An Orthodox-Messianic Jewish Polemic:Jewish Monotheism Or Avodah Zera
What if I told you that the expectation of a divine Messiah was a Jewish and not a Christian phenomenon? Would you be interested in hearing more about this historical understanding? First, as a fellow Jew raised in a non-religious Jewish home, I too understood Judaism and Christianity as two separate, mutually exclusive religions with different Doctrines of G-d. As Jews, a normative understanding of affirming the Shema implies that HaShem is one, an absolute unity, captured in the Yigdal tefilla, according to authoritative Jewish thinkers such as Maimonides, excluding all other Divine manifestations from the Doctrine of G-d. The problem with this absolute oneness perspective is that it fundamentally rejects Logos theology and fails to account for Jewish attempts to grapple with the paradox of divine infinity and finitude. For instance, earlier Hekhalot mysticism (Shiur Komah) and the Kabbalists – Ein Sof and the Ten Sefirot together form the structure Adam Kadmon, the highly symbolic non-corporeal heavenly human; in the Kabbalistic view, the one who is the theme of Shiur Kumah. In other words, the standard view of Jewish monotheism does not reflect the broader view of Jewish mystical thought. Eventually, I wondered whether the meaning of the Shema and monotheism for Moshe and the ancient Israelites meant exclusive loyalty to HaShem instead of affirming that HaShem is the only Elohim that exists. And it could very well be comprised of both meanings since the existence of other Elohim doesn't negate the fact that HaShem is the only Elohim for us Jews. The question then becomes, in light of a Trinitarian view of the G-dhead, is HaShem the only Elohim for Messianic Jews, or is it a case of Avodah Zera?
Based on your assessment, normative Judaism circumscribes monotheism to a form of "HaShem oneness" that suggests a kind of exclusiveness that contradicts the Tenakh's paradoxical account of HaShem as infinite power transcendent and imminent, but also and simultaneously an engaged person and a localized indwelling presence. Moreover, if we were to adopt this strict "oneness" definition, we would ignore the Second Temple Jewish Apocalyptic recollection of Divine intermediaries, Two Powers in Heaven/Exalted messengers (i.e., the appearance of the Melach HaShem that bears the tetragrammaton in Shamot 23), and hypostatic agents of creation or redemption, that relate to the unique identity of the G-dhead, namely, the Logos and Sophia (Sirach), kavod, ruach (shekinah), yad, and zeroa of G-d. Therefore, upon closer examination, your assessment is insufficient as it lacks a comprehensive historical evaluation of Jewish mystical thought. According to recent Jewish scholarship, the evidence suggests that the destruction of Jerusalem as the geographical center and the temple as the institutional base that unified a multifarious sectarian second temple Jewish locus required a renewed identity formation, a reunification, and a definition concerning what it meant to be fleshly Israel without the temple. Hence, the conception of Orthodoxy and Rabbinical Judaism became our new origin at Yavneh. Meanwhile, the Torah became reorientated in a way that enabled it to function as the Logos and the hypostatic agent until the Hekhalot and kabbalistic traditions would further rework the Logos concept within a mystical symbolic framework that would not breach Jewish Orthodoxiology.
As alluded to, the paradoxical element in the Tenakh vividly and majestically describes HaShem's hypostatic qualities: G-d is transcendent, above, infinite, and uncircumscribed. It is well attested in Jewish thought that even in his omnipotence, HaShem can limit himself to appear in human form (i.e., Genesis 18:22-23); despite the interpreter's best efforts to de-anthropomorphize or allegorize the text, the Torah peshat is unashamed. In Lurianic kabbalistic thought, Tzimtzum broadly captures this notion by describing the omnipresent G-d's contraction of himself from the universe at the point of creation to create space for his creation to permeate and flourish. If G-d can contract Himself to fill creation – once again denoting a paradox tension – he can do the same to fill a structural or human vessel should he choose to do so. Indeed, the late Michael Wyschogrod, a prolific 20th-century Jewish scholar, wrote extensively about the doctrine of the incarnation as a Jewish and not Christian idea that developed from creation and after the building of the מִשְׁכָּן mishkan as a revelation that HaShem can and sometimes desires to fill the world, a temple, a people, or a person (in the Biblical witness, the collective Jewish people, and anointed individuals). However, Wyschogrod carefully differentiates between the idea of incarnation in its Aristotelian or Platonic context, which deals with substances on various levels where one can penetrate the other, and the Tenakh, which he understood spatially. In Shamot, the preposition תָּוֶךְ with the Qal perfect form verb שָׁכַן "dwell," means "I will dwell among" or "in their midst" or "alongside." The Aristotelian and Platonic development can extend the idea further with the preposition "in" or "through" to mean that G-d can שָׁכַן indwell a person.[1] However, the Tenakh accounts of the Ruach Elohim coming upon anointed prophets and Kings with the verb-preposition combination of תִּצְלַ֨ח עָלָ֜יו "mightily upon him" further complicates Wyschogrod's compartmentalization of concrete (Tenakh) versus philosophical renderings of the incarnation. The Chabad-Lubavitch messianism polemic argued the seven rebbes anointing from the same so-called Christian but, in reality, Jewish historical, mystical framework: Exalted messengers and Patriarchs, Logos, Sophia, Hekhalot, Metatron, Adom Kadmon, and finally, Kabbalah (Ein Sof and 10 Sefirot) applied to the seventh rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, full of G-d's essence and exalted to Adam Kadmon-like messianic status.
A new wave of contemporary Jewish scholarship is committed to understanding and repairing the schism between Judaism and Christianity. If one's motive is to maintain the absolute line of demarcation between Judaism and Christianity and read the New Testament anachronistically through the "parting of the ways," it would be impossible to understand the move of Yeshua to exaltation and how a Trinitarian perspective would not constitute Avodah Zera. However, the latest Jewish-Christain historiographical reconstructions help clarify Jewish covenantal monotheism before "the parting of the ways" and the subsequent rejection of the Logos and Doctrines of G-d applied to Yeshua as no longer "Jewish." My point is that Logos and Two Powers in Heaven, the primary modes of Jewish theological thought that support and allow for Yeshua's exalted status per the messianic title, The Son of Man, were splintered off and given to Christianity after the two groups were self-defined as separate religions. Logos and Two Powers in Heaven theology were prominent ways of understanding the Doctrine of G-d as legit Jewish attempts to grapple with the paradox of divine infinity and finitude in the second temple period. The Apostles arrived at these Triadic formulations concerning the Father (Ein Sof), the Son (Ben), and the Holy Spirit (Skehinah or ruach ha'kodesh) through their way of understanding the Doctrine of G-d in light of Yeshua's resurrection and the experience of the Holy Spirit as portrayed in the Luke-Acts narrative. As noted, "Son of Man" and "Son of G-d" are messianic titles that presented the exalted Yeshua as a One Man representative and head of Israel. In light of the Trinitarian view of the G-dhead, the question is, is HaShem the only Elohim for Messianic Jews? The answer, of course, is an emphatic yes!
Going deeper: For further study on this topic, look for books from scholarly authors: Daniel Boyarin, Amy Jill Levine, Mark Nanos, Mark Zvi Brettler, Pamela Eisenbaum, Paul Fredriksen, and the Jewish Annotated New Testament. For specific book title suggestions, please contact us directly.
[1] Wyschogrod, Michael: The Body of Faith, The Seabury Press / New York 1983