To Systematize or Not to Systematize? A Review Essay

Harvey, Richard. Mapping Messianic Jewish Theology: A Constructive Approach. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2009. 316 pp.

———————

Note: I submitted this review to the editors of Mishkan (of whom Harvey is one) in April 2010. I never received any reply.

Abstract: A useful book, but infused with an excessive bias toward systematization. The author pushes MJ thinkers in a direction that inevitably leads to distorting Truth.

———————

Richard Harvey's new book organizes and outlines a wide variety of "Messianic Jewish" theological perspectives. It is therefore a very useful reference work. The reader can see at a glance what people as varied as David Stern, Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Mark Kinzer, Baruch Maoz, Tzvi Sadan, John Fischer, Elazar Brandt, and other current "practitioners" have to say about Torah in theory and in practice, the deity of Messiah, and other important topics. Harvey's "Conclusion" furnishes a helpful "typology of eight major streams of thought within Messianic Jewish Theology." [262, 267-277] Readers already familiar with the wide spectrum of Messianic Judaism(s) will not be greatly surprised by this final summation. Nonetheless, even the most experienced can appreciate the way he brings coherence to the sometimes chaotic jumble of contradictory views making up "the movement." This book is one that I would like to keep on my bookshelf as a kind of mini-encyclopedia of selected MJ viewpoints.

In 2008, the journal Mishkan devoted most of Issue 57 to the earlier version of Harvey's work, his Ph.D. dissertation completed at the University of Wales under the direction of Rabbi Dr. Dan Cohn-Sherbok. Excerpts by the author and review articles by others elucidated the main content, questions, and arguments of Mapping Messianic Judaism. Rather than covering the same ground, I'd like to express some additional thoughts stimulated by Harvey's book. My hope is to offer a balancing perspective on some broad, underlying issues regarding how we ought to approach Scripture and our faith.

Mapping comes accompanied by promotional blurbs asserting its "fairness." To a significant degree, they are accurate. In the descriptive part of his book, Harvey treats each school of thought academically, even clinically, without passing judgment. His concern is to present a range of MJ perspectives, from extremely pro-Christian to enthusiastically pro-rabbinic, rather than to push one or another point of view. This apparent objectivity is commendable.

At the same time, Harvey's book is highly biased in one particular way.

The Value of Context

One central issue for everyone who desires to walk humbly with God is how we understand scripture. I know ליש would be interested in defining which texts are considered "scripture", but for now I'm speaking generally.

There are many questions that arise when we approach these texts. Broadly we may want to know what these ancient texts mean for us today. Naturally, we come with our own assumptions. Some approach them from a critical perspective, attempting to dissect the texts as one would any other ancient text. On the other side, there are those who see it as the eternal Word of God and there is no room for modern critical analysis.

I personally sit somewhere in between. I believe God spoke to people and they wrote it down. I also believe that these human writers were writing in a cultural context. In addition, there is the issue of transmission and questions of scribal errors or additions, but I'm not addressing these right now.

The issue I want to raise is the importance of context. I disagree strongly with the classical Rabbinic approach, in which a verse or phrase can be used to prove their point based on the use of a particular word. Their approach is founded on the assumption that there is no past of future with God's Word. Since it is eternal context is irrelevant. I believe it is dangerous to "pluck" a line out of context to prove a point. Beyond a cultural context there is the immediate textual context. Writers are expressing certain thoughts and we need to try to understand the train of thought. For example, I could use two different phrases in Shaul's letter to the Galations to "prove" opposite ideas. Therefore, when I discuss my understanding of something and I want to show how it is expressed in a particular passage I'll quote it while trying to keep in mind the textual context. I also judge individual thoughts arising from a certain passage against the larger picture I see in scripture.

One significant phrase, for example, which in my opinion has been taken out of context, that influences our daily life in Israel is Ex. 34: 26b: לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו Do not boil a kid in his mother's milk.

Just according to my own logic I've never thought that the intention was eating a cheeseburger. It definitely is not referring to a cream soup with a chicken broth base.
I've read articles examining possible parallels to cultic practices in other ancient cultures to explain what this might mean. In my opinion the textual context tells us a lot, and I only paid attention to this recently.
This commandment is given after instructions regarding the three pilgrim festivals (Pesach, Shavuot and Sukkot). [note: As I continued to read the parashot I realized that this same commandment is given again, Deut. 14:21, in the context of which animals should and should not be eaten.]

V. 25 "Do not slaughter with a fermented thing the blood of My sacrifice; and the sacrifice of the feast of the passover shall not remain till morning:"
V. 26 "the first of the first-fruits of the land you shall bring into the house of the LORD your God; Do not boil a kid in its mother's milk."
It is clear from the context, at least to me, that this is not a general command regarding meat and dairy. The previous commandments very specifically refer to aspects of different festivals. Logic would say that "boiling a kid in his mother's milk" would fit in this same category. Granted I still do not understand the connection and background to this commandment, but I believe based on context alone we can say with a high degree of certainty that it is related to a cultic practice.

My point with this example is that context is vital for proper interpretation. As soon as we read and try to understand any text we interpret it. I don't believe we can be one hundred percent objective, but my hope is that we strive for it.

The Meaning of the Blog's Title

We can change the title of the blog if we so want. For now I chose the title "Truth" for very obvious and understandable reasons. After a discussion with ירמיה I wanted to help us focus our discussions with other people. My conversations with ליש over the past few years focused on issues of culture and a desire to create a new and authentic culture for us, and hopefully for our future families. As our discussions progressed we gravitated to more serious matters, mainly issues of truth.

Jewish vs. Christian

I have noticed that too often I, and we, are drawn into discussions in which we contrast Judaism and Christianity. This comparison can lead to confusion because it's mixing two separate, yet related issues. First and foremost we have issues of truth. Secondly, there are issues of culture.

Truth.

There are many issues, particularly dealing with the way we understand God and our interaction with Him, with which I disagree. It just so happens that these ideas have been developed within Christianity. But my problem is not that they are Christian ideas, but rather I don't think they are Biblically based. (In a later post I'll write about a few.) This distinction is crucial and it would solidify our stance. There will still be misunderstandings (as with Copernicus many don't grasp that the point is evaluating the Biblical texts), but we can at least do our part in being clearer. Hopefully this would help people understand we are not trying to attack Christians (even though we do have major issues with Christian theology).

Culture.

There are other issues, however, that are more cultural ,such as style of music. I think the understanding of music and it's role in the "service" is a matter of truth, but the style is cultural. The point here is very basic. If I'm going to chose a cultural style it makes the most sense to choose my own culture, which for some reason doesn't seem to be fully grasped in MJ congregations. Or perhaps it points to the fact that they believe X cultural is there own. I personally don't have a problem with organ music, for example, but I also don't think it is appropriate in a Jewish service (any Reforms Jews listening?). The same goes for Michael W. Smith.