NEW: Please subscribe to my Substack/newsletter at the bottom of the page. Thanks!
My Methodology |
Approx. reading time: 13 minutes |
|
|
Something that I should have done about 20 years ago is to have documented my methodology for the creation of a Messianic Systematic Theology. That is to say, how have I decided to go about establishing my theology, what are my presuppositions, how am I to go about the task of creating a functional and useful theology for the modern Messianic Community?
I just obtained and am currently reading a new (for me) book on New Testament theology and came across this discusssion:
The study of theology since the enlightenment has been divided into various sub-categories, such as systematic theology, philosophical theology, natural theology, historical theology, spiritual theology, moral theology, applied theology, feminist theology, liberation theology, ecumenical theology, black theology and biblical theology — and many more can be added. New Testament theology, like its counterpart, Old Testament theology, has traditionally been understood as a sub-category of biblical theology. While all the above wear the same “theology” label, the differences with regard to methods, presuppositions, foci, and limitations are vast. To simplify the matter, most contemporary mainstream theologians would still argue that theology proper is best represented by systematic theology or as it is sometimes called “dogmatics.” It is the umbrella category under which all the others can be placed. The term “systematic” should not be pushed to its end so as to denote a rigid structure, but simply indicates that the program of theology is to bring coherence and clarity to all its constituent parts together with all human knowledge derived from all the other disciplines.
— Thomas R. Hatina,
New Testament
Theology
and Its
Quest for
Relevance, 7–8.
When reading the above statement I was struck with the thought: How is it possible to establish a valid New Testament theology without a thorough understanding and inclusion of Old Testament theology? An Old Testament theology could certainly be possible if one wanted to know what the Jewish people had revealed to them by about 400 BCE, which is the assumed date by which the latest books of Esther, Malachi, and Nehemiah had been written. However, the outstanding problem that I see with a Christian Old Testament theology is that it would of necessity be developed with a western mindset, which is significantly different from the eastern mindset of both the original Jewish writers and recipients. (See the discussion of “mindset” below.)
But since the Apostolic Writings (the so-called “New Testament”) — when rightly understood — either stand or fall based upon their relationship to the Hebrew Scriptures, clearly the development of a stand-alone New Testament theology would be possible only within the overall framework of Replacement Theology! The Apostolic Writings were penned in the Jewish language[2] by Torah-observant, ethnically Jewish rabbis, in a Jewish place and in a Jewish culture, to a predominantly Jewish audience, about the teachings of a Jewish Messiah, for the express purpose of explaining how to properly understand and walk out the Jewish Scriptures, the Tanakh.[6] They simply cannot possibly be correctly understood divorced from their context within the Tanakh. Any theology based upon the Apostolic Writings alone apart from their historical and societal context would be possible only if one takes the tragically erroneous position that the New Testament cancels and supersedes the Old Testament and that the Gentile Church cancels and supersedes Israel in God’s plan for humanity.
It is my sincere hope that my Messianic Systematic Theology will encompass the theology of both the Tanakh and the Apostolic Writings and thus serve as a valid overall Biblical Theology, hopefully assembled with an eastern, or Hebrew, mindset.
Assumptions
We[1] must begin by laying down a few concepts that I assume are “givens,” in that I accept them as inherently true, not needing to establish or even discuss their validity. I would assume that my own methodology is unique to me; any other theologian would have developed his/her own personal methodology. Though many of these assumptions are discussed and “proven” in their own sections of my systematic theology, they are listed here as the “givens” upon which I rest my personal interpretive method and thus my theology.
• Since our theology (for this exercise) is to be a biblical theology, we must from the very start decide what is to be considered “the Bible” and our theology must be influenced only by what we find in “the Bible” and not by any other textual sources or commentaries. Since what we commonly consider “the Bible” consists of those writings identified as “the Protestant canon,” our efforts will be confined to that collection of 66 documents.
• It should go without saying that the theology of the first-century Messianic Jewish community, the early Yeshua-followers, was undoubtedly influenced (informed) by the unwritten halachic traditions (see Gal. 1:14 and 2Thess. 2:15, for instance) in addition to other written traditions, notably the Didache (1st century CE), by genuine Apostolic letters that have become lost to us, and by other ancient documents that were not selected for inclusion in our current canon. But those influences are beyond the scope of the initial effort to construct a strictly biblical theology. They will be addressed later.[3]
• It is also certainly true that from the second century onward the theology of what has become “Gentile Christianity” was significantly influenced by the writings of the “Church Fathers” and the decisions of the various church councils. The so-called gnostic gospels (2nd-4th century CE) also had an influence on the theology of early Gentile Christianity. However, since those influences were outside “the Bible” as we have defined it, while the theologies of those influences may certainly have been considered valid for their purposes, they would not have been true biblical theologies (that is, a theology based solely on “the Bible”) and so have been excluded from our consideration.
• I except as a “given” that “the Bible” (as defined) should be considered a compound unity consisting of the Hebrew Tanakh (Torah, the writings of Moses; Nevi'im, the Prophets; and Kituvim, the Writings) plus the Apostolic Writings, which I personally think should be considered a later extension of the Kituvim (but clearly I do not always get my way about such things). I believe that dividing the Bible into “Old” and “New Testaments” leads to grave theological and doctrinal error.
• Ruach HaKodesh (the Holy Spirit) is capable of impressing upon the original recorders of the Sacred Text — in the original autographs — the exact words He wished for them to convey. And I believe that He did so. The task of the theologian, therefore, is to determine, to the very best of one’s ability and with the assistance of and reliance upon the indwelling Ruach HaKodesh, how those words in their textual, grammatical, historical, and societal context would have been understood by the intended original audience of those writings. (See “Inspiration and Authority of Scripture.”)
• That being true, the original intent of Ruach HaKodesh can be discovered only when the theologian attempts to understand the text within its original textual, grammatical, historical, and societal context.
• Since we have decided that “divine inspiration” is limited to the original autographs, we must decide (for our theology) in what language those original autographs were penned. I believe (and take as a “given”) that the entire Tanakh (the Hebrew Scriptures) was penned in Hebrew, with a few small sections written from Babylon which were penned in Aramaic. I further believe that with the possible exception of the two letters attributed to Dr. Luke (which from their excellent command of the Greek language we may assume he originally penned in Greek), all the remaining Apostolic Writings (so-called “New Testament” documents) were originally penned in Hebrew[7] and then immediately translated or re-written into Greek for transmission to the Greek-speaking Messianic Believers in the Diaspora.[4] We should thus seek to discover the intent of the Hebrew text upon which the Greek translation was based. To this end, we may well use the Septuagint as a guide to the Hebrew that lies behind the Greek vocabulary of the extant Apostolic letters.
The Mindset of a Messianic Systematic Theology
After trying for many years to develop a working Messianic Jewish Systematic Theology within the traditional framework in which I was trained, I have finally discovered that it is quite impractical to do so, for a very obvious reason that has only recently occurred to me. Christian theology is based on a totally Western (“Greek”) way of looking at the universe. In order to be true to its Biblical origin, a working Messianic theology must be based on an Eastern (“Hebrew”) way of looking at ha'olam (the approximate Hebrew equivalent of “universe”).
In the Hillsdale College online course, “An Introduction to C.S. Lewis: Writings and Significance,” Dr. David M. Whalen, in his lecture on “Lewis’s Fiction: Narnia and the Storied Moral World,” provides an excellent illustration of the difference between the functioning of these two mindsets:
To the Western mind, a “good mind” is proficient in distinguishing between things, taking things apart, analysis, dissection, atomization. Analysis and the separation of things is what constitutes knowledge.
To the Eastern mind, a “good mind” is one that pulls things together in synthesis, composition, integration. Understanding the whole is what constitutes knowledge.
Thus, in order for us to develop an effective Messianic Jewish Systematic theology, we must learn to develop that Eastern mindset and worldview and to “understand the whole.” Another way of stating this is that an effective Messianic Jewish Systematic theology must be “holistic.”
Additionally, one of the major tenets of classic Christian theology is that “Israel” and “the Church” are two eternally separate entities. There is therefore no suitable division of traditional Christian theology in which to deal with the fact that “the called-out” Holy Community actually consists of all — both “Jew” and “non-Jew” — who have ever come into a covenant relationship with the Most High.
So far, I have produced a number of articles in an attempt to develop a comprehensive and systematic Messianic theology. I do not realistically expect this task to be completed by either myself or anyone else before Messiah returns in glory to then teach us His (the only true) theology. Nor do I expect such a systematic theology to ever be universally accepted within Messianic Judaism. So it would seem that any attempt that I, or anybody else, might make will be only the codification of our own personal theologies.
David Stern, the translator of the Complete Jewish Bible, suggests an excellent outline for a Messianic systematic theology:[5] I am working on reorganizing the Theology section of this website to address all of the concerns he raises.
Anyone who reads my theology and compares it to that of other Messianic Jewish theologians will notice that I generally differ from most of them in that I affirm the Protestant concept of sola scriptura, or Scripture alone. I do not believe that Moses received a second Torah that he did not write down because Exodus 24:4, written by the hand of Moses himself, clearly states that “Moses wrote down all the words of ADONAI.”[GN] Nor do I accept the takanot and minhagim, the “tradition of the elders” as authorotative because the Torah says, “In order to obey the mitzvot of ADONAI your God which I am giving you, do not add to what I am saying, and do not subtract from it.” (Deut 4:2) [See a discussion here.] Therefore, in that regard I agree with the Karaites and do not hold the Mishna, Talmud, and latter Rabbinic works as any more authoritative than any other competent commentary written by men. (Please feel free to disagree; it simply is not a salvation issue.) Whenever I have cited any Rabbinic works, I have done so only when those works are in agreement with the written Scriptures and only for the purpose of pointing out that earlier Jewish writers have reached an understanding similar to (or different from) mine.
I have departed from my usual sola Scriptura position in my treatment of spirit beings, since the ancient Hebrew understanding of these beings was not written into the Scriptures, either the Tanakh or the Apostolic Writings. I believe it was simply assumed that the readers would have shared the same worldview as the writers; that worldview embraced the literal existence of numerous “species” of spirit beings. This worldview is evidenced by Daniel’s multiple reference to “watchers” (Dan. 4:13, 17, 23). Additionally, both Peter and Jude refer to the “angels that sinned" and “kept not their first estate” that are kept in chains in the underworld until their final judgment (2Peter 2:4, Jude 1:6). This is in direct reference to the apocryphal book of Enoch which — although considered canonical only by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and the Eritrean Orthodox Church — was never considered inspired scripture by first-century Jews, but was clearly being widely read by them, and defined a worldview which is vastly different than our “enlightened” and “scientific” Western worldview.
a. Prefatory remarks; specifically, a formal essay or critical discussion serving to introduce and interpret an extended work. Prolegomenon is the singular and "prolegomena" is the plural of this scholarly word, though people sometimes mistakenly interpret "prolegomena" as the singular. The word, which comes from the Greek verb prolegein ("to say beforehand"), first appeared in print around 1652. It has appeared in the titles of noteworthy scholarly and philosophical works, but it has never been as common in general use as its older cousin "prologue." "Prologue" usually refers to an introduction to a literary work or to a speech addressed to the audience at the beginning of a play. "Prolegomenon" is most often used of the introduction to a work of scholarly analysis. Both words can also be used in a broader sense to refer generally to something that serves as an introduction. (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary) [BACK]
1. My use of plural pronouns is not intended as “the royal we.” I am assuming here, as throughout the entire site, that you and I are sitting somewhere having an informal chat about all of this. So I say “we” as we lean our heads towards each other to more carefully examine the text in front of us, the focus of our attention. [BACK]
2. See “Was the “New Testament” Written in Hebrew or Greek?” [BACK]
3. The followers of Yeshua were predominantly Jewish well into the second century. While some separation between Messianic and non-Messianic Judaism was beginning to occur as early as 90 CE, the main body of Messianic Believers did not separate themselves from mainstream Judaism until the Bar Kochba Rebellion (132-136 CE), and did not entirely separate from Judaism until the Council of Nicaea (325 CE), which marks the true “official” birth of “the Church.” While it is almost certain that a few pockets of Messianic Judaism survived into the 4th and 5th centuries, we have no record of them and have no idea how they may have been influenced by either version of the Talmud. [BACK]
4. I believe that someday it will be proven that the original Hebrew autographs of the Apostolic Writings were deliberately destroyed by the early gentile Church as being “too Jewish.” The possibility that they may have been destroyed by Jewish authorities as belonging to the the Minim, a reference to the Messianic Israelite “heretics,” is discussed beginning here. [BACK]
5. David H. Stern. Messianic Jewish Manifesto. Clarksville, MD: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1988, pp. 193-195. [BACK]
6. In fact, I believe that the entire body of Apostolic Writings can best be understood as Spirit-inspired commentary on the Tanakh. [BACK]
7. It is indeed unfortunate that the original versions of the Apostolic Writings have been lost to us, because there are so many Hebraisms that simply do not translete well into Greek. However, the Jewish people in Israel during the first century, according to the historian Flavius Josephus, ferociously clung to their own language, which was Hebrew, not Greek. A powerful argument may be made that the common language of the Jewish people was Aramaic. However, John 19:20, describing the sign stating charges for which Pilate had ordered Yeshua to be crucified was written in Ἑβραϊστί (Hebraisti), Ῥωμαϊστί (Rhōmaisti), and Ἑλληνιστί (Hellēnisti). Josephus writes, “Our people do not readily learn the Greek language, and I myself have taken great pains to acquire the pronunciation of Greek; for those who learn it must labor hard.” (Antiquities 20.263) He also writes, “We take pride in our own language, and we do not readily adopt the customs of others.” (Against Apion 1.50–51) [BACK]
|
 |
Subscribe to my Substack/newsletter |
ANXIOUSLY WATCHING FOR MASHIACH’S RETURN,
SPEEDILY AND IN OUR DAY. MARANA, TA!
