithoutYou “Wolf Am I (And Shadow)” Lyrics. Brother, Sister (Seattle: Tooth & Nail
Records, 2006), Track 3.
5
True, Kierkegaard focuses on the philosophical problems of reason and the non-access of objectivity for
a person rather than the ego per se as the problem that necessitates the need for the leap, but even in
the heart of these philosophical issues lies the problem of self-based spirituality, i.e. reason based faith.
6
John 3:30 (NIV)
7
Robert Frager, ed., The Essential Sufism (Edison, NJ: Castle Books, 1997), 20.
and may not be troubled by them, rather than for Godʼs sake; not realizing that, if He
should take their imperfections from them, they would probably become prouder and
more presumptuous still.”8 And so to purge his children from these deep issues of pride
and selfishness, the Father removes his presence and becomes apparently absent from
the individual, thus bringing on a “dark night of the soul.”
The Leap/ Dark Night/ Crisis of Faith

Just as the infant is nursed and nurtured at the breast of his mother, the new
Christian is nurtured with the joy and presence of God within the church. This security
lasts for a time, but as maturity beckons, the mother hides her breast. In the infant
phase of Religiousness A, the believer bases faith on his or her own rational beliefs
about God, the great satisfaction felt in serving Him, and the divine presence felt within.
The goal of faith must reach beyond this so that faith is built not on rational beliefs about
God, but on God himself; it is not motivated by the satisfaction of serving, but in serving
itself; it is not based on internal feelings of joy, but on God—even in the midst of pain. To
reach this level of faith, a person must be broken of these ego-based notions. This is
the movement from Religiousness A to Religiousness B, something Kierkegaard calls
“the leap of faith,” but it can only be done through this dark night of the soul, or what
Keating calls, “the crisis of faith.” There comes a time in every Christianʼs spiritual walk
when God is known to hide his presence. In such a time a person may go through a
sense of depression or an existential crisis. Often times, the Christian may begin to
doubt his or her purpose or even the existence of the God that was once felt so near
and deep. This, however, is the normal progression of faith in the life of a Christian.
Larson, 6
8
Saint John of the Cross, The Dark Night of the Soul, trans. E. Allison Peers (Radford, VA: Wilder
Publications, 2008), 23.
Thomas Keating writes, “The absence of the felt presence of The Lord is his normal
means of increasing our faith and of getting us to the point of believing in the power of
his word alone, without ʻsigns and wonders,ʼ that is to say without the feeling of his
presence or external props.”9 Saint John of the Cross reflects on this dark night in his
poem, “The Dark Night of the Soul,” which can be found in the Appendix of this paper.
The following selects portions of this poem and expands more on these concepts.
“On a Dark Night”

The poem begins with this mysterious phrase. “On a Dark Night” does not imply
a spiritual awakening nor some new spiritual insight, instead it gives the image of
mystery, fear, and the unknown. As a person walks into this dark night, there is
aloneness and lack of direction felt. Saint John of the Cross writes, “and when they
believe that the sun of Divine favour is shining most brightly upon them, God turns all
this light of theirs into darkness, and shuts against them the door and the source of
sweet spiritual water which they were tasting in God whensoever and for as long as
they desired.”10 Job felt such a dark night when he felt the pain of loss in his life and
called out to the Lord, and was given no answer. Abraham felt this dark night when he
was told to sacrifice his only son upon the altar in Moriah, not being given a reason or
any consolation in the command. Mary and Martha, too, faced such a dark night when
they called on Jesus as their beloved brother was sick and dying, but were given no
response until much later after Lazarus had died and been in the grave four days! Such
a time is filled with grief, despair, and confusion. The suffering bestowed on Job did not
Larson, 7
9
Thomas Keating, Crisis of Faith, Crisis of Love (New York: The Continuum Publishing Company, 1995),
16.
10
Saint John of the Cross, The Dark Night of the Soul, trans. E. Allison Peers (Radford, VA: Wilder
Publications, 2008), 37.
fit the character of the God he served, neither did the command given to Abraham, nor
the silence given to Mary and Martha, and yet, here it was. Every Christian must go
through such a dark time in their life, being provoked to humility and pushed towards
dependence. At such a time, the individual is placed in the hand of an unpredictable
God and at his complete mercy. Keating, too, reflects on this experience,

There comes, then, this mysterious silence. Call it aridity, dryness, desolation,

whatever you want. The terrible, inner realization grows that no matter how hard

we try, or how loud we cry, there is not going to be any response from the other

side of eternity...[but] The Lord does hear. The silence of Jesus is the ordinary

means he uses to awaken in us that perfect confidence which leads to humility

and love—and to gaining all that we ask.11
“My house being now at rest.”

The house that John of the Cross speaks of here is the Religiousness A that the
new Christian has built a home and secure foundation in. This house represents all of
the reasonable notions about God and the formulas given in order to interpret his
actions and predict the outcomes of any spiritual deed performed. It is the well defined
doctrines and dogmas where God is predictable and well-tamed. Being freed from such
false notions about the life of God, an individual becomes liberated to experience the
true God apart from all preconceived ideas about him. The house also represents those
seven sins that are slowly being washed away and left behind, freeing the Christian to a
more honest and pure relationship with the Divine. The real point of this phrase beckons
its reader to become independent of those things which have been grasped a little to
tightly, so as to move towards a real dependence upon God.
“Without light or guide, save that which burned in my heart. This light guided me.”
Larson, 8
11
Thomas Keating, Crisis of Faith, Crisis of Love (New York: The Continuum Publishing Company, 1995),
32 and 34.

It is important to note that even in Godʼs apparent absence, he is secretly guiding
and directing the happenings of his child within the dark night. The infant may not sense
the warmth of his motherʼs bosom, and yet what he does not realize is that she is
continually present and ever involved in the formation of her child. Such is the case with
“your Father who knows what you need before you ask him.”12 However much it feels
that God has abandoned the Christian, God is ever present, hidden in the
circumstances, building a stronger faith in the believer. He did not hide himself from Job
forever, nor did he continue to let Abraham live in his despair, nor did he ignore Mary
and Martha for more than a few days. These seasons of silence are carefully enacted
upon the believer for a specific reason and for a specific time. Even in the darkness, His
light is even present—however hidden it may be.
“With his gentle hand he wounded my neck”

More often then not, the dark night of the soul is instigated by a season of not
only silence, but suffering. This is most apparent in the case of Job. The cause of
suffering may or may not be God himself, but He uses such events as a catalyst for
spiritual growth. It is in the vulnerability of suffering that God is able to do his best and
most transforming work. Saint John of the Cross reflects on the story of Job.

Even so likewise the preparation which God granted to Job in order that he

might speak with Him consisted not in those delights and glories which Job

himself reports that he was wont to have in his God, but in leaving him naked

upon a dung-hill, abandoned and even persecuted by his friends, filled with

anguish and bitterness, and the earth covered with worms. And then the Most

High God, He that lifts up the poor man from the dunghill, was pleased to come

down and speak with him there face to face, revealing to him the depths and
Larson, 9
12
Matthew 6:8 (NIV)

heights of His wisdom, in a way that He might have never done in the time of his

prosperity.13
It is exactly this point that Paul makes in his metaphor of jars of clay. As the Christian is
formed into whatever his or her God so desires, it is a time of intense discomfort. “We
are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck
down, but not destroyed.”14 Perhaps this is also what Jesus implied when he said,
“Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the
kingdom of heaven.”15 Keating makes the point that within such times of suffering, little
or no progress is actually felt. “If you felt you were getting somewhere, it would cease to
be suffering; it would be consolation,”16 but “this is the disposition God waits for in the
crisis of faith: trust in his mercy no matter what kind of treatment he gives you.”17
“All ceased and I abandoned myself.”

This last phrase of Saint John of the Cross contains in it the deep meaning and
goal of the dark night of the soul, namely, the eradication of ego-driven spirituality. In
this last phase of the dark night, the Christian does not find God any longer in his own
hand (indeed, such a god that can be held is not worth holding), but rather that person
finds him or herself in the hand of God. This is exactly what happened in the trial
imposed on Job. In chapter 42 of the story, Job speaks one last time. “Surely I spoke of
things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know...Therefore I despise
Larson, 10
13
Saint John of the Cross, The Dark Night of the Soul, trans. E. Allison Peers (Radford, VA: Wilder
Publications, 2008), 48.
14
2 Corinthians 4:8-9 (NIV)
15
Matthew 5:10 (NIV)
16
Thomas Keating, Crisis of Faith, Crisis of Love (New York: The Continuum Publishing Company, 1995),
48.
17
ibid, 29.
myself and repent in dust and ashes.”18 No matter how spiritual Job seemed to be at the
beginning of his story, his strength was increased all the more after having gone through
the intense amount of suffering and silence from God. The same was the case of
Abraham when the angel grabbed his hand, and of Mary and Martha when their brother
was restored to them. No matter how dark the night, no matter how long the journey,
there is hope of restoration, although this restoration must necessarily come
independently of the Christianʼs expectation of it. Keating writes, “We have no true right
to anything in the order of grace. It is precisely by facing up to this reality that we pass
from confidence in our own merits to faith in his mercy.”19 This last phrase leads to the
next topic under discussion.
Theosis as the Goal

Within the evangelical tradition, it seems that there is a great emphasis on the
salvation experience above all others. The center point and goal of every life is this
event. Within the deeper historical traditions of the Christian faith is found a different
emphasis and culminating point, that is, theosis. In such a tradition, salvation, although
celebrated and highly praised, is seen only as the beginning of a long process of
katharsis leading to the ultimate union with God. Some theologians refer to this union as
a metaphorical marriage of the human and divine wills, and yet others quite literally
believe that the existence of the Christian is caught up into the identity of God in the
same way that Jesus embodied the Word. This belief continues to have a larger
influence, especially in Greek Orthodoxy. Michael J. Christensen writes, “What God is in
Larson, 11
18
Job 42:3, 6 (NIV)
19
Thomas Keating, Crisis of Faith, Crisis of Love (New York: The Continuum Publishing Company, 1995),
28.
nature, it is commonly argued and debated in the Eastern Orthodox tradition, humanity
can become by participation, first in image and then in likeness, following the prototype
of Christ, ʻthe first born of a large familyʼ (Rom 8:29).”20 This is the belief that Saint John
of the Cross adopts as he writes, “after passing through [the dark night of the soul], they
may arrive at the state of the perfect, which is that of the Divine union of the soul with
God.”21 Without getting into the debate of the ontological specifics of this union with
God, it can be said in a deeply scriptural based reality that the goal of every human is to
be united once again with his or her creator, to walk in the garden together once more.
This is what Jesus had in mind just a few moments before his arrest in the garden of
gethsemane as he prayed to the Father, “May [those that believe] also be in us so that
the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave
me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought
to complete unity...”22 It is important to understand that the dark night of the soul is
leading not just to some better form of Christianity, but to God himself. The process of
this dark night plays a role in uniting humanity back with its creator. Pastor and author,
Brian D. McLaren illustrates this process with the image of a fireplace and the iron poker
used to move around the burning wood. As the iron poker is left in the fire, it begins to
deny its own solid and cool properties to take on that of the fire itself. The pole begins to
glow with light the longer it is left in the fire, and if left there long enough, it may become
Larson, 12
20
Michael J. Christensen, “The Promise, Process, and Problem of Theosis,” in Partakers of the Divine:
The History and Development of Deification in the Christian Traditions, ed. Michael J. Christensen and
Jeffery A. Wittung (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 25.
21
Saint John of the Cross, The Dark Night of the Soul, trans. E. Allison Peers (Radford, VA: Wilder
Publications, 2008), 20.
22
John 17:21-23 (NIV)
difficult to distinguish what it left of the pole, and what is the fire. The dark night of the
soul is this process. “As we place ourselves in the light and fire of God through the
practices of fotosis or illumination, we are overpowered by the nature of God, and we
begin to glow with Godʼs radiance.”23 With this in mind, that dark night that invades the
soul of the Christian with despair, suffering, and silence is what Saint John of the Cross
has declared, “oh, happy night!”
Call to Action

There are two major calls or implications to action that may be received from all
of this. The first is for the individual experiencing the dark night of the soul. All Christians
must at some time experience such darkness—sometimes more than once— but for the
individual facing this night in the moment, may he or she embrace and treasure his or
her own misery! Of course no operation can be performed without the complication of
cutting and stitching, poking and prodding; no clay pot can be formed without being fired
and cooled, kneaded and pressed, and yet such processes are crucial to the
development of maturity and good character, and necessarily lead up to Divine union
with God! It is crucial then for the patient—for the clay—to let God do his work in the
midst of suffering and silence. If the Christian cannot learn to put his or her faith in God
and his mercy, that Christian prolongs the process of purification. Keating puts it this
way, “It is just as if some painter were painting or dyeing a face; if the sitter were to
move because he desired to do something, he would prevent the painter from
accomplishing anything and would disturb him in what he was doing.”24
Larson, 13
23
Brian D. McLaren, Finding Our Way Again: The Return of the Ancient Practices (Nashville: Thomas
Nelson Publishers, 2008), 173.
24
Thomas Keating, Crisis of Faith, Crisis of Love (New York: The Continuum Publishing Company, 1995),
43.

The second application comes in the realization that theosis is a communal
event. Often times the believer cuts his or herself off from the community, thinking that
God is only doing this work in his or her own life. The reality is that this process of
katharsis and theosis is happening to all of humanity. This is why in Jesusʼ prayer
mentioned earlier, he speaks of the believers not only uniting with God, but with one
another! Paul also references this event in 1 Corinthians 15, “God will be all in all.”25
Since this event is a process being poured out on all humanity, the Christian should
encourage his and her neighbors as they each go through the process of the dark night
of the soul. They should call out to one another, “We are in this together, and God is
working for the good of us all!”

The dark night of the soul is no easy process, but it must be known that is a
beautiful and purposeful act of God. In fact, this felt absence of the Father becomes his
presence to the hurting, leaving with the Christian the hope of a greater faith leading to
the reuniting of God and humankind. With this understanding, Saint John of the Cross
embraces the night best when saying,

“I remained, lost in oblivion

My face I reclined on the Beloved.

All ceased and I abandoned myself,

Leaving my cares forgotten among the lilies.”
Larson, 14
25
1 Corinthians 15:28b (NIV)
Appendix
“The Dark Night of the Soul” by Saint John of the Cross
On a dark night,
Kindled in love with yearnings
—oh, happy chance!
I went forth without being observed,
My house being now at rest.
In darkness and secure,
By the secret ladder, disguised
—oh, happy chance!
In darkness and concealment,
My house being now at rest.
In the happy night,
In secret, when none saw me,
Nor I beheld aught,
Without light or guide,
Save that which burned in my heart.
This light guided me
More surely than the light of noonday
To the place where he (well I knew who!) was awaiting me
—A place where none appeared.
Oh, night that guided me
Oh, night more lovely than the dawn,
Oh, night that joined Beloved with lover,
Lover transformed in the Beloved!
Upon my flowery breast
Kept wholly for himself alone,
There he stayed sleeping, and I caressed him
And the fanning of the cedars made a breeze
The breeze blew from the turret
As I parted his locks;
With his gentle hand he wounded my neck.
And caused all my senses to be suspended.
I remained, lost in oblivion
My face I reclined on the Beloved.
All ceased and I abandoned myself,
Leaving my cares forgotten among the lilies.26
Larson, 15
26
Saint John of the Cross, The Dark Night of the Soul, trans. E. Allison Peers (Radford, VA: Wilder
Publications, 2008), 17-18.
Bibliography
Christensen, Michael J. “The Promise, Process, and Problem of Theosis.” In Partakers

of the Divine Nature: The History and Development of Deification in the Christian

Traditions, ed. Michael J. Christensen and Jeffery A. Wittung, 23-31. Grand

Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.
Evans, C. Stephens. Kierkegaard: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 2009.
Frager, Robert, ed. Essential Sufism. Edison, NJ: Castle Books, 1997.
Hong, Howard V. and Edna H. Hong, ed. The Essential Kierkegaard. Princeton:

Princeton University Press, 1995.
Keating, Thomas. Crisis of Faith, Crisis of Love. New York: The Continuum Publishing

Company, 1995.
Kierkegaard, Søren. Fear and Trembling. Translated by Alastair Hannay. New York:

Penguin Books, 1985.
——————. Philosophical Fragments. Translated by Howard V. Hong and Edna

H. Hong. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985.
McLaren, Brian D. Finding Our Way Again: The Return of the Ancient Practices.

Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2008.
Pojman, Louis P. The Logic of Subjectivity. University, AL: The University of Alabama

Press, 1984.
St. John of the Cross. The Dark Night of the Soul. Translated by E. Allison Peers.

Radford, VA: Wilder Publications, 2008.
Weiss, Aaron and mewithoutYou “Wolf Am I (And Shadow).” Lyrics. Brother, Sister.

Seattle: Tooth & Nail Records, 2006.
Larson, 16

From Religiousness A to Religiousness B: The Leap

From Religiousness A to Religiousness B: The Leap
Derek M. Larson
Dr. Joseph Davis
PHIL 4123 01
November 29, 2010
Southeastern University
From Religiousness A to Religiousness B: The Leap


The legacy left behind by nineteenth century Søren Kierkegaard will ever
be remembered and extensive. He appealed to fields of philosophy, literature, theology
and the like, yet while so doing maintained a common goal throughout. Kierkegaard
aimed not at becoming some great theologian or philosopher, nor did he aspire to
comprehend the grandiose nature of God, nor did he set out to write the greatest of
literature. Instead, Kierkegaard spent a lifetime trying to understand the self and its
relation to Creator. He did not seek this simply for himself, but to help lead and share
with all men and women in hopes that they may obtain a right and healthy relationship
with God. As Kierkegaardian scholar, Louis P. Pojman, has written, “His [Kierkegaardʼs]
purpose in writing is not primarily theoretical but practical. He wants to help men and
women exist, not learn to speculate on ʻexistenceʼ—even though he speculates on the
concept a good deal himself.”1 For Kierkegaard, the goal of life is to reach a point of
dependence not on rationale, dogma, or doctrine, but on God himself.

To express this view, Kierkegaard developed a progression of human existence,
dividing it into three main spheres or stages: the aesthetic, the ethical, and the religious.
In the aesthetic stage an individual lives life based on his or her own desires or
passions. Many who live within this stage, however, find that life unsatisfying and move
into the next sphere of ethics. In this stage, a person adopts the social norms of ethics
and morality into his or her life. Naturally, this stage often leads to the development of
some relationship with God in the religious stage. Ethics, when looked at deeply,
necessarily involve an ethics maker, God. A person who adopts a system of ethics may
Larson 2
1
Louis P. Pojman, The Logic of Subjectivity (University, AL: The University of Alabama Press: 1984), 23.
find his or herself confronted with thoughts of the divine. Kierkegaard makes a clear
distinction, however, between two types of religious existence. Religiousness A basically
adopts a system of reasonable ethics and places it within a religious framework of
doctrine and dogma. Religiousness B frees itself from such firm systematic systems of
religion and enters into a realm of subjective faith. This paper follows the ʻleapʼ from
Religiousness A to Religiousness B in Kierkegaardʼs philosophy by addressing three
areas of philosophy: reason, objectivity, and subjectivity. Its claim is that in order to
make the leap of faith into Religiousness B, a person must (consciously or not) assume
that reason, while useful, is limited and incapable of providing certain truths, showing
necessarily that humans have not access to any kind of objectivity. However, despite
this assumption, to complete the leap, a person must embrace his or her own
subjectivity depending not on empirical evidence or reasoning but on Godʼs revelation.
Only then can God be found not in the hand of humanity, but humanity in the hand of
God. As Kierkegaard has written, “You cannot get the truth by capturing it, only by its
capturing you.”2

The first point in taking the leap of faith assumes the limits of reason and
rationality. This section will be separated into four main divisions adapted from Louis P.
Pojmanʼs book, The Logic of Subjectivity, in his discussion on rationality. These
divisions include:
1. Reason is useful but limited.
2. Reason imparts only possibility or probability.
3. Reason eludes reality by using language.
Larson 3
2
Soren Kierkegaard, Søren Kierkegaard : Papers and Journals, trans. Alastair Hannay (New York:
Penguin Books, 1996),.
4. Reason is not the sole aspect of man, but fits into a more complete essence.3

First, Kierkegaard shows that reason is limited in that it can only make claims
based on its knowledge and experience. History gives many great examples of how this
concept may come into play. There was a time when common knowledge said that the
world was flat. All empirical evidence and reason demonstrated this fact by observing
that objects did not fall as they did on vertical planes. All knowledge and experience
directed men and women to believe this fact. Of course given a broader array of
knowledge and experience with time and the rise of Greek academics, this view was
revealed to be false. In the same sense, reason may be a legitimate process for
examining issues of truth, however without absolute knowledge and unending
experience, reason can only speak indefinitely—even regarding that which it has
experienced since even things experienced may be related to that which has not been
experienced. This concept may be seen at a minimum within the practical world since a
great deal of human experience and knowledge is spent within the practical (though
most would say there is always room for improvement or more experience in any topic
or task), but it is much more apparent when relating to eternal issues or theological
concepts. In his book, Philosophical Fragments, Kierkegaard, writing under the
pseudonym Johannes Climacus, explores the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation and
its paradoxical nature.4 The law of noncontradiction declares that is impossible for A to
both equal B and not equal B at the same time. This concept, however, presupposes
the knowledge of what both A and B are. Logically, it can be said that God cannot be
Larson 4
3
Louis P. Pojman, The Logic of Subjectivity (University, AL: The University of Alabama Press: 1984), 26.
4
Soren Kierkegaard, Philosophical Fragments, trans. Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1985).
both all God and all human at the same time, but this statement does not take into
account questions of the nature of Godʼs existence; it presupposes that Godʼs existence
operates in the same way as we understand human existence (although Climacus, in
Philosophical Fragments, questions whether it is even possible to understand human
existence). This argument does not prove the possibility of the Incarnation, neither does
it negate it. Instead, it simply shows that because of the lack of experience and
knowledge of the divine, reason cannot make a definitive claim on such an event.
Reason shows itself to be limited, although not fully useless. C. Stephen Evans writes,
“Although our experience gives us inductive, empirical evidence that it is impossible for
something to be both eternal and temporal, this evidence is not logically decisive. It may
simply reflect the limitations of our human experience.”5 A critique of this thought begs
the question of whether the reasonableness of this concept of limitations is legitimate
since it is discovered through reason itself. Kierkegaard would say that because reason
tells the thinker of its own limitations, it cannot be certain as to whether this claim is
truth, however, Kierkegaard—unlike many skeptics—was not afraid to use reason as a
source of information despite its lack of reliability and subjective nature. This will be
discussed in a later section.

It is important to note here that Kierkegaard does not view the limitations of
reason as a flaw or a product of humanityʼs sinful nature. Instead, the flaw comes at the
point of reasonʼs arrogance and hesitation to admitting its own limitations. When reason
claims to go further than it is capable, the sinful nature of humanity shows itself to be
present. In a world where Godʼs will is done, reason gladly submits itself to the revealed
Larson 5
5
C. Stephens Evans, Kierkegaard: An Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 153.
paradox. Climacus compares the relationship of reason and the revealed paradox to the
nature of love. “Self-love lies at the basis of love, but at its peak its paradoxical passion
wills its own downfall.”6 In other words, love may begin with a self-love (“I love you
because of the way you treat me or make me feel”), but it comes to a point where it
sacrifices itself for the other. “I find my greatest happiness when I place the happiness
of the other above my own happiness. Self-love is dethroned, but somehow fulfilled as
well.”7 Kierkegaard believed that this same principle can be applied to reason and its
relation to the revealed paradox. By declaring its limitations, reason finds its fulfillment.

The second point taken from Pojman says that all processes of reason only point
to possibility, or at best probability. In order to know any one thing, certitude is needed,
but reason is incapable of producing absolutes even under the most empirically reliable
circumstances, whether it be by inductive or deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning
may be helpful to make estimated predictions, but it works only from experience. Since
a person has not experienced the future nor all possible outcomes related to that object
being sought after, all one can say is that previously an event acted a certain way, and
so it might operate the same way in the future. This may be very reliable depending
upon the amount of experience available, however it does not bring certitude. Deductive
reasoning may come closer to accuracy, but it presupposes it knows anything at all. It
assumes those basic beliefs that all may uphold practically, but are not reliable to stay
consistent in everyday life. At any moment, an individual may discover that he or she is
Larson 6
6
Soren Kierkegaard, Philosophical Fragments, trans. Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1985), 48.
7
C. Stephens Evans, Kierkegaard: An Introduction (Cambrige: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 157.
a part of the Matrix or dreaming. Perhaps the individual will never know that he or she
has been deceived at all. One can never know.

The third point relates to the concept of reason being expressed in a system of
symbols and ideals—namely, language. Kierkegaard expressed his views on the limits
of language long before Jacques Derridaʼs famous work, Of Grammatology, written in
1967. Although less developed than Derrida, Kierkegaard takes this idea from Platoʼs
theory of forms. Words do not express reality, but instead they express an ideal that
does not contain the immanent. Words take into account previous experiences and
attempt to define present objects and events. Language can be a very useful tool,
however it tends to reduce reality into metaphors and symbols that come short of
expressing the intended. Even if some certitude had been grasped by any given person,
any attempt to express this certitude to another—or even to oneself—would ultimately
be an estimation.

The last point Pojman expresses regarding Kierkegaardʼs views on rationality
deals with the essence of a person. There has arisen in philosophy an eager attempt to
extinguish all forms of emotion and passion to reach some level of reasonable
objectivity. Kierkegaard, presupposing the Bible, makes a claim that this act denies a
crucial aspect of the essence of a human being. God did not create in humanity only the
mind, but also the emotion. Jesus expresses this belief himself in Matthew 22 when he
refers back to the sacred Deuteronomy passage. “Love the Lord your God with all your
heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.”8 To deny the role of emotions in
ones search for truth and the divine is to deny a large portion of Godʼs creation. Many
Larson 7
8
Matthew 22:37 (NIV).
feel that emotions are flawed, not being able to reflect reality, however as shown above,
reason, too, is flawed—separate from reality. The whole person rejects neither reason
nor passion, but finds place for each in balance.

The necessary implication of these four claims is that humans have no access to
any form of objective truth. This, however, does not necessarily mean that there is no
objective truth—such a claim would be self-defeating, but neither does it affirm the
existence of objective truth. Given the presupposition of God in Kierkegaardʼs
philosophy, one might assume that there is an absolute objectivity that only God can
access since God is assumed to have absolute knowledge, however such a claim
cannot be given certitude. Evans writes,

“Reality may be a system for God, and Godʼs view of things may provide the

ultimate truth that we aim to approximate in our own cognitive endeavors, but we

must never confuse our approximations, useful and valuable as they may be,

with the thing itself. Truth in this sense may be real, but it is an abstraction, not a

temporal reality.”9
The key word in this quote is “may.” Reality may be a system for God, and is even
logically warranted, but by nature of reasonʼs limits, no one can make such a definitive
claim. Many, at this point, find themselves in the realm of skepticism or nihilism; for if
nothing can be known with certitude, what then can be said at all? This locale of thought
may be called the abyss of despair or as Saint John of the Cross has said, “the dark
night of the soul.” All things are questioned, and even the existence of God is doubted.
Where can one go at the end of their own rope? There are some who attempt to make
sense of this by presupposing God. If God were to exist, than surely he would be able to
make himself known to humanity, giving them objective truths. However, if one chooses
Larson 8
9
C. Stephens Evans, Kierkegaard: An Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 59.
to operate under the assumption that there is a God and God has access to objective
truth, this question of revelation may be more complex: Can God reveal his objective
truth to humanity—even within their own subjectivity? The assumed nature of God
makes the claim that since God is omnipotent, he necessarily would be able to override
the subjectivity of humanity in his revelation of absolute truths. The assumed nature of
humanity claims that even if God were to reveal objective truths, people necessarily
interpret these truths through a subjective lens. Which view then, holds more weight?
Kierkegaard transcends such questions in his view of subjectivity. Though Kierkegaard
highly emphasizes revelation, the point for him goes beyond simply receiving definite
knowledge.10 For Kierkegaard, to ask such a question continues to presuppose that the
desired goal is objective truth, when this should not be the intention of the seeker. God
did not create humans as objective creatures—they are subjective by nature. The goal
is not objectivity, which strays from the nature God has created men and women in, the
goal is God himself. Kierkegaard has faith that God has revealed himself and other
truths, but such knowledge of the revealed continues to be subjective by nature since it
is received by people. One may choose to wallow in the abyss of despair while
continuing to seek objective truth, mourning with failure, or one may choose the way of
Kierkegaard: to embrace oneʼs own subjectivity taking a leap of faith, seemingly
unwarranted, believing that if there is a God, he will be experienced in some way.

Kierkegaardʼs view of subjectivity does not attempt to solve the epistemological
debate as to whether the object gives any information to the subject, nor is it some form
Larson 9
10
In fact, he passionately defends the idea of revelation in his essay, Of the Difference Between a Genius
and an Apostle in:
Soren Kierkegaard, The Present Age: On the Death of Rebellion, trans. Alexander Dru (New York: Harper
Perennial, 1962).
of relativity. Instead, Kierkegaardʼs subjectivity has two parts. The first says what has
been demonstrated up to this point: that humans are by nature incapable of grasping
the absolute. The second part recognizes the legitimacy of inward emotions and
passions in regards to interpreting truth. For Kierkegaard, in order to be a whole person,
that person must embrace his or her own subjectivity, grasping life not with certitude,
but with faith and passion.

“To see we must stand somewhere and trust that our perspective, including our

emotional ʻtakeʼ on the world, finite and limited as it is, is one that enables us to

see something...Kierkegaard believes that in one sense our questions are never

ʻsettled,ʼ since we do not have the system. Doubts can always be raised, and

questions can always be asked. If we demand intellectual certainty before we

begin to live our convictions we will never live at all.”11

Many cannot make such a leap because of their dependence upon their own
reason. Even Johannes Climacus in Concluding Unscientific Postscript expresses his
inability to make such a leap as required by the Christian faith. It is important to note,
however, that Kierkegaard does believe that God speaks and gives his revelation. Such
a revelation can always be doubted, but men and women are encountered everyday by
whispers and shadows of truth. They cannot be confirmed or denied, and yet they at
least seem to be present. Kierkegaardʼs view of subjectivity gives itself over to these
whispers of truth. In Fear and Trembling, Kierkegaard demonstrates this concept by
citing the story of Abraham.12 In the Genesis account, Abraham is encountered with the
voice of God telling him to sacrifice his only son of promise. All reason and ethics say to
Abraham that this cannot be the voice of God, and yet the whisper remains. Abraham
could have spent much time doubting the voice, or perhaps he could disobey the voice.
Larson 10
11
C. Stephens Evans, Kierkegaard: An Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 64.
12
Soren Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling, trans. Alastair Hannay (New York: Penguin Books, 1985).
He could make many rational claims against the voice; he could simply write the
whisper off as a product of his evil imagination or some demonic creature.
Nevertheless, he gives himself over in faith to what the voice, he believes to be God,
has said, bringing his only son, Isaac, to that mount in Moriah. Kierkegaard deems him
in this act “the knight of faith.” Such an act is not warranted— is even contrary to
reason! It disobeys the very system of ethics that God had supposedly created, and yet
in this final stage of existence, men and women no longer live only based on reason or
ethics, but on faith. Trust must be given ultimately to God. In his book, Christian
Discourses, Kierkegaard expresses his belief that though there is no certainty in this life,
and though every ʻrevelationʼ may be doubted, the nature of this leap of faith trusts that
God will sustain his people.

“Truly, no more than God allows a species of fish to come into existence in a
particular lake unless the plant that is its nourishment is also growing there, no more will
God allow the truly concerned person to be ignorant of what he is to believe. That is its
need brings the nourishment along with it; what is sought is in the seeking that seeks it;
faith is in the concern over not having faith; love is in the self-concern over not loving.”13

The task of taking the leap of faith from Religiousness A to Religiousness B is not
an easy task or concept. It is not a simple truth that may be easily accepted without
reservation; it is something that must be wrestled with over a period of time. Indeed
Kierkegaard believed that few persons have ever even accomplished this task, but it
must be the goal of every person. This paper has shown that in order to do so, one
must find that their reason is limited and disconnected from the absolute. As such, there
is no access to objective knowledge from the human perspective, and yet at this point
the person must embrace their own subjectivity has an intention of God, building their
Larson 11
13
Soren Kierkegaard, Christian Discourses, trans. Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1997), 244.
foundation not on reason nor absolutes, but on faith. In this leap, an individual finds the
fullness of dependence. Just as love and reason sacrifice themselves to find their
fulfillment, so every man and woman should pursue such a paradox as this leap of faith
so that they, too, may find their fulfillment.


Larson 12
Bibliography
Clark, Kelly James, Richard Lints and James K. A. Smith, ed. 101 Key Terms in

Philosophy and Their Importance for Theology. Louisville: Wesminster John Knox

Press, 2004.
Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology. Translated by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak.

Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1974.
Evans, C. Stephens. Kierkegaard: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 2009.
Hong, Howard V. and Edna H. Hong, ed. The Essential Kierkegaard. Princeton:

Princeton University Press, 1995.
Kierkegaard, Søren. Christian Discourses. Translated by Howard V. Hong and Edna H.

Hong. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997.
Kierkegaard, Søren. Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments.

Translated by Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong. Princeton: Princeton

University Press, 1992.
Kierkegaard, Søren. Fear and Trembling. Translated by Alastair Hannay. New York:

Penguin Books, 1985.
Kierkegaard, Søren. Philosophical Fragments. Translated by Howard V. Hong and Edna

H. Hong. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985.
Kierkegaard, Søren. The Present Age: On the Death of Rebellion. Translated by

Alexander Dru. New York: Harper Perennial, 1962.
Kierkegaard, Søren. Søren Kierkegaard : Papers and Journals. Translated by Alastair

Hannay. New York: Penguin Books, 1996.
Pojman, Louis P. The Logic of Subjectivity. University, AL: The University of Alabama

Press: 1984.
Larson 13

Sunday, June 6, 2010

Messianic Jewish Perspectives on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Messianic Jewish Perspectives on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Sixty years have passed since the official declaration of Israel’s independence and statehood. In these years, the world has watched as a continuous struggle has overwhelmed the lives of those living in Israel and the immediate area. There seems to be no rest in violence; war has continued to wage in the social, political, and religious worlds. The obvious groups in this struggle, the Jews and the Muslims, have been at the center of all conversation in the media and beyond. There are, however, smaller groups that have participated in these conflicts since the very beginning––the Christians being one of these. Within Middle Eastern Christianity there are many faces and perspectives: Catholics and Protestants, Westerners and Easterners, Jews and Arabs. Christian Jews (or Messianic Jews) have held a very unique position among the many groups that have been seen here. They are caught up in two worlds; their ethnic, historical, and religious background come from Judaism, but their identity also comes from being people of Yeshua (Jesus). The Messianic Jews have learned to fuse these two worlds, seeing themselves as the complete expression of their Jewish traditions. The scholar, John Fischer says about this, “Jewish believers––as well as Gentiles who desire to worship in a Jewish context––formed themselves into congregations in Jewish communities, where they express their faith in Jesus and affirm their Jewishness, while being thoroughly biblical. [They] visibly demonstrate that a Jew can commit himself to following Yeshua as the Messiah and strengthen––not dilute––his Jewish identity.”1 There is much debate from the Christian community as to whether this unique group is Christian or Jewish, and many questions of theology have been raised in this discussion. Should Messianic Jews live distinctly as Jews or assimilate into the Christian community? Do Messianic Jews claim identity with Israel or the Church? Are the Jews or the Christians the chosen of God? Many theologians have tackled these questions with great passion and have answered simply, “yes.” David H. Stern, a leading Messianic Jewish voice, is one such scholar.
“The people of God are a chosen people, a kingdom of priests, a holy nation, witnesses for God, a people with a mission, a people with a Book, and a blessing to the nations. The Bible applies such descriptions to both the Church and the Jewish people. Therefore any proper theology of God’s people must take account of Messianic Jews as being 100% Jewish and 100% New Testament believers.”2

As Jews, Messianic Jews are welcomed into the State of Israel (although once there, they may face discrimination from traditional Jews) and they identity themselves completely with that nationality, however as Christians, they may have more to say than the majority of Israelis regarding the conflicts that have risen there. Presented here is an introduction to some of the Messianic perspectives concerning the problems present in the Middle East. An attempt will be made to enter into the mind and thought-process of those Messianic Christians that are ever increasing around the world. Of course, this presentation does not by any means account for all perspectives, opinions, and views, but generally speaking it gives a good overview. Lisa Loden (a Reconciliation voice among Messianic Christians) has reminded readers, “It has frequently been said that wherever you have two Jews you will have three opinions. Messianic Jews are no exception to this rather humorous indictment.”3 Topics that will be discussed include, Theology: Messianic Jewish hermeneutics, their identity as people of promise, and their eschatology; politics: their views on the State of Israel and it’s relationship with neighboring countries; and their response to the displacement of the Palestinian people. By understanding where Messianic Jews come from and how they think and believe, progress can be made towards peace and reconciliation with other groups of Christians, Jews, and Muslims.

Theology
To understand any perspective on Israel and her problems from the Messianic Jewish point-of-view, whether it be political, social, or religious, much attention much be given to the theology and faith of this group. Faith acts as the foundation upon which all views are weighed and measured against. Without a proper understanding of Jewish-Christian beliefs, there will be no understanding of the perspectives given towards the State of Israel. There are three main topics that address these theological foundations: Hermeneutics, Promise, and Eschatology.

A.Hermeneutics
Any theological understanding flows naturally from scripture and how it is read and interpreted. In the Messianic Jewish tradition, the Bible is of utmost importance. Biblical authority centers on any understanding of life––whether it be religious or the “secular” world in general. Such a statement is true of most Christian communities, but something to be understood about this group is the tendency to read scripture as literal as possible. There is much hesitation in any form of historical or textual criticism because it takes away from the inspiration that is believed to be present in the text. Such a tradition can be be paralleled with the evangelicals in the United States. Most Messianic Jewish communities are in fact identified with various evangelical denominations such as Baptists and Pentecostals.
As much as the Messianic Jewish community has in common with the evangelical traditions, one distinct emphasis is on the Old Testament. Because the Jewish scripture is in fact the Christian Old Testament, Messianic Jews also find their home within this section of scripture. Not only that, but this Jewish-oriented perspective carries over with force into the New Testament. Lisa Loden touches on this. “Messianic Jews consistently maintain the Jewishness of the biblical documents (understandably of course the Old Testament but equally the Jewishness of the New Testament is heavily emphasized) and some advocate a use of traditional rabbinic approaches to hermeneutics and exposition.”4 The argument is that the modern Christian church too often neglects the reality of its Jewish roots. Some would say that the church has even been a long-time part of anti-semitism. In today’s culture, the church is losing this prejudice, but has not yet remembered where it came from. The Messianic movement understands the strong Jewishness of the entire biblical text. They also understand how very Jewish Jesus was in his teachings. An important Messianic leader, David Stern, argues in his essay, “The Land from a Messianic Jewish Perspective,” that there must again be a Jewish emphasis on the Bible––both the Old Testament and the New Testament––and the early Christian documents. In his opinion, “[Christian theology] has the tendency to disassociate the Church from its Jewish roots, an essentially antisemitic enterprise.”5 The Jewishness of biblical interpretation and emphasis not only contrasts general western Christianity, but deeply contrasts the theology and understanding of the Arab and Palestinian Christians who live in close contact with those Messianic communities in Israel and the whole of the Middle East. Again Lisa Loden gets to the heart of this issue.
“The theological focus of each group tends to be particular to the needs and life situation of their respective communities. For the Palestinian, issues of justice and righteousness prevail and for the Messianic Jew, promise and prophecy are ascendant. The Palestinian Christian sees in Jesus the one who universalized the story of the chosen people in the chosen land from the particular reference of localized Israel to the wider community of the world and all her peoples, whereas the Messianic Jew sees continuation and fulfillment of the story and destiny of Israel once again in her ancient, promised land.”6

The points Loden brings here––the points of promise and prophesy––are the most crucial aspects of Messianic Jewish theology and are central to understanding its views on the modern State of Israel. Although Loden herself is a Messianic Jew, she offers a strong challenge to the Messianic community.
“Messianic Jews must engage in the struggle to understand what the ‘newness’ of Jesus really meant. Was this ‘newness’ intended to be a radical break with the past and the inauguration of something completely new- for example, the kingdom of God on earth as opposed to the territorial dimension of Israel? As regards the Old Testament, the Messianic Jew should not focus on promise to the exclusion of the ethical message of the prophets, neglecting matters of justice and righteousness as the touch issues of the Land.”7



B.People of Promise

The emphasis on promise in Messianic Jewish theology is two-fold. First is God’s promise that the Jewish nation will be God’s chosen people out of the world; second is God’s promise that he will give his chosen people the land of Israel. In mainstream Christian thought, there is much confusion as to whether the Jews are still considered the people of God, or if that concept has expired and been adapted for the new people of God, the church. The answer to this question also determines a theology of the land, which in turn applies to Messianic Jewish views on the current situation in the land of Israel. A theology of election is most important. David H. Stern has dealt with this question extensively, and has presented three common misunderstood theological notions on this topic contrasting them to his biblical interpretation called “Olive Tree Theology.”
The first of these misguided views is “Two-Covenant Theology.” This rose as a direct response to the Holocaust. As the Christian world soon became embarrassed and full of sympathy for the Jewish people, theological notions supported the Jewish community and eventually came to say that they were still God’s chosen people––even without Jesus. According to this view, the Church is a separate and unrelated people of God. They have come to be in relationship with the Creator through means of Jesus’ death and the new covenant, while the Jews have continued and always have been connected with God through the old covenant. The new did not replace the old; the new simply came along side the old in a parallel way. In this view, there is no need to evangelize in the Jewish world, for they are already in direct contact with God. Stern rejects this view calling it fundamentally unbiblical. Throughout the new testament the early apostles dedicated their entire lives to evangelize the Jewish community and bring them into faith of Yeshua, their Messiah. Without Jesus, the Jewish faith is incomplete.
The more popular belief among Christians is called, “Replacement Theology.” Here it is said that because the Jewish nation rejected Jesus as their Messiah they have forfeited their right to be his chosen people. Because they did not accept him, salvation came to the Gentiles. There is, then, no theology of covenant for the Jews and no promise of a land that is theirs. The “chosen” category has been transferred to a universal, inclusive stance and the promised land is contrasted with the promise of the kingdom of heaven. Stern absolutely rejects this notion as well, calling it pure anti-semitism.
An increasingly popular view––especially among evangelicals––has been “Dispensational Theology.” This view has made an attempt to merge these two extreme views and calls the Jewish nation God’s “earthly” people and the Church God’s “spiritual” people. These beliefs are involved especially within eschatology and end-time discussion. After the Church has been raptured to be with God, it is up to the Jews to be God’s chosen once again on earth until Jesus comes back a third time to wage war against earthly evils. About this Stern says, “This strict separation of roles did not deal with the problem of Messianic Jews––do they ascend at the Rapture with the Church or remain below, loyal to their Jewish people? Either profoundly unsatisfying answer demonstrates the absurdity and inadequacy of this theological solution to the question of God’s people.”8
The view Stern offers in contrast to these is called, “Olive Tree Theology.” The centerpiece scripture is in Romans 11.17-26:
“If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not boast over those branches. If you do consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, ‘Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.’ Granted. But they were broken off because of their unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!”

This scripture passage shows that there is but one tree, one covenant, one people, one God. Because some Jews do not believe in God’s plan in Yeshua they were cut off from the covenant. It is important to understand that the Church did not replace these branches, but instead were included in the already established tree. The Jews may be grafted in at a moments notice provided that they believe again, and the Church can be cut off if they choose to disbelieve. The Messianic Christians then are those branches that remained on the tree, or at the least were grafted back in. The promises of the old covenant remain, and the Jews continue to be God’s chosen. The Church has been adopted in as God’s chosen, but they remain unnaturally so. Stern concludes, “A right theology must clearly show that the Jews are still God’s people––or, more accurately, along with the Church, one of God’s two sub-peoples.”
Menhaim Benhayim is the former Secretary for the International Messianic Jewish Alliance and has been part of the Messianic movement in Israel for well over thirty years. In a collection of essays about Biblical interpretations of the theology of the Land entitled, The Bible and the Land: An Encounter, Benhayim elaborates on the concept of ‘election’ and what it means to many Messianic Jews.
“First of all, it must be constantly stated that biblical election or ‘chosenness’ operates entirely within the sovereign will of God. It gives absolutely no basis for pride or self-satisfaction in one’s election; nor does it justify contempt for others. It has nothing to do with the German concept of the herrnvolk (‘master race’).”

With this in mind, Benhayim explains that election has been a three-fold process in divine history. The first election took place at the beginning of the world with the choosing of Adam. Adam was set apart from the rest of creation to be God’s chosen. He was crafted in God’s image, and he had a special task to be a good steward of all creation. Later in the biblical narrative, another election was established. This was the special covenant made with Abraham in Genesis 12. The point of the Abrahamic election for the Jewish people was not necessarily to give the children of Abraham a high status or place of privilege among people. Instead, it could be better compared to the choosing of a person for a specific occupation. Israel was always meant to be a blessing to the nations and not necessarily the nation that was to be blessed. Her occupation was to be a kingdom of priests among all other kingdoms of the world. It is important to note that the choosing of Abraham and his family did not some how nullify the previous election of Adam and all of humanity. All people of the world kept their ‘chosenness’ to be stewards of creation and images of God (whether they did or did not enact this purpose). The third election that took place happened in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. In this event, God would make a universal invitation for all those to enter in to His special election. The Church is the product of this invitation. Just as the election of Abraham did not nullify the election of humankind, the election of the church did not nullify the election of Abraham. The apostle Paul speaks on this in his letter to the Romans, “I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means!”9 and later, “for God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable.”10 The purpose of God’s election of Israel was to enhance his election of humanity, and the purpose of God’s election of the Church was to enhance both the election of humanity and Israel.
The election of the Jewish people is relevant in today’s current situation of middle eastern conflict because of their claim to the geographical land of Israel. With God’s promise of election comes God’s promise of a land for the elect to possess. This concept has been deeply engrained in the identity of the Jews from the moment of their conception at the calling of Abraham. In Genesis 12 God says to Abraham, “Leave your country, your people and your father’s household and go to the land I will show you.” When Abraham gets to the land of Canaan God says to him, “To your offspring I will give this land.” From this point on, all of the descendants of Abraham have clung to these words. Throughout history, the people of Israel have gone through rotations of occupation and exile. Abraham lived in the promised land, but later his descendants ended up in Egypt. Moses and Joshua led the people back into Israel, where they enjoyed a time of occupation, but later, because of disobedience, they were exiled to Assyria and Babylon. Later, the Jews enjoyed a partial occupation of Israel during the time of Jesus; but even this was under the oppression and rule of Greek and Roman states. Since that time the Jewish people were spread throughout the nations of the world and became a diaspora, but despite this, they have held onto the promises of God that one day, they will return to their homeland. The present conflict in Israel is the product of the Jewish people attempting to reclaim their home after thousands of years of exile.
The Messianic Jews do not separate from their Jewish heritage in regards to the land. They too feel strongly that the land of Israel/Palestine belongs to them. They come to this conclusion mostly because of their very Jewish hermeneutic, but also their Jewish traditions. One such tradition in Judaism is to make a toast at the yearly passover dinner, “Next year in Jerusalem!” All people groups understand what it means to be connected to a certain land, but with the Jewish people, this connection moves beyond simple love and desire to being the very identity of who they are. The question then for the Messianic Jews is, “Do the promises of the bible regarding the Jewish people and the geographic land of Israel still hold relevance today?” Most Messianic Jews would give an emphatic, “yes!” It is clear that the promise of the Land is biblical, (Genesis 12.1,7; 15.18; 17.8; 28.13; 35.12; Exodus 6.4; 12.25; 13.11; 20.12; 23.30; 34.24; Leviticus 14.44; Numbers 14.8; Deuteronomy 1.8; Joshua 2.24; 1 Kings 9.7; 1 Chronicles 14.18; and virtually every other book of the Bible!); the question is whether this promise continues to be valid today. About this Menhaim Benhayim has responded with a discussion on the ‘forever’ of these promises. Many times when the promise of land is given in the Bible, the promises emphasizes that this pledge will last forever. Genesis 13.15 is one such passage, “All the land that you see I will give you and your offspring forever.” The argument is that the biblical passages clearly stress ‘forever’ when they give the promise. If God has made his promise forever, how can it be void today? And if this forever of the Old Testament is not valid today, how can Christians know the forever of the New Testament will last? Messianic Jews say forever is forever, the promise is still lasting.

C. Eschatology
Although the land of Israel has been a crucial aspect of the Jewish identity since the time of Abraham, the reality is that the majority of Jews have not lived in this land for 2,000 years. Despite this, the Jews have clung to the promises of God in the fulfillment of prophecy and eschatology. According to the Jewish hermeneutic, God has promised that the exile and diaspora will end; the Jews will come back to their homeland. Scriptures used to support this stance include: Ezek. 34.11-31; Hosea 3; Amos 9.11-15; Zech. 12-14; Isa. 11, 43, 54, 60-62, 66; and Romans 11:1-34. Eschatology has come to play a very significant role in the theology and identity of Jewish Christians. Richard C. Nicole writes, “Messianic Judaism has been more than influenced––it has actually defined itself in terms of the end of the End Times.”11 This is especially the case after the events in 1948 and the formation of the modern State of Israel. Messianic Jews have seen this event as the fulfillment of biblical prophecy, and the beginning of the realized promise of the land of Israel.
This prophetic view of current middle eastern events has been influenced and fueled by recent evangelical eschatologies. There has been a close connection with these various Protestant traditions and the traditions of the Messianic Christian community. Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum is one such Messianic Christian scholar who has spent a considerable amount of time studying the eschatology of the Messianic Christian movement. In his essay, “Eschatology and Messianic Jews: A Theological Perspective,” he describes his understanding of the coming of the end times and the role of the “Remnant of Israel”––the Christian Hebrews.12 First, Christ will come back and his Church (comprised of believing Gentiles and Jews) will meet him in the air and return to heaven during the time of the tribulation. The idea of “Rapture” comes from a passage in 1 Thessalonians,
“For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.”13

While in heaven, both believing Gentiles and Jews will be judged by God and then participate in the wedding ceremony of the Lamb. While this is happening in heaven, on earth traumatic events take place while the people of God, Israel, begin to return to Him by accepting Yeshua as Messiah. At the end of the seven year tribulation, Christ will return a third time from the clouds of heaven, but this time he will be accompanied by the “saints,” the believing Jews and Gentiles taken up at the Rapture. They will, together, fight the last apocalyptic battle against evil, and rule the earth with Christ for all eternity––the Gentiles throughout the nations, and the Jews in the long-awaited promised home of Israel. This is just one example of the many varying eschatologies present within the Messianic Jewish context. The majority look very similar to the doctrines of the evangelicals; the whole always redeem the Jews back to the land of Israel. With this theological mind set, the formation of the State of Israel is a preparation and precursor to the end time events that will soon take place. After explaining the above eschatology, Fruchtenbaum makes an application for today’s Jewish Christians. “In this present age, this means that Jewish believers should look upon the Land of Israel as being their homeland.”14

Political Views on the State of Israel
If Messianic Jews have varying beliefs and opinions on theology, they have even more varying beliefs and opinions on politics. However, with a theological foundation, 95% of all Messianic Jews living in Israel are for the State of Israel with the understanding that God has promised them the land.15 Lisa Loden writes, “A Messianic Jew who lives in Israel often sees his presence in that land as both fulfillment of prophecy and as an eschatological sign.”16 With such a strong theological claim on the land, it seems that there can be no other political view on the State of Israel. Dan Cohn-Sherbok writes,
“Because of the centrality of Israel in God’s plan for all nations... Messianic Jews are ardent Zionists. They support Israel because the Jewish State is viewed as a direct fulfillment of biblical prophecy. Although Israel is far from perfect, Messianic Jews believe that God is active in the history of the nation and that the Jews will never be driven out of the land again. While God loves the Arabs, he gave the Holy Land to his chosen people.”

The Messianic Jewish Alliance of America has written on its website as part of its Statement of Faith,
“We believe in God's end-time plan for the nation of Israel and for the world. A central part of Messianic Judaism is the belief in the physical and spiritual restoration of Israel, as taught in the Scriptures. The greatest miracle of our day has been the re-establishment or rebirth of the State of Israel according to prophecy (Ezek. 34:11-31; 36-39; Hos. 3; Amos 9:11-15; Zech. 12-14; Isa. 11; 43; 54; 60-62; 66; Rom. 11:1-34)”17

It is important to note, however, that many Messianic Jews do not necessarily agree with the government of the State of Israel; the community faces much persecution and difficulty getting into the land as Christians. Despite this, they believe that God has used the present circumstances and the political zionist movement as His tool to go about His purposes. If God can use the evil, alien nations in ancient times to exile His people from the land of Israel, he can certainly use the Jewish nation today to bring His people back into the land of Israel.
Overall, the Messianic community agrees with the Jewish community at large regarding peace solutions such as the Two-State solution. They tend to believe that because of the passion and commitment of the Muslims and Arab countries to exterminate the Jews, any peace treaty is at risk of being broken. Politically, the most they can ask from the Palestinians and neighboring Arab countries is the right to legitimacy. David Friedman, a Messianic voice, writes about steps toward reconciliation in his essay, “The Political Reality of Living in Israel with a Suggested Path Towards Reconciliation.” In his opinion, there can be no reconciliation if others do not recognize the right of Israel to exist.
“If Palestinians are serious about gaining a Western style of peace for people, the best thing they can do is to convince the Palestinian Authority, Hezbollah and Syria to accept my nation. Boycotts, terror, and even non-violent protest will not bring Israel to collapse, for God has promised a future for the Jewish people in Israel. We are here to stay.”18


Responses to the Displacement of the Palestinians
The biggest reason so much controversy rises in the discussion of the Jewish occupation in the land of Israel is not theological, but experiential. It is not as if the land of Israel remained unoccupied during the time of the Diaspora; no, it was occupied for hundreds of years by the Palestinians. Thousands of Palestinians were forced from their homes and either exiled or moved to special zones such as the Gaza Strip and the West Bank during the Jewish aliyahs. This is the ethical problem. If God has promised his Jewish people the land of Israel, but it is occupied by another nation, what is to be done? There are those Jews and Christians who look to the time of Joshua when the Israelites claimed the promised land by militant force, claiming that the same must be done today, but there are few who are willing to make such a statement. Some Messianic Jews do, however, vocalize that the Palestinian people must learn that this is not their land, and they must leave. Mubarak Awad, a Palestinian Christian, describes an encounter with a woman who asked to speak at an Evangelical Palestinian celebration.
“When the lady took the microphone, no one could believe the words that came out of her mouth. She professed to the Palestinian evangelical Christians assembled there that she had a word from the Lord for them. ‘God,’ she said, ‘wants you all to leave Israel and go to other Arab countries.’ She added that they must leave to make room for God’s chosen people, the Jews. She warned the pastors and the audience that if they did not listen to the instructions, which God had given her, God would pour out his wrath on them.”19

This is an extreme example of what some Messianic Jews would say about the Palestinians, however the majority of Messianic Jews generally do believe that the Palestinians have no right to the land that God has promised them. Lisa Loden has included a quote from a Messianic Journal in 2001 displaying this attitude towards the Palestinians.
“I certainly see what is happening now as the beginning of the end. The Palestinians, in my opinion, are part of the coalition of Gog and Magog...The Palestinians, especially in their struggle for self-determination, are inciting the whole world against Israel and are awakening it to join in a war to liberate Jerusalem. ...This is the last act in the war of Islam against the truth of God. We as believers must see our place in this reality, otherwise our existence has no meaning.”20

There are, however, many other Messianic Christians working towards more loving and peaceful forms of reconciliation. Lisa Loden is involved with a non-profit organization called, Musalaha. The group is intended to rebuild relations between Christian Palestinians and Messianic Jews. Loden leads the women’s portion of this ministry. One activity the group promotes encourages people from each community to meet with one another in something called “Desert Encounters.” There, they learn to hear the voices of opinions, beliefs, and experiences. Organizations such as this have advanced better relations between the Messianic and Palestinian Christian communities, but there continues to be a need for more reconciliation.

Conclusion
Messianic Jews have identified themselves both with Judaism and Christianity. They have fused the worlds of Jewish tradition and Christian theology with an evangelical spin. Hebrew Christians read the Bible with a literal hermeneutic and place much emphasis on Old Testament prophecy and promise. Like the Jews, they firmly believe in the election of the people and the land of Israel, and have confidence that one day all Israel will be restored by the hand of God. Because of this background, their political views on the State of Israel almost completely support its existence and legitimacy. Some reconciliation work is being done to unite these Christian Jews with the land’s native Palestinians, but generally speaking Messianic Jews emphasize that Palestinians must recognize that the land of Israel has been given to the Jews by the hand of God. It is difficult to tell where the future of the Messianic movement will progress, but diversity will almost certainly continue to rise within the community as the situation in Israel becomes more and more heated and complicated with every year. Messianic Christians are a special group today that have a large amount to say to the greater Christian world in general. They speak to the Church reminding her of the strong Jewish heritage from which Jesus and the early Church came. One can only guess as to where this old––yet young––community will progress and mature in the years to come.





















Bibliography
Awad, Mubarak. “Their Theology, Our Nightmare” in Christian Perspectives on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, ed. Wesley H. Brown and Peter F. Penner. Pasadena: William Carey International University Press, 2008.

Fischer, John. ed. The Enduring Paradox: Exploratory Essays in Messianic Judaism. Baltimore: Lederer Books, 2000.

Friedman, David. “The Political Reality of Living in Israel with a Suggested Path Toward Reconciliation.” in Christian Perspectives on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, ed. Wesley H. Brown and Peter F. Penner. Pasadena: William Carey International University Press, 2008.

Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G. “Eschatology and Messianic Jews: A Theological Perspective.” in Voices of Messianic Judaism: Confronting Critical Issues for a Maturing Movement, ed. Dan Cohn-Sherbok. Baltimore: Lederer Books, 2001.

Kivun, No.21, Nov./Dec. 2000, p.9 quoted in Lisa Loden “Messianic Jewish Views on Israel’s Rebirth and Survival in the Light of Scripture” in Christian Perspectives on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, ed. Wesley H. Brown and Peter F. Penner. Pasadena: William Carey International University Press, 2008.

Kjaer-Hansen, Kai and Bodil F. Skjott. Facts and Myths About the Messianic Congregations in Israel. Jerusalem: United Christian Council in Israel, 1999.

Loden, Lisa. “Assessing the Various Hermeneutical Approaches.” in The Bible and the Land: An Encounter, ed. Lisa Loden, Peter Walker, and Michael Wood. Jerusalem: Musalaha, 2000.

Loden, Lisa. “Messianic Jewish Views on Israel’s Rebirth and Survival in Light of Scripture.” in Christian Perspectives on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, ed. Wesley H. Brown and Peter F. Penner. Pasadena: William Carey International University Press, 2008.

Messianic Jewish Alliance of America, “Statement of Faith.” MJAA.
http://www.mjaa.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Spg_About_History_StmFaith (accessed 5/10/10).

Nicole, Richard C. “Are we really at the End of the End Times? A Reappraisal.” in Voices of Messianic Judaism: Confronting Critical Issues Facing a Maturing Movement, ed. Dan Cohn-Sherbok. Baltimore: Lederer Books, 2001.

Stern, David H. “Making the Issues Clear: A Messianic Jewish Perspective.” In The Bible and the Land: An Encounter, ed. Lisa Loden, Peter Walker, and Michael Wood. Jerusalem: Musalaha, 2000.

Stern, David. “The Land From a Messianic Jewish Perspective.” in The Land: An Encounter, ed. Lisa Loden, Peter Walker, and Michael Wood. Jerusalem: Musalaha, 2000.

Tsukahira, Peter. God’s Tsunami: Understanding Israel and End-time Prophecy. Mount Carmel: Peter Tsukahira, 2003.

The Incarnation as a Mystical Reality

The Incarnation as a Mystical Reality

The person of Jesus is the most important and influential historical figure the world has ever known. No other man or woman has left such a great legacy and impact as Jesus of Nazareth. Indeed, he began a movement that would grow and evolve to change the face of the entire western world and beyond. Many people of every sex, race, culture, religion, and perspective affirm Jesus in some way. The Jews and Muslims claim him as a prophet, the Hindus deem him as a god, the Buddhists proclaim him as a buddha, and even many atheists see him as a great humanist and moral teacher. Christians, however, view and worship him as a divine reality within the scope of monotheism. To them, he is not just a divine figure or a god; he is the unique manifestation of the one, true, God. How did this group come to such a conclusion? This paper will examine the growth and progression of the early Christian views of the Incarnation of God in Jesus Christ. When presented through a botanical metaphor, the seed of this thought is planted with the knowledge of Jesus as a prophet teaching the truths of God. This image soon sprouts into the understanding of Jesus’ messianic identity as the savior of Israel. As a young tree, the realization of the messianic identity grows into the understanding of Jesus as the Wisdom of God existing before the beginning of the world; and finally fully grown the Incarnation is viewed as the fullness of God in flesh. In the end, the paper will show the truth of the Incarnation, not as a genetic and literal truth, but as something of more value: a mystical and transcendent reality.

Introduction
Before discussing Jesus as the Incarnation of God, two brief arguments should be raised. First, this paper assumes (based on the majority of scholarly work) that the Incarnation was a developed idea. No reason exists to believe that the direct followers of Jesus and the early Christian community understood right away that Jesus was in fact God. Furthermore, many strong arguments claim that Jesus himself did not fully realize his identity as God. The earliest biblical texts suggest that he knew he was sent by God and that possibly he believed himself to be the Messiah, but they do not show that Jesus thought of himself as the Incarnation of God walking the earth and remembering his days in heaven before he came to earth—remembering the time when he created the world and all the people in it. Jesus made a clear distinction between himself and God: the synoptic gospels point to this fact. In Mark 10.18 Jesus asks, “‘Why do you call me good?’ Jesus answered. ‘No one is good-except God alone’” and in Luke’s gospel in chapter 10 Jesus explains ‘“All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.’”1 It is clear that Jesus knew God and even described himself with phrases such as “the Son” of God to show their intimate relationship, but there is no clear reference of himself claiming to be anything more than this.
The Gospel of John is an exception to this: here, there are numerous examples of direct claims that Jesus is in fact God. One such passage, John 8.58, demonstrates this when Jesus claims, "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" Although this is the case, any serious scholarship shows that these passages in John’s gospel are later developments of the early Christian church. This does not mean John’s gospel is incorrect in projecting ideas of divinity onto Christ, but simply that the ideas are too well developed in church theology to have been historically said by Jesus. The Gospel of John, in its entirety, is a later mystical version of the story of Jesus, and as such must be understood as being further along in the development of Incarnation theology. Marcus Borg discusses this point in his dialogue with N. T. Wright on the subject. He explains this by no means diminishes the reality of these statements; instead brings more value to them. “But if we think of these statements not as self-statements of Jesus but as the voice of the community, they become more powerful. If a community says about someone, ‘We have found in this person the light of the world who has shown us the way out of darkness,’...that is very impressive indeed.”2 The Gospel of John should be taken seriously, but it does not fully testify to the yet-to-be-developed beliefs of Jesus and his early followers: the Incarnation is a processed idea. This paper traces the process in four main steps, Jesus as Prophet, Messiah, the Wisdom of God, and God in flesh.
The second argument assumed holds the view of God as an omnipotent and present being. Much discussion on the theology of the Incarnation seems to assume that God looks down on the earth from some other place and only involves himself in certain events as some external being. Marcus Borg calls this kind of belief “supernatural theism.” “This view sees Jesus as the unique incarnation of an absent interventionist God, an unparalleled divine insertion into the natural order.”3 Opposed to this is what Borg calls “pantheism” or “dialectical theism.” This notion holds that God is a being present everywhere in creation. This God continually involves himself in creation, not as some external force, but as a participant in the life of men and women and all creation. Paul says it best when he quotes the Athenian poets, “For in him we live and move and have our being.4” The Incarnation is the embodiment of that God: the spiritual presence that can be found in all creation.

Jesus as Prophet
The earliest and most primitive notions of Jesus saw him as a prophet of God. In the botany analogy presented earlier, the seed of the Incarnation is planted at this step. Before any theology was formed about the function and identity of Jesus, it was obvious that he was a great teacher and prophet of God. The crowds proclaimed this at his triumphant entry into Jerusalem: “When Jesus entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred and asked, "Who is this?" The crowds answered, "This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee."5 In his book, The Christology of the New Testament, Oscar Cullmann argues that the role of the prophet had died by the time of Jesus and had become an idea related to eschatology.6 As John the Baptizer began to teach in the desert, people began to view him as a prophet ushering in the end of the Roman domination of Israel. He preached that one after him was coming that would be still greater than himself. Jesus fulfills this, and people instantaneously see him as a great prophet as he began his public ministry. In a recent publication of collected essays from Southeastern University, Robby Waddell writes on the role of the prophet. He designates four major themes and roles to prophetic persons, Messenger, Minstrel, Madman, and Martyr.7 Every prophet from Israel’s past has fit into these categories and Jesus is no exception. Although Jesus was later understood and recognized as more than a prophet, at the earliest point he was nothing less than a prophet.
Jesus viewed himself as a messenger of God; “Not unlike the OT prophets, Jesus served as an ambassador of the divine message.”8 Indeed, the earliest of Jesus’ teaching demonstrates this: “After John was put into prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. ‘The time has come,’ he said. ‘The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!’”9 All of Jesus’ teachings are summed up in this verse.
The poetic language of Jesus is one of the most striking features of the gospels. Almost everything he says seems to be said with a parable, metaphor, or quotation from Jewish poetic scripture. The prophets were great story tellers. The prophetic story, however, does not mean to entertain, but rather to provoke. In the Old Testament the prophet Nathan tells a story to David about a man who had a number of sheep yet found it necessary to steal the only sheep of a poor household. Only after David became furious and cast his judgement on the character of the story did Nathan reveal to him that the story had been about his affair with Bathsheba.10 Jesus has much the same effect when he tells his parables. People are left perplexed, frustrated, angry, and challenged.
All prophets are “madmen”. They often connect so strongly to the mission of carrying out the messages of God that they use extreme behavior to grab the attention of the people. The prophets were known to strip themselves of their clothes, lay on their side for extreme amounts of time, smash pots, and shave their heads. Jesus also performed extreme acts such as these. In Matthew 21, Jesus enters the temple and sees that it has been turned into a place of buying and selling rather than praise and worship. In a rage he overturns the tables and benches of the market workers and sets up base for a healing station. Just before this event, Jesus rides into Jerusalem not on a horse like any other important figure, but on a humble donkey. One could definitely classify Jesus as one of these “madmen” of prophecy.
The last image Waddell proposes is the Martyr. Almost all the prophets of Israel in the past had been killed. In fact this had become a theme central for Jesus’ criticism of the pharisees and religious leaders of his day. In Matthew 23.29-32 this is demonstrated:
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ So you testify yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!”

Of course it is quite obvious that the same fate was waiting for him when he said this to them, and later they hung him on the cross.
Jesus was a prophet in every sense of the word, and people understood him to be. It seems by reading the synoptics that a quiet rumor was going around that he could quite possibly be more than this, but on a public level people understood Jesus to be a prophet ushering in a new time when the kingdom of God would appear.

Jesus as the Messiah
While in the public world Jesus was known as a prophet, there came a notion that he could be even more than this. It was apparent that he had come from God and preached God’s message, but in the Jewish mind was an idea of a coming messiah that many had been expecting for some time. Many Jews of Jesus’ time projected their views of this coming figure onto Jesus, just as Peter confesses, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”11 This statement and claim had such significant that the title Peter places on Jesus would later become fused with his name: Jesus Christ.
Popular thought holds the Jewish idea of Messiah as a monolithic expectation, one clear and distinguished view. This however, is not the case. Oscar Cullmann writes, “In general it is true that the Jews expected a savior with certain nationalistic and Jewish characteristics. But this common form could hold the most widely varying content.”12 He goes on to speak about these varying ideas of the Messiah. The word Messiah simply means “anointed one” and was first used to describe anyone who had God’s blessing on them to be his representation to the people—especially the kings. The term was applied to prophets and even occasionally a neighboring country as in the case of King Cyrus in Isaiah 45.1. The concept of “the anointed one” was closely linked with God’s promise to David: that his kingdom would never end.13 When the people of Israel were gradually sent into exile, this promise turned into a promise of eschatological hope. Thus, the people of Jesus’ day were eagerly waiting for an earthly figure to come and restore Israel. Although there were many theories of what this figure would look like, he or she would have the same function. The terms Son of God and Son of David were synonymous with this figure, because the person would be God’s representation—the one who would fulfill the promise made to David.
There is some doubt as to whether Jesus understood himself in this way. Anytime someone refers to him as the Christ, he tells them to keep quiet about it. Even at the questioning of the High Priest after his arrest he seems to be hesitant to make such a claim. “Jesus kept silent And the high priest said to Him, ‘I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.’ Jesus said to him, ‘You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see the son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.’"14 Here Jesus simply shows that the high priest said he was the Christ, not himself. Jesus is fond of another, parallel title, Son of Man. The Son of Man tradition is closely related to the
Messiah tradition, but they are not synonymous. Cullmann enters this discussion:
“His [Jesus’] saying about the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of God and coming again on the clouds of heaven is not derived from the concept of the Messiah we have described in the last section. The Son of Man is a heavenly being, not an earthly king who will conquer the enemies of Israel and exercise an earthly sovereignty. The contrast is clear in the form Matthew reports Jesus’ answer.”

Nearly every time that Jesus is referred to as the Christ in the synoptics, he changes the subject to the Son of Man as if he is correcting his hearers. It is quiet clear that many people of his day understood him to be the coming Messiah (a category that would be completely reinvented after his death and resurrection) but it seems that Jesus was partial to the earthly messiah tradition’s parallel, the divine Son of Man. The Son of Man tradition could quite possibly be the perfect link between Jesus’ identity as a human messiah and his identity as the divine Wisdom of God.

Jesus as the Wisdom of God
In Judaism there is a great tradition of spiritual and practical wisdom. A number of Jewish texts are encompassed within this tradition including Proverbs, Job, Ecclesiastes, The Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, and portions of the Prophets and other apocalyptic texts. The specific theme within this tradition that should be highlighted is the female personification of the wisdom of God. We see this beginning in Proverbs 8,
“Does not wisdom call out?
Does not understanding raise her voice?
On the heights along the way, 

where the paths meet, she takes her stand;
beside the gates leading into the city, 

at the entrances, she cries aloud:
"To you, O men, I call out; 

I raise my voice to all mankind.
You who are simple, gain prudence; 

you who are foolish, gain understanding.”15
In Proverbs, the role of Lady Wisdom is to call men and women to abandon their foolish lifestyles and take up her ways, the ways of the wise. The unique thing about her is not her teachings, (many prophets and teachers throughout all the world’s religions and traditions have taught very similar concepts) but her claims of identity. Proverbs 8 sheds light on this.
From verse 22: “The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old,”
From verse 27: “I was there when he set the heavens in place, before the hills, I was given birth,”
From verse 30: “Then I was the craftsman at his side, I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence.”
These passages give the image that a woman was God’s companion during the creation of the world; of course, it is understood that here personification is a tool of poetry. These passages are not claiming that some feminine deity worked along side of God in the beginning; however, their meaning paints a picture of the Wisdom of God present at all times, calling out to the foolish. This image can be seen in a variety of Jewish wisdom texts as Marcus Borg points out in his book, Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time; the most striking of these texts being the Wisdom of Solomon.
“In the Wisdom of Solomon, a book written near the time of Jesus, the divine qualities of Sophia [Lady Wisdom] are most developed. Sophia is the ‘fashioner of all things,’ and the ‘mother’ of all good things. Then, in a remarkable passage, she is spoken of as:
...a spirit that is intelligent, holy, unique, manifold, subtle, mobile, clear, unpolluted, distinct, invulnerable, loving the good, keen, irresistible, beneficent, humane, steadfast, sure, free from anxiety, all-powerful, overseeing all, and penetrating through all spirits....
Those are, of course, all attributes of God. Moreover, like God, she is everywhere present: ‘she pervades and penetrates all things.’ Sophia ‘is a breath of the power of God and a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty’ and ‘a reflection of eternal light.’ Like God, she is omnipotent and the sustaining source of life.”16
Richard Bauckham picks up on this point as well in the book of 1 Enoch: “The picture is of God’s Wisdom seated beside him as his adviser, constantly present to advise him in all the exercise of his rule.”17 A strong tradition of wisdom and her personification was very present at the time of Jesus and after.
At some point after Easter, the early church began to think of Jesus not just as a prophet or a messiah, but as a pre-existing being, side by side with God in the creation story, much like Lady Wisdom herself. This was probably developed because of the wisdom teachings of Jesus. The writings of Paul hint at this with passages such as 1 Corinthians 8:6. The strongest of these passage is Colossians 1.15-17, “He [Christ] is the image of the Invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.” A strong parallel presents itself here between Colossians and the passages within the Wisdom tradition. The author of Hebrews makes the image even stronger, “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.”18 The most important of these passages is in the Johannine tradition.
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it....The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.”19
This passage makes three significant connections. First, the “Word” spoken of here in John’s gospel directly links itself to the Proverbs version of Lady Wisdom. The passage does not quote from the Old Testament directly, but it uses enough of the same language to paint the picture in the early Christian and Jewish mind. Second, this passage specifically links the imagery of the preexistent “Word” (and “Wisdom”) to Jesus. “The Word became flesh.” This statement asserts that Jesus is the embodiment of this wisdom. Thirdly, it bluntly states that “the Word” is God. To sum up this connection, Lady Wisdom (or “the Word”) is a personification of God, and Jesus is an embodiment of Lady Wisdom. In the form of a syllogism, it was easy for the early Christians to make the connection that Jesus was in fact the embodiment of God—the Incarnation—thus in the words of the Nicene Creed, a personae (mask or person) of God.

Jesus as God
In conclusion, the understanding of Jesus’ identity being the same as that of God was a developed process that happened much in the way that a tree grows. This process began when a man from Nazareth 2,000 years ago entered the public eye with his great and challenging teachings. He was thought to be a prophet giving the message of God to the people. As this man, Jesus, continued to teach and speak, it became apparent to the people around him that he was much more than simply a prophet: he was the anointed one of God, the Messiah who had come to save Israel and fulfill the Davidic promise. Jesus himself hinted that his identity was hidden in something much more than this as he called himself the Son of Man. As the early Christian community grew, it recognized Jesus’ teachings and actions to be rooted in the Lady Wisdom traditions from the book of Proverbs and elsewhere, and it wasn’t long before they identified Jesus as the embodiment of this power and wisdom of God. Understanding that Lady Wisdom was an aspect and face of God, it was easy at this point for the early Christians to say that Jesus was the incarnation of the wisdom of God, God himself. Of course it took over 300 years to solidify this idea in the Nicene creed, making Jesus the same as God by developing the notion of the Trinity, but even at an early stage before the Bible had even been compiled, the early Christians worshiped Jesus and recognized him as God here on earth.
It is important to recognize that in this process God did not leave heaven and turn himself into a human to walk on the earth for 30 or more years before then going back to heaven where he had always been. Rather, the wisdom of God came down and was made manifest in the person of Jesus. Jesus is the perfect example of what God looks like because he was able to open himself to the will of God in a way that no other human being had ever done. He was the full embodiment of the wisdom of God, and with that, he was the full embodiment of God himself. The scriptures and this development do not indicate that Jesus was in some way physically and genetically different than any other human being. They also do not indicate that Jesus identified himself to be God, as if he remembered when he created the world. N. T. Wright says about this, “I do not think Jesus ‘knew he was God’ in the same sense that one knows one is tired or happy, male or female. He did not sit back and say to himself, ‘Well I never! I’m the second person of the Trinity!’” But rather Jesus, in his openness to God became a mystical reality of the Divine Presence. The Incarnation, then, is not a physical, genetic and literal fact, but rather a mystical reality that in the person, Jesus, the Wisdom and fullness of God became manifest.















Bibliography
Barker, Gregory A.. Jesus in the World’s Faiths. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2005.
Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the God of Israel. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008.
Borg, Marcus J.. Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a Religious
Revolutionary. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2006.
Borg, Marcus J. Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1994.
Borg, Marcus J. and N. T. Wright. The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1999.
Crossan, John Dominic. The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately After the Execution of Jesus. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1998.
Cullmann, Oscar. The Christology of the New Testament. London: SCM Press LTD, 1959.
Cupit, Don. The Debate About Christ. London: SCM Press LTD, 1979.
Erickson, Millard J.. Introducing Christian Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2001.
Goulder, Michael. Incarnation and Myth: The Debate Continued. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1979.
Harris, Murray J.. Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992.
Meeks, Wayne A. Christ is the Question. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006.
Moltmann, Jürgen. The Crucified God: The Cross of Christ as the Foundation of Criticism of Christian Theology. London: SCM Press LTD, 1974.
Jenson, Robert W.. Systematic Theology: The Triune God vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Kung, Hans. Does God Exist?: An Answer for Today. SOMEWHERE: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1981.
Ratzinger, Joseph (Pope Benedict XVI). Jesus of Nazareth. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2007.
Spong, John Shelby. Jesus for the Non-Religious. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2007.
Torrance, Thomas F.. Incarnation: The Person and Life of Christ. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2008.
Waddell, Robby. “Prophecy Then and Now: The Role of Prophecy in the Pentecostal Church.” in Transformational Leadership, ed. Peter Althouse, 229-243. Lakeland, FL: Small Dogma Publishing, 2008.
Wright, N. T.. The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999.