parashat vayetze God's Embodiment
Click to Download Audio MP3 File.
The weekly Torah portion read in synagogues around the world this week is parashat vayetze. Parashat vayetze runs from Genesis chapter 28 verse 10 to chapter 32 verse 2. We’ll read just the first seven verses of parashat vayetze. Genesis 28:10-17.
“And Jacob departed from Beer Sheva and went toward Charan. He encountered the Place, and slept there, for the sun had set. He took from the stones of the place and set it at his head and he lied down in that place. He dreamed. Behold, a stairway set up on earth, its head reaching toward heaven. And behold, the angels of God ascending and descending on it. And behold, HaShem positioned over him. He said, ‘I am HaShem, God of Avraham your father, and God of Yitzchaq your father. The land where you lie, to you I will give it and to your seed. And your seed shall be like the dust of the land, and you shall break out seaward and eastward, northward and southward. And in you shall be blessed all the families of the ground and in your seed. Now behold, I am with you and I will guard you wherever you walk. And I shall bring you back to this ground, for I shall not abandon you until should I not perform what I have spoken to you.’ Jacob awoke from his sleep and exclaimed, ‘Surely there is HaShem in this place and I didn’t know!’ He was awestruck and exclaimed, ‘How awesome is this place! This is none other than the house of God and this is the gate of heaven!’”
Father Jacob awoke from his dream startled. As the text says, “He was awestruck.” Unwittingly he had lied down and gone to sleep right smack in God’s house. Now Father Jacob knew that he could never truly flee his Creator’s presence or escape his concern, but still he was a little still surprised to wake up in God’s house. As the Psalmist (139:7-12) put it,
“To where shall I go from your spirit? Or to where shall I flee from your face? Should I ascend to heaven, there you are. Should I spread my bed in the underworld, there you are. Should I lift off on the wings of the morning, should I dwell at the end of the sea, there also your hand shall lead me, and your right hand grab me. Should I say, ‘Surely darkness will catch me at twilight, but night is light for me.’ Darkness also doesn’t darken from you, and night shines as day. Like nightfall, like daybreak.”
Father Jacob knew theoretically he was never beyond God’s presence, but in his dream the realization of God’s presence was overpowering. Jacob had a new vision of God’s involvement in the world. Jacob saw God where he hadn’t been looking. Have you ever had that experience, to suddenly discover God in the last place you were looking for him?
All of us assembled here acknowledge that God is present in certain familiar, well-defined situations, but parashat vayetze challenges us to discover God where we haven’t been looking. I’d like to do that with you this evening. The Hebrew Bible challenges us with the audacious concept that the Creator of heaven and earth, the King of the universe himself, actually participates in Israel’s experience. Isaiah 63:8,9.
“He said, yet they are my people, children who will not be false. And he became to them a Savior. In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them. In his love and his pity he redeemed them, and took them up and carried them all the days of old.”
Another reference that indicates God participates in Israel’s affliction would be Psalm 91:15.
“For to me he was attached, and I will rescue him. I will set him on high for he has known my name. He will call me and I will answer him, I am with him in affliction, I will deliver him and honor him.”
In the language of the Bible, God’s name basically refers to his availability within his creation. In particular, to know God’s name means to recognize the mutual obligations between God and Israel. Worshipers in Israel have confidence in God, because he has committed himself to them and revealed his name to them. What the Psalmist is saying is that because Israel enjoys an ongoing relationship with God, God is a true partner. What affects Israel affects God. God is with Israel in affliction.
Our Torah employs covenant terminology to refer to God’s relationship with Israel even before the covenant is formally ratified at Sinai. This is because our Torah considers God’s covenant with the patriarchs already his covenant with Israel. After all, the last of the patriarchs is named Israel, just as Jacob’s descendants are all named Israel.
In the language of the Bible the verb “to know” means to have sexual relations, or to have formal political relations, or to acknowledge contractual relations. In covenant terminology “to know” means to do your duty toward your partner. Exodus 3:7 equates HaShem knowing Israel with HaShem knowing Israel’s pains.
“Surely I have seen the humiliation of my people who are in Egypt, and their cry I have heard before his taskmasters, for I have known his pains. I will come down to deliver him from the hand of Egypt and to bring him up from that land to a good and broad land, to a land dripping milk and honey, to the place of the Canaani, the Chiti, the Amori, the Prizi, the Chivi, and the Yvusi.”
This is the quality of relationship between God and Israel even before their covenant is formally ratified at Sinai. God is already Israel’s full partner and shares everything.
In the Final Portion of Scripture we discover that just as God participates in Israel’s suffering, God also participates in Mashiach’s suffering. 2Corinthians 5:19.
“That God was in Mashiach reconciling the world to himself and placing in us the word of reconciliation.”
God being in Mashiach means that God was in perfect sympathy with Mashiach. What Mashiach felt, God felt. When Mashiach rejoiced, God rejoiced. When Mashiach hurt, God hurt. When Mashiach struggled with misunderstanding, God struggled with misunderstanding. When Mashiach felt abandoned by his Father, his Father felt his abandonment. God was in Mashiach.
God identifies with Mashiach for two principal reasons.
One is the incarnation. At the incarnation God tabernacled among us in Mashiach. God empathizes with Mashiach because Mashiach embodies himself.
The other reason God identifies with Mashiach is Israel. Israel is God’s firstborn son and Mashiach is also God’s firstborn son. God loves his firstborn son. God empathizes with Mashiach, because Mashiach embodies Israel.
To summarize, the first stage of redemption is that God honors his covenant with the patriarchs by participating in Israel’s suffering. The second stage is that God takes Israel’s suffering completely on himself in Mashiach. The third stage is that God calls on all those who receive Mashiach to participate in his suffering.
In other words, to fix his broken world, the hurt starts off as Israel’s, next God voluntarily takes it upon himself and so it becomes his, he then turns around and asks his other children to share with him something that was once only between him and Israel. Let’s look at some biblical references.
The Apostle Paul in 2Corinthians 1:5-7.
“For as the sufferings of Mashiach overflow to us, so through the Mashiach our consolation overflows to you. If we are afflicted, it is in the interests of your consolation and salvation. If we are consoled, it is in the interest of your consolation when you steadfastly undergo the same sufferings which we suffer. And our hope for you is sure, knowing that as you share sufferings, so also consolation.”
Another biblical reference. Philippians 1:29-30.
“For to you it has been granted on behalf of Mashiach, not only that you should believe in him, but that you should also suffer on his behalf. Having the same struggle which you saw in me and now hear of me.”
Another biblical reference. Romans 8:16-17.
“The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, also heirs — God’s heirs and joint heirs with Mashiach, if indeed we suffer with [him], that we might also be glorified with [him].”
Another biblical reference. Colossians 1:27,
“Now I rejoice in sufferings on your behalf, I also fill up in my flesh what is lacking in Mashiach’s afflictions on behalf of his body, which is the congregation.”
Christians have been uneasy with the concept of participating in Mashiach’s suffering, because Christians have mostly thought of Mashiach’s sufferings in terms of unique substitutionary atonement for sin. If others participate, substitutionary atonement can’t be unique. For this reason, Christians haven’t much pursued biblical participation.
But if we think of Mashiach’s sufferings in other terms in addition to substitutionary atonement, there’s no obstacle to accepting what the Bible teaches about participation. One possibility that springs to mind is Mashiach’s birth-pangs, which bring the world’s redemption. In Jewish thinking, for the new world to be born, Mashiach must go into labor. Birth-pangs aren’t atonement for sins, but nevertheless birth-pangs are painful. Perhaps it is the lack of these particular sufferings that the Apostle Paul fills up in his flesh.
Christian teaching has gone out of its way to say that God doesn’t share Israel’s sufferings, but this has been due to evangelistic considerations. During the early development of Christianity core teachings were redefined by missionaries in order to made sense within the dominant Greco-Roman culture. Sometimes the missionaries made so many concessions to dominant culture they threw out the baby with the bathwater.
Within Greco-Roman culture it was inconceivable that God could be subject to suffering. The philosophers defined gods as being omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, immutable and immune from emotion. According to the Greek philosophers, the quality that distinguished the gods from humans was their “impassibility,” that is, gods cannot be acted upon. Even though the Bible represents the true God as being capable of joy and regret, love and jealousy, anger and appeasement, the missionaries conceded to sophisticated idol-worshipers that these emotions were only a figure of speech. This happened early on in the history of Christian mission. Ignatius already writes in 125 C.E. that God is impassible. Change implies deviation from perfection. A perfect God has no reason to change. If God actually underwent changes in emotion he’d be less than perfect, and if he were less than perfect, then he’d be less than God. You get the idea.
Ancient Christians had a label for the contrary idea. The label for the idea that God participates in Israel to the extent that he’s capable of emotion is patripassionism. In Greek patripassionism means the Father suffers. Patripassionism takes the Bible literally as I do, and as I imagine many of you do.
Patripassionism was considered crass heresy by all orthodox and by nearly all heterodox teachers. Ancient Christians agreed that not only is it impossible for God the Father to suffer, but also that it’s impossible for God the Son to suffer. What orthodox and heterodox Christians disagreed over was where to decouple God the Son from Jesus the Jew.
In the opinion of the Arians, Jesus’ death on the cross is the most important event in salvation history and should be protected at all cost. The Arians decoupled God the Father from Jesus prior to the cross at the incarnation. According to the Arians, God the Son did not share the hypostasis [the identity] of God the Father. The hypostasis of God the Son was of lower rank. This solution salvages the cross, but it reduces the incarnation to the action of a second-string God.
The orthodox disagreed with the Arians over where to make the disconnection. In the opinion of the orthodox, the incarnation is the most important event in salvation history and should be protected at all cost. The orthodox decoupled God from Jesus at the cross. This solution protects the incarnation, but it forfeits the cross.
According to the orthodox, during the critical hours Jesus the Jew agonized on the cross, God the Son sat it out on the bench. At the most critical moment in salvation history God was nowhere around. God the Father and God the Son were both spectators off on the sideline. According to classic Christian theology, God wasn’t personally involved at the cross. Although he was keenly interested in the outcome, he wasn’t a participant. God the Son had taken the day off!
This is not what I believe, and this is probably not what you believe. It’s not really what the church fathers in their heart of hearts wished to say either. The whole exercise of identifying God philosophically was an effort to satisfy the pagan world. According to classic Christian teaching, God wasn’t really “in Mashiach reconciling the world to himself” (2Corinthians 5:19). At the most critical moment in world history God had disengaged. Orthodox and heterodox Christians had their little disagreement over the timing, but virtually all Christians agreed that God the Son detached from Jesus, because God can’t possibly participate in suffering.
The creed of Nicaea/Constantinople identifies the Son as “God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father.” I have no disagreement with that formula. The Bible however, identifies God’s son as God’s covenant partner, as God’s utterly faithful servant, as God’s obedient Israel. The winning formula of Nicaea/Constantinople circumvents the history of the covenant, the story of God’s supreme commitment to his lost world by his interaction with his beloved son Israel and Jesus the Jew. The winning formula skips God’s engagement within human history. Standard Christian doctrine misrepresents salvation as escape from God’s history with Israel. Yet in the Bible all talk of God is based on narrative identification. (The only passage of the Bible which seems to inform the standard formula is John chapter 1 and possibly Philippians chapter 2.) Classic Christian doctrine is guilty of decontextualizing, de-historicizing, and de-Judaizing God’s beloved son. The metaphysical construct identified by classic Christian doctrine is not God’s son as we meet him in the Bible.
But it is possible to describe Jesus’ relationship to God in such a way that we fully honor both the incarnation and the cross. In the decades following Nicaea, Athanasius and his followers Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory Nazianzus actually worked out such a method of trinitarian discourse that clearly identifies HaShem, the God who is known by his dealings with Israel, as the One who died and rose again and lives forevermore. But these teachers lived in the Eastern Roman Empire, so they’re not part of our Western tradition. Since their solution isn’t within the stream of Roman Catholic tradition, we Protestants don’t get in on it. We’ll talk about the solution of the Cappadocian fathers at some other opportunity.
The problem with the ancient church’s definition of God is that it denies his emotion and participation in suffering. But God’s participation in Israel’s suffering and in Mashiach’s suffering is crucial for the plan of salvation. Any definition of God that prevents us from seeing such a crucial aspect of the plan of salvation is defective.
In the ancient church when Christians remained faithful to the end and were thrown to the lions, Christians called it martyrdom. When Jews remained faithful to the end and were thrown to the lions, Christians called it punishment, and richly deserved. In Christian thinking God couldn’t possibly treasure the continued faithfulness of his sons and daughters anymore, because Israel wasn’t buying the Christian definition of God. A good example of ancient Christian thinking on the topic is from the sermons of Chrysostrom. Chrysostrom [Chry. Or. C. Jud. IV, 3 (PG 48,874)] stressed that the sufferings of Christian martyrs have nothing in common with the sufferings of thieves, grave robbers, sorcerers, and Jews. Christians were sure that when Israel suffered God had no part in it. Just as Christians thought Mashiach had suffered alone on the cross, Christians were also sure Israel suffered all alone. Classic Christian doctrine taught God had temporarily disconnected from Mashiach and permanently disconnected from Israel.
But Jesus’ suffering and Israel’s suffering are connected. For the most part, Israel has historically been persecuted for supposedly killing Jesus. In Jewish eyes the cross came to stand, not for the murder of the one solitary Jew, but for the murder of many other Jews. When Christian mobs rampaged through the local ghetto, they were reenacting the events of the gospel story — with the Gentiles still the perpetrator and the Jews still the victim.
Israel’s “No” to Jesus meant a mysterious participation with him. Israel’s “No” to Jesus meant joining Jesus’ obedience unto death. Paradoxically, Israel’s “No” to Christianity meant “Yes” to God. To their last breath Israel and Jesus were obedient to the same heavenly Father.
In Romans 8:32 the Apostle Paul says God did not spare his own son, but delivered him over. In Romans 11:21 he says God does not spare the natural branches of the Israel olive tree. Jesus easily could have spared himself. But instead, he chose his Father’s will regardless of the consequences. With trembling hand he took the cup. In most instances, the Jewish martyrs also could have spared themselves and their loved ones by the easy expedient of conversion to Christianity. But instead, they chose their heavenly Father’s will regardless of the consequences.
The Epistle to the Hebrews (5:8) teaches us that sons are proven by learning obedience through the things they suffer. If this is the case, Jesus and Israel proved to be the truest sons and daughters God has ever had.
The disconnect in classic Christian teaching between God the Son and Jesus the suffering Jew is what allowed Christians to persecute his Jewish brothers and sisters with impunity. Classic Christianity deliberately disconnected God the Son from Israel. The entire missionary enterprise of defining God’s son philosophically, rather than biblically, was a blatant political ploy to disconnect the God of Israel from Israel. The consequences of classic definition of God the Son has proven to be morally unacceptable. The practical consequences have proven this doctrine to be false.
For the Apostle Paul the fellowship of Mashiach’s suffering was more precious than life itself. He writes in Philippians 3:10-11,
“To know him and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings, being conformed to his death, if somehow I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.”
Like the Apostle Paul, for Israel serving God was sweeter than life itself. Israel was conformed to Mashiach in death. And the wonder of redeeming love, which Orthodox and heteodox Christians alike condemned, is that God was personally involved. God was a participant. “God was in Mashiach reconciling the world to himself and placing in us the word of reconciliation.” We can also affirm that God was in Israel “reconciling the world to himself.”
Perhaps Israel’s suffering like Mashiach’s own, have been “on behalf of his body, which is the congregation.” Perhaps Israel’s sufferings have actually been on behalf of the Gentile church. Perhaps Israel’s afflictions, like the Apostle Paul’s afflictions, are what mysteriously fill up what is lacking in Mashiach’s afflictions. Colossians 1:27.
“Now I rejoice in sufferings on your behalf, I also fill up in my flesh what is lacking in Mashiach’s afflictions on behalf of his body, which is the congregation.”
Be that as it may, Jesus’ death and Israel’s death are undeniably connected. This connection has been hidden from Christian eyes by false teaching. Nonetheless, the connection is real.
Just as Jesus’ and Israel’s death are connected, Jesus’ and Israel’s ongoing life are also connected. Let’s talk about the resurrection. When Jesus arose from the dead, he didn’t outgrow the Jewish flesh that God’s word became at the incarnation. On the throne of the universe today sits a circumcised Jew! Jesus still has the body to prove he’s Jewish. After his resurrection he could still invite people to examine his distinctive scars. In the same way that Jesus didn’t lose the scars on his arms and on his side, he didn’t lose his circumcision either. Even though since the resurrection Jesus has his new body, his foreskin didn’t grow back. Jesus still bears the sign of God’s covenant with Israel.
Many Seventh-day Adventist Christians believe Jesus used to be a commandment-keeper, but that subsequent to his resurrection God’s commandments are no longer relevant for him. They believe Jesus no longer keeps the seventh-day holy. They believe Jesus no longer joins his people Israel twice a day in declaring God’s uniqueness. They believe Jesus no longer loves his neighbor as himself. They believe Jesus no longer participates in covenant obedience. They believe the incarnation is dormant; that Jesus now acts purely as God. They believe God the Son’s humanity belongs only to the distant past. I don’t buy it.
If Jesus’ humanity no longer functions, then God the Son is redundant. God the Father can certainly do all the God stuff without any help. I believe rather, that God’s participation in Israel is an on-going affair. The incarnation is a permanent commitment. Jesus’ permanent circumcision is the sign that God has permanently joined Israel. This is the hidden glory of the incarnation, which Christians have been loath to admit.
But Jesus’ post-resurrection body is not only individual. Jesus’ post-resurrection body is also corporate. The Apostle Paul taught that although Jesus has ascended to heaven, Jesus is still present on earth through his body. God is still present, God still reaches out, God still serves, God is still available to his lost world through his body of called people.
But Jesus’ body on earth cannot be comprised solely of non-Jews as the church has been for almost its entire history. A Jew sitting in heaven can’t be properly represented by a non-Jewish body on earth, any more than a zebra can be represented by a pony with a paint job. It’s not authentic.
Being Jewish has never been a one-man-show, not even for the best Jew of all time. Being Jewish requires other Jews, because Jewishness cannot be practiced in isolation. Being Jewish requires active participation in Israel. This is because many of God’s commandments are corporate and their implementation requires collective decision-making. The Jew on the throne of the universe requires the community of other commandment-keeping Jews! The Jew on the throne of the universe requires a synagogue connection!
The fact that the other Jews don’t acknowledge his identity is immaterial in this regard. Jesus acknowledges their identity and Jesus identifies with them. Jesus is united both with those of “every Gentile, tribe, tongue and people” who confess him, and with God’s faithful Israel, who does not confess him. I firmly believe that. If Jesus’ body on earth doesn’t also include practicing Jews, then it’s not his body. If the body’s not Jewish, it’s not Jesus. Simple as that. I may add, if your Jesus isn’t a commandment-keeping Jew, then you’re worshipping a false Messiah.
Jesus life and Israel’s ongoing life are connected. This connection has been hidden by false teaching, but the connection is real nonetheless. Through his hidden participation in Israel, God has been present in his world throughout history. Both in his death and in his resurrection life, Jesus the Jew is united with non-Messianic Israel as well as with Messianic Israel and the Gentile church.
Like Father Jacob in parashat wayetze, we wake up from our dream and discover God has been present where we least expected him. We can all exclaim with Father Jacob, “Surely there is HaShem in this place and I didn’t know!” The last place most Christians would think to look for Jesus turns out to be non-Messianic Israel! But Jesus is there too. The reason we “didn’t know” is that we lacked the insight to discern God precisely in failure and weakness, in suffering and shame. If you don’t see God in non-Messianic Israel, it’s because you haven’t seen the cross.
In the Bible whenever God opens the eyes of the blind, they always remember to praise him. In the Bible God’s wondrous works aren’t considered complete until his children chime in and give their consent. You see, praise is what makes God’s action official. If your eyes have been opened, do the biblical thing. Make what God has done official! Let’s hear some praise!
