This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
Freelance translator and/or interpreter, Verified site user
Data security
This person has a SecurePRO™ card. Because this person is not a ProZ.com Plus subscriber, to view his or her SecurePRO™ card you must be a ProZ.com Business member or Plus subscriber.
Affiliations
This person is not affiliated with any business or Blue Board record at ProZ.com.
English to Russian: Introduction The Book of Romans as a Jewish Text General field: Art/Literary Detailed field: Religion
Source text - English Introduction
The Book of Romans as a Jewish Text
Since there already numerous commentaries on all the different books of the New Testament, our first obligation to the reader is to justify the addition of yet another volume. Our basic premise is a very simple one. Simply put, it rests on the conviction that the book of Romans is a Jewish text. In this introduction we shall elaborate the meaning of this phrase and review the fundamental ramifications which it holds for understanding the New Testament in general and the book of Romans in particular.
The first element of our thesis lies in the fact that we are confronted штwith a piece of literature - a letter - which possesses the characteristics of all written material. These include the fact that it was written (not spoken) - and thus preserved in a set form. In conjunction with the issue of the canon, which we will address below, written material lays itself before the reader as a definitive and determined text. In contrast to oral material, which is flexible and can be retold in innumerable styles, the written text is black on white, and the order, layout, and content are a given. A text is an artefact, or a "piece of work." Texts are also written by specific people, with specific personal histories, in a specific historical time period, to a specific addressee, with a specific agenda. They further possess certain linguistic constraints: Paul's letters were written in Greek, but by a person trained in a rabbinic tradition which thought and wrote in Hebrew. These linguistic constraints include grammatical and syntactical rules, again both Greek and Hebrew in this case.
In the course of the commentary, it will become evident, both through the content and the particular structure, that in a very fundamental and profound sense, "textual" and "Jewish" can in fact be used as interchangeable adjectives. In addition to the peculiarities of the written text noted above, the notion of a text goes hand in hand with that of the "canon" or what constitutes "sacred writ." Because the text is fixed (written), it possesses an innate authority, especially over those readers who accept its claim to be inspired by God. In order to change it, the reader must grant himself a modicum of authority over what he has himself received. To the extent that a community recognizes a text as "Scripture" and therefore imbued with a sacred quality it also becomes what is frequently called a "textual community" or a community whose sense of identity derives from a specific written text to which the community attributes authority. It is no accident, for example, that Jews (and Christians) are frequently known as "the people of the Book."
The association between "textual" and "Jewish" is also true in regard to the other attributes of what is identified as "written." Our basic premise that the book of Romans (as part of the New Testament as a whole) is a Jewish text is conveyed in two further significant areas which derive one from another. The first of these is that the New Testament is indissolubly bound to what Christianity has traditionally erred in calling the "Old Testament." The New Testament as a written text is both a continuation of and a commentary on or explication of the Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible. It cannot be understood without reference to the Tanakh, which provides it with its primary interpretive context. This is one of the primary justifications for our premise that the New Testament is a Jewish text. Because of this fact, the issue of exegesis or interpretation is also bound to the content and context of the Tanakh. In addition, however, our claim of a Jewish text and Jewish mode of interpretation for the New Testament is tied to the specific historical period in which its books were written and the thought of the people who wrote them, who may be accepted as authentic examples of the Jewish world of the first centuries.
During this period, known generally as the Second Temple and Mishnaic period, the various strands within the Jewish community were producing variant interpretations and applications of the Tanakh to contemporary Jewish life. The earliest body of these is the "intertestamental literature", so named because it relates to the period between the two testaments (see the glossary). The earliest rabbinic document is the Mishna, commonly identified with the legal rulings, known as halakhot, derived by the pharisaic rabbis from the biblical text. The Mishna then becomes the subject of a further commentary in the form of the gemara (literally, completion, in the sense of further study). These two texts compose the Talmud. (Although the Talmud was edited around 500 C.E., it contains material of a much earlier period, prior to and contemporaneous with the New Testament writings; see below.) Moreover, during this general period, specific exegetical (hermeneutical) principles for the proper interpretation of Scripture were evolved within Jewish thought.
Since the New Testament numbers within the body of Jewish interpretation, our premise that the book of Romans is a Jewish text means that it also shares the same interpretive principles as those developed in other strands of Second Temple and Mishnaic Jewish thought, particularly those of rabbinic literature. If we apply the four basic rules governing the relationship between the gemara and the mishna to those between later Jewish texts and the Tanakh, we see that the Tanakh is regard accepted and regarded as the source material for the search for truth; that these sources are precise and accurate in every detail; that a common, shared basis underlies all the biblical writings; and that all statements in Scripture have independent and significant meaning. These general principles are then broken down into more specific exegetical rules, which we shall elaborate separately.
Jewish background
Paul himself, of course, was Jewish, and his language, terminology, methodology, and style all reflect the Jewish education which he received and the Jewish traditions in which he was brought up. An additional reason for looking at Romans (as representative of the New Testament as a whole) as a Jewish text is the fact that it reflects, mediates, passes on, and builds on interpretations of biblical passages already current in Second Temple Judaism. The Targumim, for example - the early Aramaic translations of the Tanakh - make explicit references to the Messiah in verses which make no outright mention of him. Much of Paul's understanding of the Tanakh and therefore the arguments which he puts forward is filtered through these contemporary interpretations. These are themselves diverse in character, representing the various streams and tendencies within Second Temple Jewish thought. Moreover, his arguments and goals are those which emanate from the vision of Israel's prophets. Paul's pathos is therefore that of Israel and his eschatology, including his messiology, is part of that of Second Temple Judaism. Finally, most of Paul's writings are dedicated to working out the participation of Gentile believers within the early community - how God's plans, announced through His prophets, were to elect a chosen people, Israel, through whom He could bless all the nations of the earth.
Without knowledge of these contemporary interpretations and the methods which they used to exegete the biblical text, the most logical assumption, drawn almost by default by most Christian commentators trained in the anti-Judaic atmosphere of institutional scholarship, is that Paul's conclusions were completely new. This attitude is largely the consequence of scholarly emphasis on the hellenistic background of the New Testament and a corresponding neglect, at times even rejection, of the Jewish and rabbinic character of its writings. We do not intend is to ignore either the hellenistic elements within Second Temple Judaism or in the book of Romans. However, the reader who is aware of the claim that Second Temple Judaism was to a large degree already hellenized will also recognize that although this may well be true, Paul was still writing within a Jewish and rabbinic context. Our claim is simply that the Jewish character of the New Testament writings is far more important for their correct understanding than is an emphasis on their difference from the Jewish thought of the time.
Exegetical background
Of all the New Testament epistles attributed to Paul, no other letter has played a more significant role in the formation of modern "evangelical" Christianity than the book of Romans. Because of the great influence that this letter has exerted on Christianity and because many of the passages in this letter have become standard clichés, it is difficult to examine the book of Romans with historical and linguistic, not to speak of theological, objectivity. For over two thousand years of history, both Jews and Christians have referred to Romans to reinforce their biases. This makes the understanding of Romans difficult for both the scholar and the layman. Much of the Reformation interpretation of Romans, for example, has formed the basis for the Protestant doctrine of "grace versus Law." Paul has been frequently portrayed as the champion of the "theology of grace" as it was articulated in Reformation thought and thus also regarded as the main exponent of the"gentilization" of Jewish Scripture which gave rise to the new Christian faith. This view, which has also been adopted by many Jewish thinkers, formed an integral element in the historical and theological trends which reinforced the schism between the two "religions," forcing them to develop independently and antagonistically, and inculcated the Jewish view that the New Testament is the book of the Christians and that Jews who believe in Yeshua (Jesus) become Christians and are no longer Jewish. It has become obvious through time that this neglect or contempt of the Jewish character of the New Testament has played a large part in the formation of the claim that Paul was in fact the author of a new religion (Christianity). As the title of our series (Jewish Sources) indicates, we are endeavoring as far as possible to redress this "historical aberration" and to demonstrate that the New Testament is a Jewish book and that Jews who believe in Yeshua remain Jews. Our primary concern is to remain faithful to the text, and our conviction is strong that to do so means examining the New Testament writings in their original Jewish context and milieu - historical, cultural, social, political, literary, and theological. It has become obvious through time that this neglect or contempt of the Jewish character of the New Testament has played a large part in the formation of the claim that Paul was in fact the author of a new religion (Christianity).
Style and Methodology
We have somewhat simplified things in a historical context by saying that "Jewish" and "textual" are interchangeable adjectives. We have identified Romans as a Jewish text, but it is also a Jewish text from the Second Temple and Mishnaic period. Scholars, particularly following Neusner's work and the influence of other disciplines, have determined that what was once regarded as "normative" or mainstream Judaism at that time was in fact far more diversified than previously assumed. [1] When we start talking in terms of textual sources, we can number a half dozen or so various Jewish groupings within the contemporary literature and thought. These include the intertestamental writings, comprised of the apocryphal and pseudepigraphal texts; historical documents such as the books of Josephus; the Dead Sea Scrolls (Qumran) and circles close to their theology; the various forms of rabbinic Jewish thought, including the Mishna, Talmud, and midrash; and philosophical works like those of Philo. Each of these bodies of literature represents a particular literary genre with its own style and methodology. Since they all form the general textual and theological background of Romans they are all relevant to a differing number of Paul's points and the way in which he makes them. In general, they not only provide us with examples of the Jewish thought of the period but they also demonstrate that the New Testament documents were written in a specific setting and can be helpfully interpreted through an understanding of their contemporary conceptual framework.
Our primary marker in distinguishing their influence on Romans as a Jewish text is that Paul was a diaspora Jew (born in Tarsus), who spoke Greek and wrote his letter in Greek to a community in Rome whose own language was largely Greek. Despite this fact, however, Paul chose to be educated in Jerusalem under one of the leading rabbinic scholars of the day, Rabban Gamaliel the Elder. This means that his main identity lay with rabbinic Judaism, since Gamaliel was one of the leading Rabbis in the pharisaic stream of rabbinic Judaism (who took as his students only those pupils who showed promise for a career in the "rabbinate"). Paul explicitly identifies himself as a Pharisee (cf. Phil.3.5), and his training under Gamaliel made him a master in rabbinic thought and forms.
The Talmud
Although Paul is writing a letter, the book of Romans does not fall into the category of private correspondence since it is addressed to the whole community at Rome. Instead it acts as a forum for the presentation of Paul's views regarding certain issues of public concern. Consequently, when we come to read the letter the genre or style of rabbinic thought takes precedence over that of private communication . If we can easily read a letter, however, we cannot read the Talmud (mishna and gemara) in any similar sense of the word "reading." Just as one of the extended meanings of the word "gemara" is "to study," the Talmud as a whole must be studied in order to be understood. It follows a tightly-knit argument structure which is based on a peculiar dialectic or reasoning. [2] This dialectic is unique in that it takes nothing for granted. It is only satisfied with proofs that approach absolute certainty. It constantly tries to sharpen these proofs, cull the evidence, and reach the very essence of the problems (the truth), with the greatest possible precision. Since Paul is not engaged in talmudic debate with other Rabbis, his letter is not as tightly bound by the constraints of dialectic argument as is the Talmud itself. This makes it much easier to study at the same time as this study is also made easier by knowing that Paul employs many of the same linguistic usages and structural elements of the Talmud.
In order to study the Talmud it is necessary to know and recognize the meaning of its peculiar language. For instance, the Rabbis use a number of key phrases indicating agreement and disagreement with a particular legal ruling (halakhic decision); justification for such agreement or disagreement; the rebuttal of a certain argument or decision; its modification; the reasons how and why it differs from another ruling which otherwise appears to be identical; and so forth. Paul utilizes these phrases at the pertinent points in his argument. One of his most characteristic questions, "what shall we then say?," is an example of the talmudic terminology used to introduce an erroneous conclusion. What follows the question is a proposed solution to the particular problem which, sooner or later, will be refuted. The refutation is marked by the rejoinder, "may it never be!" or "God forbid!" One of the most significant exegetical findings based on reading these markers demonstrates, contrary to most understandings, that in Romans 9.30-11.10 Paul is in fact presenting what he views as a mistaken idea (namely, that the Gentiles attained righteousness although not pursuing it while Israel did not attain it although they pursued it). He refutes this view in Romans 11.11. The consequences of reading this passage as an answer to a limited question rather than as part of the mistaken conclusion affect our whole understanding of what part the behavior of the people of Israel plays in the maintenance of their own election and in the inclusion of the Gentiles in the kingdom of God.
Midrash
The second form of rabbinic literature which plays an even greater role in Paul's writings is that of midrash. The mishna and gemara (the Talmud) are predominantly concerned with arriving at the precise meaning of the biblical ordinances. (The process, as understood as by the talmudic Rabbis, was that those injunctions needed to be spell out where they were vague and general, and made relevant to the present generations. The mishna was the first stage of this interpretive endeavor, the gemara the second, taking the mishna as its basic source.) Wider than but still part of the talmudic dialectic were the general rules of biblical interpretation (exegesis or hermeneutics). These are more apparent in midrash, because the fundamental nature of midrash is the exposition of the biblical text. In many ways, Romans could be added to the list of contemporary midrashic compilations of the period. Although it is modified because it is addressed to an actual community, with specific historical, social, cultural, and theological circumstances, as a piece of written text it demonstrates a large number of the characteristics of midrash.
First of all, the Epistle is an exposition of Scripture. Paul bases his entire argument on the Tanakh, and frequently cites scriptural prooftexts in similar fashion to midrash as an interpretive genre, although in contrast to other midrashim he does not follow the strict order of any particular biblical text. He thus uses the same fixed principles of interpretation known as "the principles through which the Torah is expounded" which all midrashic literature, whether part of the talmudic corpus or independent works, followed. Rabbinic literature provides us with different lists of such principles: the seven hermeneutic rules of Hillel; the thirteen of Rabbi Ishmael; the thirty-two principles of Rabbi Eliezer the son of Rabbi Jose Ha-Gelili, but none of the lists give a complete description of all the interpretive rules found in all the forms of midrash.
Paul mainly employs those principles which directly pertain to scriptural exegesis, in contrast to those which are more intimately connected to the precise delineation of halakhot (legal rulings). Many of these principles rest on common sense and logic. Paul demonstrates a predilection for the forms related to inference and analogy: verbal analogy (gezerah shavah), analogy (binyan av), an a fortiori
inference (kal ve-chomer),for example, since these help structure an argument based on scriptural verses. Romans 5 is a masterful illustration of an analogy built upon a string of variations of a fortiori inferences: "if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God . . . how much more . . . we shall be saved by his life;" "if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, how much more those who receive the abundance of grace . . . will reign in life through the one, Yeshua the Messiah." The passage in Romans 12.9ff is based on two principles, one transmitted through the pharisaic Rabbi, Hillel, the other known from the Qumran documents. Hillel taught that in order to "win converts," a person should weep when he weeps and rejoice when he rejoices, based on the verses in Ecclesiastes 3.1-8. The community at Qumran adopted the notion that they should submit to the evil authorities while they are in power so that God could wreak His final vengeance on them in the Day of Judgment. In chapter 14, Paul appeals to a string of contemporary halakhic rulings governing family and social relations under the rubric of "peace": for example, the principles of "shelom beit" or "peace in the house" and of human dignity, which demands respect for one's brothers. We have argued, on the other hand, that the section in 8.26-28 and following is best understood through an already existent interpretation of Proverbs 20.27, and this, too, changes the whole idea of "groaning" of the Spirit to that of man's own spirit.
Rabbinic sources
If Paul's style and methodology are primarily based on talmudic hermeneutics, his thought is also largely influenced by rabbinic literature. Here again we enter the area of source-criticism. Attempts to interpret the New Testament writings in the light of rabbinic literature are often the butt of the objection that most of this material is much later than the time period of the New Testament texts and therefore an invalid source. It is a truism to say that all the extant literature has been edited. The Mishna and Talmud, for example, are texts collected and preserved by the pharisaic school and not the sadducean; they also demonstrate the fact that the halakha was determined (in the majority of cases) according to the House of Hillel rather than the rival House of Shammai. Since the Talmud, and the midrashim, are compilations which range over an enormous time-span - from the first and second centuries B.C.E. to the fifth century C.E. (and much later for some of the midrashim) - the matter of dating particular sections and attributing ideas to specific periods is a matter of much controversy. Here, however, we would emphasize once again that we are largely treating the text as it stands before us as a coherent and independent textual unit (i.e., not endeavoring to trace its "original" sources). Our general attitude towards the use of rabbinic (talmudic and midrashic) material to compare and clarify New Testament texts conforms to the view expressed by Professor David Flusser in this regard:
I do not deny the possibility that post-Christian Judaism could have created parallel motifs similar to those that appear in early Christian writings from mutual resources. Moreover I cannot completely exclude the possibility that in some case later rabbinic sayings may have been influenced by primitive Christian material. Nevertheless for the most part, it can be easily shown that on the one hand, later rabbinic parallels to New Testament passages provide great help for the elucidation of the New Testament. But on the other hand, these Christian texts shed little light on the interpretation of the later rabbinic parallels. In my opinion this fact demonstrates that even if the rabbinic sources are later, they still preserve evidence of an earlier stage which gave birth to the New Testament concepts and motifs. . . . The entire corpus of rabbinic literature is an expression of a constant stream of oral transmission. . . . Thus the specific character of rabbinic literature not only permits us, but even obligates us to include post-Christian rabbinic sources as an inseparable part of the investigation of the Jewish roots of Christianity. [3]
The textual approach which we have adopted here primarily deals with the letter as a whole text and not with source or historical-traditional criticism. (Those readers familiar with contemporary literary theory will recognize that our approach exhibits strong affinities with the concept of "intertextuality," according to which any written text is composed of a mosaic of other texts and is the key to its understanding lies in the reader's hands rather than that of the original author.) Since, however, part of the way to demonstrate that Romans (and the New Testament writings as a whole) is a Jewish text, we are also engaged in demonstrating the direct sources of certain passages from contemporaneous Jewish thought. Where we (fairly rarely) feel justified in claiming direct influence, we have indicated this fact. In the majority of all the other places, no such claim is intended, and the quoted source is brought as a parallel to Paul's text or as an clarificatory or explanatory text.
Qumran
This situation differs more substantially when we consider the Qumran texts. As is known, the discovery of these texts has given rise to a wide range of speculations. Although some of these, such as that the "Teacher of Righteousness" was John the Baptist and the "Wicked Priest" and the "Liar" were two different code names for Yeshua (cf. Thiering) are insupportable, there is no doubt that the milieu from which the texts sprung had a formative influence on early Christian history. [4] Both communities (if it is agreed, as we obviously do, that a community existed at Qumran) drew from the same biblical sources and made similar interpretive use of the texts. As with all the other contemporary texts of the general period, we have treated the Qumran documents more textually (and theologically) than historically. Where source criticism is concerned, however, they do seem to occupy a special place in the source of Paul's thought (though less in his style. Thus, for example, the exegetical formula called pesher which is characteristic of the Dead Sea Scrolls is not part of Paul's stock methodology). On the other hand, Paul's theological outlook is very close to that of the Qumran authors'. In the majority of cases where we have suggested a direct influence on Paul's thought the source comes from Qumran or its related circle. A large part of the reason for this both draws from and supports Flusser's contention that a pre-Pauline stratum of textual material emanating from "Essene theology" existed, which has been visibly retained in most of the New Testament epistles, the Gospel and letters of John, and the author of the Book of Hebrews. Flusser comments that:
Our last observation - namely, that no doctrine of central importance resembling Qumran theology (such as election or dualism) is restricted to any single NT book - seems to indicate that no single NT author (e.g. Paul) introduced such doctrines into Christian thought. Therefore a common source of influence is to be postulated. It is highly improbable that each of the New Testament authors under consideration was directly and independently influenced by the Qumran sectarians (or by Jewish circles close to them). If this had been the case, we should expect marked differences in the manner in which these ideas were worked into Christianity by the different authors. But no such differences exist. Therefore we must suppose that there existed a stratum of Christian thought which was especially influenced by Sectarian ideas, and that John the Evangelist, Paul and the authors of most other NT Epistles based themselves on the theological achievements of this stratum. . . . All this means practically that the whole body of ideas described above could have come into Christianity only from the Qumran Sect: it is not sufficient to presume that we are dealing with ideas that were generally diffused among Jews. Of course, it is not our contention to argue that the body of ideas passed into Christianity directly from the Sect; it is quite probable that it passed through several groups and movements (which were more or less influenced by Sectarian thought) before arriving at the points where it can be observed through some writings of the New Testament. [5]
This quote, in combination with the large number of parallels brought from the Qumran texts, may create in the reader the impression that Paul adhered to much of the theology of its authors. We therefore want to emphasize yet again that our use of contemporary Jewish literature, which includes the Dead Sea Scrolls, is primarily to demonstrate the ways in which the book of Romans is the product of its time and context; i.e., that it is a Jewish text whose comparison with and clarification through other contemporary Jewish texts form the most authentic means for its proper interpretation. (Or in the terminology of "intertextuality," these other documents are the uncited texts out of which the book of Romans is composed.)
Many of the terms and principles used in the commentary will probably be unfamiliar to our readers. We have tried to give brief explanatory remarks wherever terms and sources are referred to the first time, but we have also provided a glossary for quick reference for the main sources. It is our hope that the reader will not be put off by the quotes and feel that they intrude into the commentary. They should in fact be regarded as the main body of the commentary itself, allowing Paul's text to be interpreted through contemporary texts of the period which reflect ideas close to those which Paul presents; our own commentary is more of an attempt to let Paul's text speak for itself through bringing other clarifying texts. Where these texts require explanation we have generally put the material in the footnotes. When the ideas, both Paul's and those of other sources cited, are unfamiliar, unclear, unusual, or can be traced through a known textual path, we have given our interpretations as our contribution to the exegesis of Paul's thought.
Paul - the person
The New Testament provides us with more autobiographical details about Paul's life than about any of the other apostles:
he was born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, which possessed the status of a Roman city (cf. Acts 9.11, 21.39);
his parents were from the tribe of Benjamin (cf. Rom.11.1, Phil.3.5) but could also have been Roman citizens, since Paul states that he was born a Roman citizen. This could have been because his parents were already Romans citizens or because he was born in a Roman city;
he was educated in Jerusalem (cf. Acts 22.3), probably under Rabban Gamaliel the Elder (cf. Acts 5.34) who was a Pharisee of the School of Shammai. Paul calls himself a Pharisee (cf. Acts 23.6, 26.5, Phil.3.5) and suggests that his parents were also Pharisees (cf. Acts 23.6), and encouraged him to seek a good rabbinic education in Jerusalem. It is possible that Paul's family remained in Tarsus, since he is often mentioned as being in the city (cf. Acts 9.30, 11.25);
he lived his life in the manner of a Pharisee, Torah-observant, obedient to rabbinic regulations, and proud of his Jewish heritage (cf. Acts 22.3, 23.6, 26.4-7, 28.17, Rom.9.3, 2 Cor.11.22, Phil.3.5-6);
he had a close relationship and was in good standing with the Sanhedrin since he was given letters of recommendation by the High Priest to the community in Damascus to bring the followers of Yeshua to trial in Jerusalem (cf. Acts 9.2, 22.4);
this relationship may be reflected in his role at Stephen's execution. Paul is said to have guarded the cloaks of those who stoned Stephen. Luke, in ignorance of the halakhic significance of his action may have missed the point that during the stoning of a condemned man, an official was appointed to stand at the door of the court with a cloak. If further witnesses appeared, or the accused man himself wished to plead another item in his favor, the cloak acted as a signal to a horseman in sight of the condemned man, who was brought back even four or five times (cf. San.42b).
Authorship and place
There is little or no scholarly debate concerning Paul's authorship of Romans, although several theories claim that chapter 16 is not original. Our own research points out the textual affinities of chapter 16 with the rest of the letter and thus confirms Paul's authorship. Paul himself states in Romans 16.22-23 that he is writing from Gaius' house, where the community also meets. Paul speaks of baptizing a believer named Gaius at Corinth (1 Cor. 1.14), and Cenchrea, where Phoebe, the bearer of the letter to Rome, is a part of the fellowship, was the harbor of Corinth. Further external evidence from the field of archaeology corroborates the claim that Romans was written from Corinth. What is now known as the "Erastus inscription," an inscription discovered at Corinth, identifies its donator as the aedile or city treasurer who paved the pavement adjoining the theater in Corinth at his own expense in return for receiving the position. This matches Paul's mention of "Erastus, the city treasurer" in Romans 16.23 (cf. Acts 19.22, 2 Tim.4.20).
Date
The dating of the letter can be determined according to Paul's stated itinerary. Although he planned to visit the community in Rome on his way to Spain, this wish is subject to his even more immediate need to reach Jerusalem for the feast of Shavuot because he has just completed his collection for the "saints in Jerusalem" (cf. 1.11-13, 15.23-29). He has gathered these contributions through Greece almost to Illyricum, and Luke says of Paul in Acts 19.21 that at the end of his stay in Ephesus Paul had "purposed in the spirit" to go to Rome after he had made the offering in Jerusalem. Paul speaks retrospectively of this trip in Acts 24.17, where he tells the governor Felix that after several (or many) years he came to Jerusalem to bring alms and present offerings to his nation. The contribution of the Gentile believers in Macedonia and Achaia are the first fruit which he intends giving to the Temple as his priestly-prophetic offering as apostle to the Gentiles. Since both Timothy and Sopater (Sosipater), who send greetings (16.21) were Paul's travelling companions on his last journey from Greece to Jerusalem (cf. Acts 20.1ff), Romans can therefore fairly confidently be dated to his departure from Corinth on his third missionary journey en route for Jerusalem around the early part of 58 C.E. This is further confirmed by fact that Gallio's appointment to the proconsular office at Corinth, before whom Paul was brought by the Jewish population of the city, is known to have taken place around 57-58 C.E. (cf. Acts 18.12-18). Although scholars debate whether Paul was imprisoned more than once in Rome, he never reached Spain and according to tradition was martyred in Rome around 66-67 C.E.
Purpose of the letter
It is traditional to evaluate the specific purpose for which the New Testament books were written in the light of the particular author's intention and/or the circumstances of the audience to whom he was writing. Although there is no doubt that both these elements are legitimate historical concerns, we would once more here again stress the predominance of our textual concerns. Our first intent is to demonstrate the way in which the book of Romans both reflects and represents the varied body of Jewish thought of the Second Temple period. Historical and other considerations are rarely mentioned, while the body of the commentary is taken up with textual illustrations of Paul's thought from similar passages in contemporary Jewish literature. Therefore, if we do not attribute certain themes of the letter to Paul's personal psychology, for example, or claim that he is obviously responding to the specific social and historical situation of the Roman community, we do intend to demonstrate that the book of Romans presents us with a textual picture of certain prevalent and controversial theological debates within Second Temple Jewish thought.
The Congregation at Rome
It is also certain, of course, that locating Romans within this historical period not only confirms its Jewish nature but also reflects the historical circumstances of the early community. Not only do these two positions not necessarily conflict with one another but they also necessarily overlap. Several factors indicate the origin and nature of the congregation in Rome. Paul explicitly dismisses the idea that he founded the community (cf. Rom.15.20), but his statement that he does not wish to "build upon another man's foundation" does not necessarily indicate that it was established by any one person, or even by St. Peter, to whose credit it early Christian attributes the congregation (cf. 1 Pet.5.13). In fact, the various references to different people in chapter 16 suggest that the believers met in small groups within the city, who presumably distributed Paul's letter among themselves (cf. 16.5, 14, 15). Acts 2.10 notes "sojourning Romans" among those who heard Peter's speech at Shavuot, and many of these, together with the regular Jewish pilgrims to Jerusalem, probably returned to Rome permanently. Since it was the center of the Empire the city attracted a great number of people for varying purposes, and the Jewish community of Rome dated from the Babylonian exile. It seems most likely, therefore, that the community was composed of a mixture of Jewish and Gentile believers (see the greetings in chapter 16) whom Paul might have wished to visit specifically because they had formed themselves without any apostolic presence. The mixed nature of the congregation may also have been a source of friction in consequence of the fact that Christianity had not yet been recognized as a separate "religion" by Roman rule during the period. Claudius' banishment of the Jewish community from the city in 52 C.E. may therefore have left a vacuum in the early community which the Gentile believers came to fill. This might have created rivalry over leadership when the Jewish believers began returning, as Priscilla and Aquila are known to have (cf. Acts 18.2, Rom.16.3). Such social tensions frequently touched off and were the focus of the theological debates concerning the relationship between Jews and Gentiles especially within the early communities.
Theological issues
The theological discussions common to the period included the relationship of the people of Israel to the Gentile nations, and since the early community was composed of both Jewish and Gentile believers the "ins and outs" of the debate over the Jewish-Gentile relationship was a central focus. What did the inclusion of the Gentiles into God's kingdom mean for Israel's election? Since the people's election was sealed in their covenant with God, would they retain their position if the Gentiles were admitted without being circumcised and without observing the Torah as the seal of the covenant and election? If the Gentiles were admitted to God's kingdom without being required to convert to Judaism, what meaning would Israel's election retain? If they received God's righteousness through faithfulness to God in Yeshua, what purpose would the Torah serve for them (would they need to observe it in order to be righteous?) and for Israel (does not faithfulness make the Torah superfluous?). If the Gentiles received God's righteousness through faithfulness to God in Yeshua, what purpose would the Torah serve both for them (did they need it to be righteous?) and for Israel (does not faithfulness make it superfluous?).
The argument in Romans
It is clear that the practical issue of presenting the offering at Shavuot defined Paul's chronological timetable. At the same time, however, it also indicated his theological priorities. The issue directly relates to Paul's apostleship to the Gentiles, a fact which underlies the major textual themes of the letter. Paul's belief that God has indeed made room for the Gentiles in His kingdom, and appointed him as their apostle, generates a sustained and argued argument to sustain his position. This is grounded, first of all, in Paul's conviction that God has permanently elected the people of Israel, demonstrated through His covenant of the Torah given on Mount Sinai. This claim commonly drew in its wake two possibilities regarding the Gentiles: either they would convert and become full members of the Jewish faith at the end of times; or they would remain Gentiles with lesser rights and rewards than those received by the people of Israel since they were not commanded to observe the Torah. The Torah and its commandments therefore became the focal point for Jewish identity. Not only did Torah-observance serve to mark Israel off from all the other nations but it also generated an internal Jewish debate, stemming from the prophetic literature, concerning the proper grounds of its observance. Second Temple Jewish thought contained a range of ideas, from the view that the commandments should be observed simply because they were commanded to the opinion that the "real" "sons of Abraham" were only those who were motivated by a love of God. Paul was not only convinced that ritual observance alone was not pleasing to God but also that anyone could be motivated by love and faithfulness - including the Gentiles who did not convert. He was therefore also convinced that the Torah did not cover all evils, as it were, nor did it automatically guarantee God's acceptance (cf. chapter 2).
This idea went hand in hand with the belief that all mankind is equal before God: first in their sinfulness (cf. chapters 2 and 3) and consequently in their eligibility to receive God's righteousness "apart from the Torah" (cf. chapters 3 and 5). At this point (chapter 3) his argument takes on the form of a sustained dialectic between the various objections implied by various aspects of his thesis. First of all, the idea that all mankind are equal before God raises the possibility that Israel's election can in fact be called into question and nullified (cf. 3.1f). Paul digresses from his immediate defense of Israel's election to say that the people's unfaithfulness can never annul God's election (3.3f). This subsequently raises the theme of libertinism against which Paul fights throughout the length of the letter. Although man's sinfulness enables him to receive God's righteousness, this can never be made into a principle for sinning so that God's grace may increase or for presuming on God's goodness (cf. 3.5, 8, 6.1, 15, 7.13, 11.18f, 12.3, 14.1ff). He confronts the possibility of moral license by interpreting baptism in the light of the motif of serving two masters (chapters 6 and 8), and the view that Jewish believers are neither any longer responsible to the Torah nor able to overcome their evil inclination through Torah-observance alone (chapters 7-8).
Simultaneously, however, Paul insists that it was the Torah itself which witnessed to God's righteousness which is available to all mankind (cf. 3.21). The true goal or telos of the Torah is found in Yeshua's faithfulness (cf.1.1-2, 16-7, 3.22f, 10.4). This brings him back full circle to his conviction, based on God's promise to Abraham and repeated by the biblical prophets who foretold of God's plan, that the Gentiles would be included in God's kingdom (chapters 4, 9-11, 15.8-16). Israel may be redeemed from their sins because God's grace overcomes transgressions against the Torah; and therefore the Gentiles can also be redeemed from their sins, even though sin is determined through the Torah (chapter 5). Paul resumes his defense of Israel's election in 8.26, where he is led back to the idea that God judges the secrets of men's hearts (cf. 2.16), and develops the central point of his whole proposition, that God's promise to Israel was based on his promise to Abraham that through his descendants all the nations of the world would be blessed. Israel and the Torah were the means to bring the Messiah to the world (chapter 11). In chapters 12-13 he deals with the separate issue of "serving the time," according to which he establishes the principles of love, respect, and non-retaliation in the face of the wicked, and in chapters 14-15 he lays out a beautifully sustained argument for mutual love and respect based on the principles of peace and human dignity and the belief that God does not need man to keep His commandments in order to defend God's own honor.
This principle of equality between all believers leads him finally to demonstrate how Israel's Messiah, who is the example of pleasing one's neighbor, extended God's grace also to the Gentiles (15.7-13) and how he is fulfilling God's prophetic plan by bringing the contribution of the Gentiles to the Temple in Jerusalem at Shavuot (15.14ff). He ends the letter by sending personal greetings to those whom he knows in the community in Rome, and reiterating two main themes: peace between the brethren and the final great mystery of how all mankind is saved through righteousness and faithfulness.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
We offer this commentary on the book of Romans as a Jewish text in the hope that it will bring to the reader a broader and deeper appreciation of the Jewish nature of the New Testament writings as a whole. In addition to new light which we trust has consequently been thrown on the interpretation of the letter in general and of specific passages in particular by situating it in its Jewish setting, elaborating the exegetical rules and terminology prevalent in the period, and bringing comparative sources from contemporary Jewish literature, we also hope that this volume will go some way in redressing the historical mistake committed by the Church of cutting itself off from its own roots. Our most fervent desire is perhaps that this commentary will also serve to return Yeshua himself to his own people, in demonstrating that the New Testament is not a Christian book representing a different faith but a Jewish text embodying an authentic Jewish interpretation of the Tanakh.
English to Russian: MODERN JEWISH THOUGHT General field: Art/Literary Detailed field: Religion
Source text - English MODERN JEWISH THOUGHT
A REVIEW OF THE MAJOR STREAMS OF THOUGHT THAT HAVE IMPACTED MODERN JEWISH CULTURE
HARVEY L. DIAMOND
General Outline
I. Introduction: Judaism—A People with a Calling and a Mission 3
II. Maimonides: A Lasting Influence Shaping Judaism 6
III. Hermann Cohen: Rationality, Ethics, Liberalism and Humanism 11
IV. Mordecai Kaplan: Naturalism and Reconstructionist/Secular Judaism 15
V. Leo Baeck: The Reality of God; and Character, Consciousness and Development of Judaism 16
VI. Franz Rosenzweig: Pioneering Existentialism and Revelation 18
VII. Martin Buber: Relating and Engaging with God 20
VIII. Abraham Heschel: Encountering God—The Reality of His Word and Spirit 21
IV. Mysticism, Messianic Judaism and Postmodern Judaism 32
I. Introduction: Judaism—A People with a Calling and Mission
A. Calling and Choice
The unique covenant calling of the firstborn: a call to serve God
Thus says the LORD: "Israel is My son, My firstborn. So I say to you, let My son go that he may serve Me.” (Exodus 4:22-23)
Tested to walk in God’s ways: a way of faith and obedience
Then the LORD said to Moses, "Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you. And the people shall go out and gather a certain quota every day, that I may test them, whether they will walk in My law or not. (Exodus 16:4)
The unique opportunity to be trained in God’s Wisdom
Surely I have taught you statutes and judgments, just as the LORD my God commanded me, that you should act according to them in the land which you go to possess. Therefore be careful to observe them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples who will hear all these statutes, and say, 'Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.' (Deuteronomy 4:5-10)
Called to be God’s representatives and testimony to the nations
I, the LORD, have called You in righteousness,
And will hold Your hand;
I will keep You and give You as a covenant to the people,
As a light to the Gentiles,
To open blind eyes,
To bring out prisoners from the prison,
Those who sit in darkness from the prison house.
(Isaiah 42:6-7)
A constant calling to choose God’s ways vs. the ways of the nations
And if it seems evil to you to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. (Joshua 24:15)
B. Worldly Influence, Persecution, Isolation and Dispersion
Satan challenged God’s truth in the beginning, and the world has challenged God’s people ever since. God said it would happen.
And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel."
(Genesis 3:15)
Our calling as a covenant people of God, and our very existence and place in society has been challenged and threatened perpetually. How have we responded?
• 73 A.D. upon failure of the First Jewish Revolt, Jerusalem fell to the Romans. The Jewish community split. Messianic Jews fled east to Pella. The Rabbinic Jewish leaders formed an academy at Yavneh, and Rabbinic Judaism was institutionalized.
• 132-135 A.D. Messianic Jews and Rabbinic Jews fought together against the Romans until Rabbi Akiva proclaimed commander Simon Bar Kochba to be the Jewish Messiah. The schism widened. The Romans conquered. The remnant of Jews dispersed.
• Greco-Roman philosophy dominated culture and religious beliefs.
• 312 A.D. Constantine converted to Christianity—which had been dominated by the thought of Justin Martyr, a student of Stoicism, Aristotelianism, Pythagorism, and Platonism. He declared (Hellenistic) Christianity the official imperial religion, established a new religious order to promote philosophical uniformity, and persecuted dissenters. Enter the Dark Ages…and continuous persecution, expulsion, segregation, isolation.
• Mid 1100’s: Maimonides (born in Spain) teaches in Morocco, the Holy Land and Egypt. Is influenced by an Islamic culture and Aristotelian world-view. Composes key writings, including: the Mishneh Torah, Sefer Hamitzvot, Guide for the Perplexed. Rabbinic Judaism finds strength.
C. Political Shifts Give Way to Modern Jewish Thought and Activism
• 1700’s: Age of the European Emancipation and Enlightenment: Catholic-Protestant wars result in the secularization of society. Thought towards the privacy of citizens gives way to religious tolerance. Jewish participation in society increases—leading to the decay of Jewish community life and the concept of a Jewish identity—promoting the advancement of Jewish Modernism and new streams of Jewish thought.
• Zionism: The new social-political force challenging Jewish ethnicity; advancing the division of Jews philosophically.
• The Holocaust: The cataclysmic event challenging Jews morally; advancing the dehumanization of society, cynicism amongst Jews and pervasive amorality worldwide.
• Six-Day War: A new shift in Jewish self-consciousness emerges. A renewed sense of religious and ethnic freedom gives way to the legitimacy of new attitudes and interests amongst Jews worldwide.
• Today: Messianic Judaism is a growing and maturing move of God, unifying thought and faith in Yeshua, our Messiah; being a visible testimony to Jews and gentiles of a community of Messianic believers worshiping in spirit and in truth.
II. Maimonides: A Lasting Influence Shaping Judaism
A. Background
• Born in 1135 in Spain
• Studied Torah under his father Maimon
• Threatened by Islam, moved and settled in Morocco
• Influenced by Islamic thought
• Adherent of Neo-Platonic “negative theology” (God is not…)
• Proponent of Aristotelian thought and “rational proof”
• Composed key elements of Jewish thought shaping Judaism
Our challenge: where do we see conflict with Scripture truths, interpretation and revelation?
B. Mishna commentary: 13 Principles of Faith
Principle I. To know the existence of the Creator
To believe in the existence of the Creator, and this Creator is perfect in all manner of existence. He is the cause of all existence. He causes them to exist and they exist only because of Him. And if you could contemplate a case, such that He was not to exist…then all things would cease to exist and there would remain nothing. And if you were to contemplate a case, such that all things would cease to exist aside from the Creator, His existence would not cease. And He would lose nothing; and oneness and kingship is His alone. Hashem of strength is His name because He is sufficient with His own existence, and sufficient [is] just Him alone, and needs no other. And the existences of the angels, and the celestial bodies, and all that is in them and that which is below them…all need Him for their existence. And this is the first pillar and is attested to by the verse, “I am Hashem your God.”
Principle II. The unity of God
Meaning to say to accept that this is the quintessential idea of Oneness. It is not like the oneness of a pair (i.e. pair of shoes - one group) and not one like a species. And not like man that has many individual (members) nor like a body that divides into many different parts until no end (every part being divisible). Rather, God is one and there is no other oneness like His. This is the second principle and is taught in what it says, “Hear Israel, Hashem is Our God, Hashem is one.”
Oneness: echad; united, altogether? Case for uniplural nature of God
Principle III. The denial of physicality in connection with God
This is to accept that this Oneness that we have mentioned above (Principle II) is not a body and has no strength in the body, and has no shape or image or relationship to a body or parts thereof. This is why the Sages of blessed memory said with regards to heaven there is no sitting, nor standing, no awakeness, nor tiredness. This is all to say that He does not partake of any physical actions or qualities. And if He were to be a body then He would be like any other body and would not be God. And all that is written in the holy books regarding descriptions of God, they are all anthropomorphic. Thus said our great Rabbis of blessed memory, “The Torah speaketh in man’s language” (i.e. using human terms to offer some understanding). And the Rabbis have already spoken at length on this issue. This is the third pillar and is attested to by the verse, “For you saw no image” meaning that you did not see an image or any form when you stood at Sinai because as we have just said, He has no body, nor power of the body.
Anthropomorphic nature of God:
Form vs. character?
Law vs. love?
The heartfelt cry of the prophets?
Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Solomon?
Principle IV. God’s Antiquity
This is that God existed prior to everything, and exists after everything. This is proved many times throughout scripture and is attested to by the verse, “Meuna Elokei kedem.”
Principle V. That God, blessed be He is worthy that we serve Him, to glorify Him, to make known His greatness, and to do His commands
But not to do this to those that are below Him in the creation. Not to the angels or to the stars or the planets or anything else, for they are all created things in nature and in their functioning, there is no choice or judgment except by God Himself. Also it is not fitting to serve them as intermediaries to God. Only to God should you incline your thoughts and your actions. This is the fifth principle and it warns against idolatry and most of the Torah speaks out against this.
Principle VI. Prophecy
And this is that it is known to man that this (prophet) is a type of man who are created beings of great stature and perfection of the character traits. Who have tremendous knowledge until a different intelligence attaches to them when the intelligence of the person clings to the intelligence of God and it rests upon him. And these are the prophets; and this is prophecy; and the idea of it. The explanation of it is very long and the intention is not to bring a sign for every fundamental and to explain it all, encompassing of all knowledge (i.e. God’s knowledge) but it is mentioned to us in a story form and all of the Torah attests to this.
True understanding of the nature of prophecy?
Understanding of the nature of the Holy Spirit?
Principle VII. The prophetic capacity of Moses our Teacher, peace be upon him
And this is that we accept that he was the father of all prophets that were before him and that will be after him. He was on a qualitatively different level than any other, and he is chosen from all other people before and after him of any that have any knowledge of God; for his was the greatest. And he, peace be upon him, rose to the levels of the angels. He was granted all areas of knowledge and prophecy and his physical attributes did not diminish. His knowledge was different and it is through this difference that it is ascribed to him that he spoke to God without any intermediary or angel.
My intention was to explain this puzzling concept and to open up the sealed areas in the Torah regarding the verses of “face to face” and other similar references, but its length would be tremendous and it would require numerous proofs from the Torah and other sources and encompass many areas. Even to write it the briefest of briefest it would require 100 pages, so I will save it and write it in another book. I will now return to the intent of this seventh fundamental that the prophecy of Moses our teacher, peace be upon him, was different from all others in 4 ways:
1) Regarding all other prophets, God spoke to them through intermediaries. Regarding Moses, it was without one, as it says, “face to face I spoke to him”.
2) Regarding all other prophets, prophecy came to them at night while they were asleep in a dream as it says, “in a dream of the night” and other such references; or in the day but only after a deep sleep-like state came over them, and all their senses were shut off except their thoughts. Not so by Moses. Moses would receive a prophecy any time when he would stand between the two figures [fixed] on the ark, as God attests to it, “and I will make it known to you there” and “not so my servant Moses. Face to face I speak to him.”
3) When a prophet would receive prophecy he would not be able to stand the intense effect and he would shake and not be able to stand, as it relates regarding Daniel in his encounter with the angel Gabriel. Regarding Moses, he did not suffer from this. As it says, “Face to face do I speak to him as a person speaks to his friend”. And even though this is the greatest connection to God, still, he did not suffer.
4) All other prophets could not receive prophecy at their will, [but] only when God desired to tell them. Some would go days or months without prophecy. Even if they wanted or needed something, sometimes it would be days or months or years or even never that they would be told [a prophecy]. Some would have people play music to put them in a good mood such as Elisha. But Moses, peace be upon him, received prophecy whenever he wanted, as it says, “Stand here and listen to what God will tell you what to do” and “God said to Moses tell Aaron your brother that he can’t come to the holy of holies at any time [he wants]”. Our rabbis said, “Aaron was prohibited to come whenever he wanted, but not Moses.
Joshua: Standing before the Commander of the LORD’s army (Joshua 5:15)
Elijah and Elisha: an intimate relationship with the LORD "before whom I stand” (1 Kings 17:1; 1 kings 18:15; 2 Kings 3:14; 2 Kings 5:16)
Principle VIII. That the Torah is from heaven [God]
And this is that you believe that all of this Torah that was given by Moses our teacher, peace be upon him, that it is all from the mouth of God. Meaning that it was received by him entirely from God. And it is not known how Moses received it except by Moses himself, peace be upon him, that it came to him. That he was like a stenographer that you read to him and he writes all that is told to him: all the events and dates, the stories, and all the commandments. There is no difference between “And the sons of Cham were Kush, and Mitzraim, and his wife was Mehatbe’el” and “Timnah was his concubine” and “I am Hashem your God” and “Hear Israel [Hashem your God, Hashem is one]” for it was all given by God. And it is all Hashem’s perfect Torah; pure, holy, and true. And he who says that these verses or stories, Moses made them up, he is a denier of our sages and prophets worse than all other types of deniers [form of heretic] for he thinks that what is in the Torah is from man’s flawed heart and the questions and statements and the dates and stories are of no value for they are from Moses Rabbeinu, peace be upon him. And this area is that he believes the Torah is not from heaven. And on this our sages of blessed memory said, “he who believes that the Torah is from heaven except this verse that God did not say it but rather Moses himself did [he is a denier of all the Torah].” And this that God spoke this and that, each and every statement in the Torah, is from God and it is full of wisdom (each statement) and benefit to those who understand them. And its depth of knowledge is greater than all of the land and wider than all the seas and a person can only go in the path of David, the anointed of the God of Jacob who prayed and said “Open my eyes so that I may glance upon the wonders of Your Torah” (Psalms 119). And similarly the explanation of the Torah was also received from God and this is what we use today to know the appearance and structure of the sukka and the lulav and the shofar, tzitzis, tefillin and their usage. And all this God said to Moses and Moses told to us. And he is trustworthy in his role as the messenger and the verse that teaches of this fundamental is what is written (Numbers 16) “And Moses said, with this shall you know that Hashem sent me to do all these actions (wonders) for they are not from my heart.”
Spirit of the law?
Principle IX. The completeness of the Torah
And this is that the Torah is from God and is not lacking. That to it you can’t add or take away from. Not from the written Torah or from the oral Torah, as it says, “Do not add to it and do not take away from it.” (Deut 3). And we already explained what needs to be explained about this fundamental at the beginning of this essay.
The oral Torah? Tradition of men?
Principle X. That God knows man’s actions and does not remove His eye from them
His knowledge is not like someone who says God abandoned the land but rather like it says (Jer. 32) “Great in council and mighty in deed, Your eyes are cognizant to all the ways of mankind.” “And God saw for the evil of man on the land had grown greatly.” (Gen. 6) And it says, “The disgust of Sodom and Amorrah is great” and this demonstrates the 10th principle.
Principle XI. That God gives reward to he who does the commandments of the Torah and punishes those that transgress its admonishments and warnings
And the great reward is the life of the world to come and the punishment is the cutting off of the soul [in the world to come]. And we already said regarding this topic what these are. And the verse that attests to this principle is (Exodus 32) “And now if You would but forgive their sins - and if not erase me from this book that You have written.” And God answered him, “He who sinned against Me I will erase from My book.” This is a proof that God knows the sinner and the fulfiller in order to mete out reward to one and punishment to the other.
Understanding of grace and mercy?
Understanding of God’s engagement with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?
Principle XII. The era of the Messiah
And this is to believe that in truth that he will come and that you should be waiting for him even though he delays in coming. And you should not calculate times for him to come, or to look in the verses of Tanach to see when he should come. The sages say: The wisdom of those who calculate times [of his coming] is small and that you should believe that he will be greater and more honored than all of the kings of Israel since the beginning of time as it is prophesied by all the prophets from Moses our teacher, peace be upon him, until Malachi, peace be upon him. And he who doubts or diminishes the greatness of the Messiah is a denier in all the Torah for it testifies to the Messiah explicitly in the portion of Bilam and the portion of “You are gathered (towards the end of Deut)”. And part of this principle that there is no king of Israel except from the house of David and from the seed of Solomon alone. And anyone who disputes this regarding this family is a denier of the name of God and in all the words of the prophets.
A political kind of Messiah King?
Other prophetic scriptures?
Principle XIII. Resurrection of the dead
And we have already explained it And when the person will believe all these fundamentals and his faith will be clear in them he enters into the nation of Israel and it is a mitzva to love him and to have mercy on him and to act to him according to all the ways in which God commanded us regarding loving your neighbor. And even if he did all of the sins in the Torah due to desire of the emotions, and from his physical aspect’s conquering him, he will be punished for his sins, but he still has a share in the world to come and is among the sinners of Israel. However if he rejects one of these fundamentals he leaves the nation and is a denier of the fundamentals and is called a heretic, a denier, etc., and it is a mitzva to hate him and to destroy him (financially - not physically to kill him. And not to steal either). And regarding him it is said (Psalms 139) “Behold will not the enemy of God be my enemy?”
I have expounded at length many things and I have left the topic of my composition but I have done it for I saw a need in the dealings of the fundamentals of faith and I have gathered together many different and spread out areas Therefore know them and succeed in understanding them and review them many times and know them very well [i.e. not just memorization but to understand fully and to be able to support them and know their proofs]. Therefore if after one or ten times you think you have understood them, God knows that you are just involved in falsehood. Therefore do not read them quickly because I have not written them as it suddenly entered into my mind. But rather, after a deep and careful study of the whole area and after I have seen many clear and true ideas and I have seen what is proper to believe of them [as the fundamentals] and I have brought proofs and logical demonstrations for each and every one of them. May it be God’s will that I have been correct that He helped me through this area on the good path and now I will return to my explanation of this chapter [in the Talmud].
His thoughts on eternal life and resurrection of the dead brought much criticism and debate
C. Guide for the Perplexed
Maimonides’ beliefs were largely centered in Aristotelian and Platonic thought.
He believed it was possible to combine logic and intelligence with a knowledge of God and tradition to understand prophecy. He further admitted that his Guide was designed to protect people with a sound scientific and philosophical education from doctrines they cannot understand, and that understanding truth takes proper intellectual preparation.
Book III, chap. XVIII
“…the action of Divine Providence is proportional to the endowment of intellect, as has been mentioned above. The relation of Divine Providence is therefore not the same to all men; the greater the human perfection a person has attained, the greater the benefit he derives from Divine Providence. This benefit is very great in the case of prophets, and varies according to the degree of their prophetic faculty: as it varies in the case of pious and good men according to their piety and uprightness….This belief that God provides for every individual human being in accordance with his merits is one of the fundamental principles on which the Law is founded.
Justification by merit or grace?
How would Maimonides have interpreted these scriptures?
Exodus 33:19
"I will make all My goodness pass before you, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before you. I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion."
Exodus 34:5-7
And the LORD passed before him and proclaimed, "The LORD, the LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children's children to the third and the fourth generation."
III. Hermann Cohen: Rationality, Ethics, Liberalism and Humanism
A. Background
• Lived 1842 - 1918 in Germany
• Taught philosophy at University of Marburg, 1876-1912
B. Spirituality and Knowledge
• He believed spirituality was an idea, and gained through insight
• He believed religion was based on philosophy
• He promoted thought based on his idea of a “One God of morality” for all mankind
• He believed the nature of prophecy has shortcomings compared to a scientific approach when it came to knowledge;
• But acknowledged that a prophetic approach to man was superior to a Platonic approach in that it related to the idea of morality of mankind
• He saw prophetic writing as a tragic style of man, limited by “intellectual creativity and artistic imagination”
“Prophetic insight is merely a vision after all, an intuition; and it is a real shortcoming that prophetism fails to substantiate this intuition methodologically. Moreover it is a shortcoming of religion as such not to submit its teachings to the methodology of science as a matter of principle…And here the divine Plato, admonishing us to pursue the eternal verities, remains forever the guardian of a scientific approach to knowledge as the only infallible guarantee of truth.” (Reason and Hope, p. 74)
On the idea of reason and morality—“Here, it becomes clear why propheticism, though one-sided and lacking scientific foundation, has a practical advantage over Platonism. For propheticism tolerates no discrimination against men, and no differentiation among them.” (Reason and Hope, p. 75)
C. The Concept of God and Relating to/with God
• He was influenced by Plato’s rational thought, and believed that the term “image” of God did not mean likeness—but idea. He viewed God not having any kind of form or likeness, therefore man could not likewise be made in any such likeness. This suggests a misinterpretation of the Hebrew word, tselem, meaning resemblance.
• He maintained more of a rational than relational perspective of God, being careful not to suppose God could become a man and cross His divine nature with a human nature.
“Actually, it is not even correct to speak of a relation between God and man because God and man are not equal members of a relation. By Himself, God is not a relational concept.” (Reason and Hope, p. 88)
• He did see the fatherhood nature of God, recognizing God’s way of disciplining children
• He also saw the shepherd nature of God as a friend, teacher, mentor
• His view of God, however, could not go beyond that of an idea.
“But this God is beyond all sense-perception, beyond all image and likeness. He—somewhat like the idea—can only be “purely intuited,” can only be thought.” (Reason and Hope, p. 177)
D. Sanctification
• He believed in the concept of self-holiness, and that man accomplishes his personal sanctification by “striving for holiness” as “God’s sanctification becomes man’s task.”
• He believed that “God demands self-sanctification”; thus does not impart holiness. He interpreted this from Leviticus 22:32; “I will be hallowed among the children of Israel;” and Leviticus 11:44; “Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be holy.”
E. Holy Spirit
• He acknowledges God put His holy spirit in man’s midst (Isaiah 63:11)
• He therefore sees the holy spirit being a force, attribute and instrument of God—a “bond between God and man” which no sin can sever, since God is the Creator of the human spirit. After repentance, God therefore “re-creates” man’s spirit, keeping man holy and sanctified.
• He sees this understanding supporting the Jewish concept of monotheism, likewise maintaining Judaism’s rejection of a pantheistic view of the godhead.
• He admits that he views the concept of holy spirit as a “literary mystery.”
(Reason and Hope, p. 145-151)
F. Faith
• He believes that the concept of trust is a “cognitive act, an apperception of the idea.”
• To him, faith—or trust—is in “God as a guarantor of the establishment of morality on earth” (Reason and Hope, p. 160)
• The morality—or ethics—of man, is therefore in essence Cohen’s god. This is the foundation of humanism.
G. Messiaism
• He believed that “it is the duty of any Jew to help bring about the Messianic age”
• He saw the Messianic age becoming a product of moral man, through the process of reason, embracing God’s attribute of love and goal of man living in peace; and a time when the “new heaven is the new morality; and the new earth a new mankind.“
• He saw this as, “men advance the cause of morality on earth; most of all they must make wars disappear and prepare the way for a future in which life can be lived in harmony and justice…”
• He believed that the concept of Messiah being a “dynastic person” has become developed by educated men to mean “moral mankind” becoming the “Anointed of the Lord.”
• He therefore believed that the term “Messiah” and “its translation as “Christ” is no longer tenable.”
• He believed that “the Messiah was never envisioned as effecting the individual’s redemption from sin nor was his coming expected to achieve this individuated religious goal.
• He, therefore, believed the prophets taught that “man, himself assisted by religion, must accomplish his salvation.” (Reason and Hope, p. 112-126)
• He, therefore, viewed Christianity using the idea of Messiah to deny the Jew his right to exist as a Jew
H. Zionism
• He viewed world history from a moral concept, and saw Jerusalem ceasing to be a political concept.
The prophet must lose his country, for mankind will become his country.” (Reason and Hope, p. 115)
“Israel must sacrifice its peoplehood for its God. Its name and seed will be saved but its state must disappear…the community of Israel replaces the people of the covenant. For now there is a new covenant written into the heart and intended to make the earlier one sink into oblivion.” (Reason and Hope, p. 116)
• He argued against Zionism in his letter to Dr. Martin Buber, advocating a “universal, mankind-oriented Judaism” and a “moral world” being our real Promised Land
“Zionism mercilessly disposes of us liberal Jews by declaring us deluded for feeling at home in the civilized countries in which we are living.” (Reason and Hope, p. 166)
“…only a universal, mankind-oriented Judaism can preserve the Jewish religion…For our political integration is the prerequisite as well as guarantee of our religious survival…” (Reason and Hope, p. 169)
I. German Humanism and Judaism’s Relevance
• Cohen asserted a spiritual kinship between the German and Jewish ethos.
• He believed the German Jew was part of his nation’s ideal personality, and saw his commitment to Germany as his “political fatherland and cultural motherland”
“I believe that the Jews of France, England, and Russia owe a debt of filial piety to Germany, for it is the motherland of their soul to the extent that their religion constitutes their soul. In these epoch-making times, so fateful for all nations, we as Jews are proud to be Germans. And we are aware of our task to convince our coreligionists the world over of the religious import of the German ethos and of its influence as well as its claim on the Jews of all nations; its influence, that is on their religious development and on all their cultural endeavors…our example may well serve as a model for those willing to acknowledge the preeminence
of the German mind in all intellectual and spiritual matters.” (Reason and Hope, p. 183)
• Sadly, to Cohen, Judaism’s goal was an “absolute monotheism…the ideal of pure religion…akin to the German spirit than to that of any other people.”
“You should, for once, examine the question whether the Jewish religion is still relevant today—that is, whether it has anything to contribute to our contemporary and indeed to all future cultural life—or whether its significance lies solely in its past history, namely, in the alleged fact that it represents an early stage in the development of religion.” (Reason and Hope, p. 219)
A personal prayer
Avinu Shebashamayim, forgive such thought and meditations! Truly, our people have been deceived and seduced; fallen prey to the lies and vain imaginations of the hollow wisdom of men, cheated through philosophy and empty deceit. We have yielded to the king of pride, and fallen into the graves of catastrophic decay. Forgive us and revive us as a people called to serve You—Adonoi Elohenu—the living God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob—who has filled us with Your Ruach to be a testimony and witness to the nations, that all the world may know that You alone are God, and are to be glorified. Amen.
IV. Mordecai Kaplan: Naturalism and Reconstructionist/Secular Judaism
A. Background
• Lived 1881-1983
• Born in Lithuania; lived in New York
• Was influenced by Emile Durkheim, the French “Father of Sociology”
• As an Orthodox rabbi he helped to create the Young Israel movement; but was later condemned as a heretic
• Was a leader in creating the Jewish community center concept
• Taught at the Conservative Jewish Theological Society from 1909-1963
• His son-in-law, Ira Eisenstein founded the Reconstructionist Rabinical College in 1968, turning Kaplan's philosophy of Reconstructionist Judaism into a new denomination
B. Nationalism and Democracy
• Saw the Eurpoean Emancipation as a shift from monarchy to democracy
• The secular state, founded on the premise of social contract, entitled citizens to equal social rights
• Supported Zionism as fulfilling Torah’s value of the Land of Israel and place for Judaism to be grounded; which would support and perpetuate the Jewish identity
C. Naturalism and the New World Order
• Rejected supernaturalism in favor of a modern way to relate to the world
• Favored the scientific approach to ascertain truth and define reality
• Shifted from a theocentric view of religion to a people-focused humanistic view
• Fit God into natural order
• Reduced universal concepts into amoral mechanisms
• Saw a future universal religion with a common theology and ethics working with distinct cultural and social variations
• Considered mitvot in a metaphorical sense, as to arousing a Jewish awareness
• Commandments could, therefore, change to fit needs
• Jewish ethnicity replaced Jewish mission
D. Humanism and the New Concept of God
• God has no substance; but is a Power, Process and Force
• The search for self, and its end—self actualization—identifies God with self’s hopes
• Faith is subjective, based on the hope of the Power fulfilling self
• Prayer is directed to the Power cooperating with self
• Secular activities replace religious activities to identify self as a cultural Jew
• God is the projection of self’s image of God
V. Leo Baeck: The Reality of God; and Character, Consciousness and Development of Judaism
A. Background
• Baeck was a community rabbi in Berlin during the late 1800’s and early 1900’s
• He was more of a theologian and historian than a philosopher
• He chose to stay in Berlin during the 1930’s and early 1940’s
• He survived Theresienstadt concentration camp
B. Spirituality and Relationship with God
• He believed in a living God who establishes relationships with mankind
• His thought went beyond abstract ideas of God, focusing on experiencing God
• He, therefore, promoted the concept of religious consciousness
• He believed God made man in His image, and that image was love
• He, therefore, believed that image included the capacity to achieve purity and freedom of soul
• That image also included the ability to create
• He believed that by maintaining a nearness to God through prayer and meditation, one could gain revelation from God
• He, therefore, believed that man could hear God’s commandments in his heart, and respond to them as being given an imperative—not mere advice
• He, therefore, saw no place for spiritual indifference or neutrality
• He believed that guilt and a directionless life came from sin and opposing God’s demands, rejecting God’s ways
• He believed that by faith and humility one could experience the glory of God
• He advocated the wisdom of God, and concept of reverence and the fear of God
C. The Good, Evil and Dignity of Man
• Despite the evil of mankind he witnessed, he was an optimist, believing in man’s moral will
• He related to David’s respect and passion for God, and therein found God’s endowment of dignity
• While he did not believe man had a sin nature, He did acknowledge that man had an “evil inclination”
• He saw this as man being capable of exercising choices of action—therefore not believing in fate
• He believed man “creates the sin and thereby assumes responsibility for it.”
(The Essence of Judaism, p. 162)
• He believed that through teshuvah (repentance) man could return to a right standing with God
• However, he did not believe this came by God’s grace, but by man’s choice.
“The first step is the return of man, for atonement is the work of a creative man.”
• He attributed the ending of the temple sacrifices to man’s understanding of atonement—“return and good deeds.” (The Essence of Judaism, p. 169)
• He believed that freedom entailed a new responsibility, causing this work of atonement to be an unending task
• He interpreted the phrase, “with all thy heart” to mean purity of deed—which results from man’s sense of morality and ethics
• He believed in the ultimate mitzvah—“The climax of this obligation was martyrdom”
D. The Mission of Judaism
• He believed Judaism’s role was to reconcile the world to God
• He interpreted Judaism’s election as God’s assignment to a peculiar people
• He, therefore, advocated Jewish responsibility to prepare the world for the kingdom of God
• That preparation would come by observing the Sabbath and obeying God’s commandments in faith
• He further believed Judaism’s role in society was to foster social justice
• He advocated human rights and viewing society from a community standpoint
• Such a concept included charity and tolerance towards others
• He considered it Judaism’s mission to prepare the world for the kingdom of God
• Such a role keeps in view a “non-conformist” way of life based on faith, commitment and courage
VI. Franz Rosenzweig: Pioneering Existentialism and Revelation
A. Background
• Lived 1886-1929 in Germany
• Had a secular education
• Had a cousin who converted to Christianity; nearly did himself
• Founded the Independent House of Jewish Learning; a place where Jews could re-discover and study their Jewish heritage
• Worked with Martin Buber on a retranslation of the Torah from Hebrew to Geman
• He saw liberal Judaism failing to address the evil nature in mankind
• He believed Judaism needed to make adjustments to respond to the reality of a Moslem culture
• He developed his Star of Redemption philosophical system during World War I to prepare Judaism for the challenges of a new world
B. Philosophical Premise
• He saw the European enlightenment shifting the role of Christianity and emancipating Judaism
• He envisioned a world in upheaval needing redemption
• He believed Jews needed to live focused on the anticipation of the fulfillment of such a redemption
• He viewed the Jewish people as a peculiar people with a unique Land, Language and Law
• He was troubled by Cohen’s pro-German/anti-Zionist liberal views
• He believed God is a living God who wills, acts and is involved with those who participate with Him in a relational and revelatory way
• He, therefore, believed that the test of Jewish legitimacy is relationship, not performance
• He perceived a relationship between the Jewish Feasts and three categories of time: Creation, Revelation and Redemption
C. The Star of Redemption
• Rosenzweig saw man’s motive for knowing eternal truths overcoming the fear of death
• The three elements—God, World, Man—do not exist in and of themselves, but only in relation, one to another
• The three paths—Creation, Revelation, Redemption—are eternal processes that link the elements
• In Creation, God gives the world reality
• In Revelation, God reveals love to man, who overcomes isolation from God and responds. The response to God's revelation is the first commandment, love of God and neighbor. Love of God and neighbor is the beginning of Redemption, the third path.
• Judaism and Christianity both anticipate eternity and are based on love of God and neighbor. The Star of David is a picture of reality. Judaism is the inner fire in the heart of the star.
VII. Martin Buber: Relating and Engaging with God
A. Background
• An Austrian Jewish philosopher and educator; lived 1878-1965
• He was an active Zionist, advocating the potential of Zionism for its social as well as spiritual values
• In 1902, Buber became the editor of the weekly Zionist Die Welt
• He shortly thereafter became involved with the Jewish Hasidism movement, admiring the Hasidic culture; how the Hasidic communities lived out their beliefs in daily life
• Was editor of Der Jude (German for "The Jew"), a Jewish monthly in early 1920’s
• Was politically and socially active; helped establish the Jewish National Commission to improve the condition of Eastern European Jews
• He left Germany in 1938, and settled in Jerusalem
• He sees God as a God of the community, focused on social order
B. Experiencing God
• Stressed a relationship with God through the inner life
• He described the way most people related to God as having an “I-It” relationship; observing, examining, testing—seeing God no different than an inanimate object
• He advocated an “I-Thou” relationship; meeting, dialoguing, relating—similar to the kind man would have with another man
• He valued knowing God through communication and experience
• He revived the concept of a personal covenant relationship with God
• He advocated reaching out to God—who was everywhere
• He did not measure the significance of the engagement with God by sensation
• He believed that in order to influence society, one’s religion had to be real, not abstract; and one’s attitude towards the Bible as God’s authoritative word
• He viewed God the Creator as one who is always creating and re-creating
• God also commands, but doesn’t impose His will on mankind; He reveals His will by promise (a goal, mission), and commands a deed (Abraham)
• God sends man “out of the life of expectation, into uncertainty”
• A key to life is the union of repentance and mercy
C. Knowing God through the Bible
• He saw the main focus of the Bible as an encounter between man and God
• He viewed contemporary man as not being able to endure revelation due to an inability to respond to Scripture, for such a response comes with a responsibility to uphold its truths
• He acknowledges God’s word as an imperative; “Be thou a blessing” (Genesis 12:2)
VIII. Abraham Heschel: Encountering God— the Reality of His Word and Spirit
A. Background
• Lived 1907–1972: born in Poland; escaped the Nazis to live in England the USA
• Came from a preeminent rabbinic family; educated in a traditional yeshiva way
• Succeeded Martin Buber as director of the Central Organization for Jewish Adult Education in Frankfurt
• Briefly served on the faculty of (Reformed) Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati
• Taught at (Conservative) Jewish Theological Seminary of America: 1946-1972
• Main subjects: Jewish Ethics, Mysticism, the prophets
• Sought to advocate a balanced view between Liberal Judaism—which no longer held that Jewish law was relevant—and Orthodox Judaism, which Heschel viewed as valuing and emphasizing legalism over the spirit of the law
• He advocated a balanced mystical experience with God based on Scripture and revelation of truth
• Viewed the writings of the prophets as a modern day call for social action
• Pioneered the concept of social activism as a mission for rabbis and laypeople
• Was an activist for civil rights in the USA, and freedom for Soviet Jewry
• He is one of the few Jewish theologians widely read by Christians
• Negotiated with leaders of the Roman Catholic church at the Vatican Council II, persuading the church to eliminate or modify passages in its liturgy that demeaned the Jews, or called for their conversion to Christianity
• He advocated that mankind’s religious experience was deemed to be a universal one, not just a Jewish one, and that no religious community could claim a monopoly on religious truth
B. Religion, Philosophy and Relevance
• Faith vs. creed
• Worship vs. discipline
• Love vs. habit
• Importance of current issues vs. past events
• Religion as an institution vs. task of man’s compassion
• Dead thoughts vs. living thoughts; heirlooms or living fountain of life
• Theory of philosophy vs. solutions of religious thought and action
• Conceptual reasoning vs. situational thought and inner revelation
• Knowledge as a worldly awareness vs. understanding relating to real life
• Observing as a spectator vs. stirring the heart to find truth
• Seeking God for personal interests vs. pursuit of God’s authentic truths
• Greek thinking vs. Hebraic synthesis of reason and revelation
• The way of mans. vs. the will of God
• Science of the earth vs. insights into what is beyond, but real and relevant
• The ideas and creed of Maimonides vs. ultimate reality of life’s events and experiencing God
C. Man’s Qwest for God and God’s Search for Man
• The nature of man: our anxieties and joys; wonders and resistance; hiding from God and longing to find Him
• Inquiring after His will and ways vs. gaining information vs. desiring Him
• The process of engagement:
Man’s nature directs his pursuits to his end until he longs for God
Deuteronomy 4:27-30
…there you will serve gods, the work of men's hands, wood and stone, which neither see nor hear nor eat nor smell. But from there you will seek the LORD your God, and you will find Him if you seek Him with all your heart and with all your soul.
God waits for man to acknowledge and seek Him
Psalm 14:2
The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men,
To see if there are any who understand, who seek God.
Man eventually discovers God’s desires and ways
Hosea 6:6
For I desire mercy and not sacrifice,
And the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.
Man ultimately desires and delights in what God desires for him
Psalm 27:4
One thing I have desired of the LORD,
That will I seek:
That I may dwell in the house of the LORD
All the days of my life,
To behold the beauty of the LORD,
And to inquire in His temple.
Psalm 73:28
But it is good for me to draw near to God;
I have put my trust in the Lord GOD,
That I may declare all Your works.
After discovering God, man goes from Worship to Learning to Action
• Man wrestles with Expediency: maximizing comfort/minimizing energy
• Man reduces everything to what can be calculated, seeing mystery as risk
• The lures of the world blind us to spiritual vision
• Human ideals and values desensitize us to God’s Spirit and God’s values and truths
• The natural nature of earth and man draws us to create golden calves
• God is beyond science, logic and man’s methods
• As the world advances, our sense of wonder declines
• Three attitudes towards mystery:
Fatalist: an irrational force devoid of justice or purpose governs life (Egyptian)
Positivist: that which we do not know shall eventually be explained (Greek)
Biblical: God will answer and reveal truth (Hebraic)
Awe precedes faith
Reverence precedes wisdom
The goodness of God produces Glory
D. The Transcendent Life
• Faith is living in the reality beyond:
having a “certainty without knowledge”
sensing what is “the real without being expressible”
something so real, yet “every man has to find it by himself”
“an awareness of the transcendent worth of the universe”
sensing the “activity of an intelligent God”
• “Faith is sensitivity, understanding, engagement, and attachment”
• “To have faith in God is to reveal what is concealed”
• We encounter God in “moments of insight”
• Allowing God to stir you beyond words and fear; perceptions that can be grasped
• Rising above man’s ego, needs and wisdom
• Going beyond our natural faculties
• Share in divine wisdom
• Capable of reaching the realm of mystery
• A sense of God asking a question
• Gaining an affirmation of a truth, definite judgment, conviction
• A sense of God’s presence (Adam and Eve)
• Realizing that “God is not always silent, and man is not always blind”
• A sense of God lifting a veil at the horizon, opening a vision of the eternal
• This comes after feeling hopeless without God
• Such a sensitivity is given to a broken heart; a mind rising above reason
• Transcendence is the test of religious truth: receiving the mercy of God
• An awareness of God the Creator being God the Communicator
Who is the initiator?
Heschel perceived man initiates spiritual events
“But the initiative, we believe is with man. The great insight is not given unless we are ready to receive. God concludes but we commence.”
(God in Search of Man, p. 147)
What were the dynamics of the event between God and Moses at the burning bush? (Exodus 3:1-4)
What reality did Job come to in Job 42:1-5?
Who was the initiator behind the events of Job’s story?
What was God’s ultimate purpose?
Why is this an important aspect of Messianic Judaism?
E. Reality of Revelation and the Supernatural
• The issue of man’s self-sufficiency and need of God’s divine guidance (pride)
• The issue of man’s worthiness (false humility)
• The issue of man’s value system
• The issue of our pagan heritage
• The issue of being literal-minded
• The issue of anthropomorphism—ascribing human qualities to God
• The question of Sinai being real?
• The question of miracles being real?
• The issue of the history of the prophets, Jewish people and Israel
• The issue of the reality and authority of the Bible
• The mystery of prophecy—God’s relationship to man
• The mystery of mysticism
“The mystic experience is man’s turning toward God; the prophetic act is God’s turning toward man.” (God in Search of Man, p. 198)
• The reality of God’s Word and Spirit
Isaiah 59:21
"As for Me," says the LORD, "this is My covenant with them: My Spirit who is upon you, and My words which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your descendants, nor from the mouth of your descendants' descendants," says the LORD, "from this time and forevermore."
• The reality of man’s relationship with God: a two-way concept
Mattan torah: the giving of the Torah
Kabbalat torah: the acceptance of the Torah
• The concept of kavanah: to straighten, direct the mind; attentiveness towards God; perceiving meaning, purpose, motive, intention
F. The Concept of Mitzvah
Heschel viewed the concept of mitzvah serving as a central concept in Jewish religious consciousness
He maintained Judaism’s traditional view of mitzvah: “man’s obligation to fulfill the law, and the act of fulfilling the obligation or the deed, particularly an act of benevolence or charity.” (God in Search of Man, p. 361)
Interpreting Proverbs 10:8
The wise in heart will receive commandments…
Chakam lab yekach mitzvoth
Key issues:
Is the focus on receiving the wisdom of God’s words— spirit of His words and ways—and then walking in it, or
on performing good deeds?
How can the concept of faith and obedience be expressed by mitzvot?
Can the concept of mitzvot be expressed by hearing the spoken word of God and responding in faith?
Can Messianic Jews and Christians apply the concept of mitzvot in walking in and practicing the gifts of the Spirit (Romans 12)
Traditional Jewish Expression
Mitzvah; Mitzvot: (lit. “commandment”); one of the Torah’s 613 Divine commandments; a good deed or religious precept; according to Chassidut, the word mitzvah stems from the root tzavta, attachment, the mitzvah creating a bond between G-d who commands and man who performs. (chabad.org)
A mitzvah is a connection between your world and a Higher Force. Through a mitzvah, you take some part of your mundane little world and make it higher. The goal? To get out of life everything that life was meant to give. And to make the world into everything the world was meant to be. Because life is meant to be beautiful and the world is meant to be divine.
Seven attributes minister before the Throne of Glory, to wit: wisdom, righteousness, justice, loving-kindness and compassion, truth, and peace, as it is said: I will betroth you unto Me forever; and I will betroth you unto Me with righteousness, with justice, with loving-kindness, and with mercy.
Our sages distinguish between two types of mitzvot: a) the mitzvot that are part of the service and worship of G-d, thus related to the man-G-d relationship; and b) the mitzvot affecting our fellow-humans, thus related to human relationships and concourse.
This distinction is of Halachic significance. Nonetheless, the dichotomy is more apparent than real. Strictly speaking, we can not differentiate purely religious or ritualistic precepts from purely social or ethical mitzvot.
In Judaism, social obligations and duties, ethics and morality, are an integral part of the religious and ritualistic. The one is inseparable from the other. The Torah is a Torat chayim, a code dealing with the totality of life. The instructions of the Torah apply not to one aspect or circumstance of man only, but encompass man as a whole.
Man's physical existence is not a distinct entity to be separated from his spiritual life. The Torah is concerned with–thus guides and instructs–man's conduct in the most common actions of everyday life. The totality of man is to become hallowed and sanctified. Every act is to be part of the service of G-d. The mitzvot, therefore, are found to deal with matters of worship and ritual alongside precepts of social justice and ethics.
Keys to our answer:
Proverbs 2:1-6
My son, if you receive my words,
And treasure my commands within you,
So that you incline your ear to wisdom,
And apply your heart to understanding;
Yes, if you cry out for discernment,
And lift up your voice for understanding,
If you seek her as silver,
And search for her as for hidden treasures;
Then you will understand the fear of the LORD,
And find the knowledge of God.
For the LORD gives wisdom;
From His mouth come knowledge and understanding;
Proverbs 3:1-6
My son, do not forget my law,
But let your heart keep my commands;
For length of days and long life
And peace they will add to you.
Let not mercy and truth forsake you;
Bind them around your neck,
Write them on the tablet of your heart,
And so find favor and high esteem
In the sight of God and man.
Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
And lean not on your own understanding;
In all your ways acknowledge Him,
And He shall direct your paths.
F. Good and Evil; Atonement and Redemption
Did God create evil?
Why does God allow evil?
• God created mankind in His image, which includes free agency
• Man has the choice to respond to his heart
• Sovereign God has the choice to respond to man’s behavior
Genesis 6:5-8
Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the LORD said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them." But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
In establishing His covenant, God issued a choice:
Deut 30:11-20
For this commandment which I command you today is not too mysterious for you, nor is it far off…But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it.
See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil, in that I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgments, that you may live and multiply; and the LORD your God will bless you in the land which you go to possess. But if your heart turns away so that you do not hear, and are drawn away, and worship other gods and serve them, I announce to you today that you shall surely perish…therefore choose life…that you may love the LORD your God, that you may obey His voice, and that you may cling to Him…
God knew, however, that man would have a problem with this evil nature
Deuteronomy 31:21
Then it shall be, when many evils and troubles have come upon them, that this song will testify against them as a witness; for it will not be forgotten in the mouths of their descendants, for I know the inclination of their behavior today, even before I have brought them to the land of which I swore to give them.
Man, therefore, is left with the problem of dealing with his evil inclinations
How traditional Judaism solves the problem of sin
• Regain the relationship with God forfeited by sin by turning to holiness
• Do good: mitvot
Exodus 22:31
And you shall be holy men to Me
Psalm 34:14
Depart from evil and do good;
Seek peace and pursue it.
“The mitzvah, the humble single act of serving God, of helping man, of cleansing the self, is our way of dealing with the problem. We do not know how to solve the problem of evil, but we are not exempt from dealing with evils.” (God in Search of Man, p. 377)
“Good deeds alone will not redeem history; it is the obedience to God that will make us worthy of being redeemed by God.” (God in Search of Man, p. 379)
Can man atone for his sins?
• Heschel acknowledged the limitations of the ritual of the Day of Atonement
“Let us labor under no illusions. There are no easy solutions for problems that are at the same time intensely personal and universal, urgent and eternal.” (God in Search of Man, p. 372)
• He also acknowledged that man’s complexity, selfish nature and vanity make it difficult for man to serve God with integrity
“Depth-psychology had made it clear to us that the springs of human action are complex, that the subrational either dominates or at least affects the conscious life, that the power and the drive of the ego penetrate all our attitudes and decisions. We may assume that we love God, while in truth it is the ego we care for.” (God in Search of Man, p. 387)
“The problem of integrity concerns not only the character of our moral deeds but also the integrity of our thinking...Pychological (and sociological) research has disclosed not only how the motivations of our conduct are entangled in the functions of instinctual desires, but also how the vested interests of the ego penetrate not only moral motivations but also acts of cognition.”
The discovery of this tragic predicament is a most painful blow to man’s sense of spiritual security…There is no depth to virtue, no reality to integrity.” (God in Search of Man, p. 389)
Heschel concluded what Solomon, Isaiah and God already came to agreement on: man’s good deeds and best efforts will fall short of pleasing God
“God asks for the heart. Yet, our greatest failure is in the heart.” (God in Search of Man, p. 393)
Ecclesiastes 12:13-14
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter:
Fear God and keep His commandments,
For this is man's all.
For God will bring every work into judgment,
Including every secret thing,
Whether good or evil.
Isaiah 64:5-6
You meet him who rejoices and does righteousness,
Who remembers You in Your ways.
You are indeed angry, for we have sinned --
In these ways we continue;
And we need to be saved.
But we are all like an unclean thing,
And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags;
We all fade as a leaf,
And our iniquities, like the wind,
Have taken us away.
Judaism’s best hope: The Deed Redeems
• Man lives in a state of despair
• Vanity fills us with shame
• The ends will justify the means
• Depend on constancy of action and concentration on the task
• Hope that God will redeem us and complete us
“Jusaism insists upon the deed and hopes for the intention.” (God in Search of Man, p. 403)
“This, however, is our hope: God will redeem where we fail; He will complete what we are trying to achieve. It is the grace of God that helps those who do everything that lies within their power to achieve that which is beyond their power.” (God in Search of Man, p. 407)
Redemption is man’s ultimate solution
Jeremiah 31:31-34
"Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah -- not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."
“The world is in need of redemption, but the redemption must not be expected to happen as an act of sheer grace. Man’s task is to make the world worthy of redemption. His faith and his works are preparations for ultimate redemption.” (God in Search for Man, p. 380)
G. Judaism’s Hope: Freedom, Sabbath and Israel
• Freedom is the power to live spiritually, rise to a higher level of existence
• To celebrate the Sabbath is to experience one’s ultimate independence of civilization and society, of achievement and anxiety
• Our thinking must be compatible with our destiny—the eternity of the Kingdom of God
• Israel is a spiritual order: a mate of God; a tree that keeps us alive; God’s vision
H. The Standard of Judaism and Issue of the Oneness of God
Heschel’s question:
“What gives us the certainty that the substance of our insight is not a projection of our own soul? Is not the soul a breeding place for illusion? How do we know that our interpretation of what is given to us in moments of religious insight is correct? How do we know that it is a living God, the creator of heaven and earth, whose concern reached the soul? What is the standard by which to test the veracity of religious insights?” (God in Search of Man, p. 161)
Heschel’s answer: “Oneness is the norm, the standard and the goal.”
IX. Mysticism, Messianic Judaism and Postmodern Judaism
A. Humankind’s View of the Postmodern Society
• Disappointment in amorality
• Discontentment with quality of life
• Discouragement by politics
• Disillusionment with religion
• Despaired in lack of hope of any solutions
B. A Legacy of Postmodern Jewish Ideologies
• Rationalism has not provided viable solutions to life’s problems
• Liberalism has resulted in the decay of real ethics and moral values
• Universalism has not met the needs of various social entities
• Secularism has not provided a sense of security or base for the Jewish identity
C. The Quest for Authenticity
• Jewish Orthodoxy striving to maintain a sanctified life and sense of moral values
• Conservative and Reformed Jews striving for social acceptance and preservation of the Jewish identity
• Zionists seeking to preserve the Land
• Mystics striving for perfect divinity
• Messianic Jews seeking to be a witness and testimony of Biblical Judaism, the Kingdom of God and Yeshua’s Messiahship
D. The Mystical Experience: Attainable? Reality? Practicality?
• Experiencing the transcendent world/abyss: beyond the plane of nature
• The seven heavens
• Ascending the ten levels/attributes of God/Sefireth
• The spiritual guide/mentor/rebbe
• Pursuing Redemption: Tikkun, teshuvah and mitzvot
E. Biblical Messianic Judaism and the Ruach HaKodesh
• Being a visible corporate witness of the Messiahship of Yeshua to the Jewish community, the Body of Messiah, and the world
• Being an expression of a balanced Biblical testimony
• Fulfilling God’s original calling and whole great commission according to Isaiah 42, 60-62; Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-18; Luke 24:44-49
Translation - Russian СОВРЕМЕННАЯ ЕВРЕЙСКАЯ МЫСЛЬ
ОБЗОР ОСНОВНЫХ НАПРАВЛЕНИЙ ЕВРЕЙСКОЙ МЫСЛИ
ПОВЛИЯВШЕЙ НА СОВРЕМЕННУЮ ЕВРЕЙСКУЮ КУЛЬТУРУ
Харвей Л. Даймонд
С О Д Е Р Ж А Н И Е
I. Введение: иудаизм – народ с призванием и миссией 3
II. Маймонид: продолжительное влияние на формировании иудаизма 6
III. Эрманн Коген: рациональность, этика, либерализм и гуманизм 13
IV. Мардохей Каплан: натурализм и реформизм / светский иудаизм 18
V. Лео Бек: Реальность Бога; особенность, самосознание и развитие иудаизма 20
VI. Франц Розенцвейг: пионер экзистенционализма и откровения 22
VII. Мартин Бубер: контакт и личные отношения с Богом 24
VIII. Авраам Гешель: встреча с Богом – реальность Его Слова и Духа 26
IX. Мистицизм, мессианский иудаизм и иудаизм постмодернизма 38
I. Введение: Иудаизм – Народ с призванием и миссией
A. Призвание и выбор
Уникальное призвание завета первенца: призвание служить Богу
Исход 4:22-23
«Израиль есть сын Мой, первенец Мой; Я говорю тебе: отпусти сына Моего, чтобы он совершил Мне служение»
Испытание путей Божьих в жизни: путь веры и послушания
Исход 16:4
«И сказал Господь Моисею: вот, Я одождю вам хлеб с неба, и пусть народ выходит и собирает ежедневно, сколько нужно на день, чтобы Мне испытать его, будет ли он поступать по закону Моему, или нет»
Уникальная возможность приобрести Божественную мудрость
Второзаконие 4:5-10
«Вот, я научил вас постановлениям и законам, как повелел мне Господь, Бог мой, дабы вы так поступали в той земле, в которую вы вступаете, чтоб овладеть ею; итак храните и исполняйте их, ибо в этом мудрость ваша и разум ваш пред глазами народов, которые, услышав о всех сих постановлениях, скажут: только этот великий народ есть народ мудрый и разумный»
Призваны быть представителями Бога и свидетельством для народов
Исайя 42:6-7
«Я, Господь, призвал Тебя в правду, и буду держать Тебя за руку и хранить Тебя, и поставлю Тебя в завет для народа, во свет для язычников, чтобы открыть глаза слепых, чтобы узников вывести из заключения и сидящих во тьме - из темницы»
Постоянное призвание избирать пути Божьи, а не пути других народов
Иисус Навин 24:15
«Если же не угодно вам служить Господу, то изберите себе ныне, кому служить, богам ли, которым служили отцы ваши, бывшие за рекою, или богам Аморреев, в земле которых живете; а я и дом мой будем служить Господу»
B. Влияние мира, гонения, изоляция и рассеяние
Сатана подверг сомнению истину Бога с самого начала, и мир с тех пор бросает вызов Божьим людям. Бог сказал, что это будет происходить.
Бытие 3 :15
«и вражду положу между тобою и между женою, и между семенем твоим и между семенем ее; оно будет поражать тебя в голову, а ты будешь жалить его в пяту»
Наше призвание как избранного Божьего народа, наше существование и место в обществе постоянно подверается сомнению и угрозе. Какова была наша реакция?
• 73 г.н.э. – Иерусалим захватывают римляне после неудачного Первого Восстания иудеев. Еврейское общество раскололось. Мессианские евреи убегают на восток, в Пэллу. Еврейские раввины образовали школу в Явнэ – так институционализировался раввинистический иудаизм.
• 132-135 г.н.э. – Мессианские и раввинистические евреи боролись вместе против римлян до тех пор, пока раввин Акива провозгласил вождя восстания - Шимона бар Кохбу - еврейским мессией. Раскол усугубился. Римляне захватили власть. Остаток евреев рассеялся.
• Господство Греко-римской философии в культуре и религиозных верованиях.
• 312 г.н.э. – Обращение императора Константина в христианство, в котором господствовала философия Иустина Мученика, учение стоиков, Аристотеля, Пифагора и Платона. Он провозгласил (эллинистическое) христианство официальной религией империи и установил новый религиозный порядок для продвижения философского единообразия, преследуя сектантов. Позднее Темные Века … продолжительные преследования, изгнание, отделение и изоляция.
• Середина XII в.: Маймонид (родился в Испании) учит в Марокко, на Святой Земле и в Египте. На него повлияла исламская культура и мировоззрение Аристотеля. Его основные труды включают: «Мишне-Тора», «Шеффер хамицвот», «Путеводитель растерянных». Раввинистический иудаизм укрепился.
C. Перемены в политической ситуации способствуют развитию современной еврейской мысли и активизму
• 18 в.: Век Европейской эмансипации и Просвещения: войны между католиками и протестантами приводят к секуляризации общества. Идея «конфиденциальности личной жизни» дает место религиозной толерантности. Участие евреев в общественной жизни увеличивается, что ведет к распаду еврейской общинной жизни и концепции еврейского отождествления – это содействует распространению еврейского модернизма и новых течений в еврейской мысли.
• Сионизм: Новая социально-политическая сила оспаривающая расовую принадлежность евреев; содействует разделению евреев, в зависимости от их философии.
• Холокост: Катаклизм в еврейской морали; черствость и цинизм среди евреев и распространение аморальности во всем мире.
• Шестидневная война: Начало нового периода в еврейском самосознании. Обновленное чувство религиозной и этнической свободы дает толчок новым легитимным наклонностям и интересам среди евреев по всему миру.
• Наши дни: мессианский иудаизм – растущее и созревающее движение Бога, объединяющее в себе идею и веру в Иешуа, нашего Мессию; видимое свидетельство для верующих евреев и язычников мессианской общины, поклоняющихся в Духе и истине.
II. Маймонид: Продолжительное влияние на формирование иудаизма
A. Биография
• Родился в Испании в 1135 г.
• Вместе с отцом, Маймоном, изучал Тору
• Под угрозой ислама, переехал и поселился в Марроко
• Влияние на него исламской мысли
• Приверженец нео-платонизма – «негативной теологии» (Бог не есть …)
• Сторонник философии Аристотеля и «рациональных доказательств»
• Составил ключевые элементы еврейской мысли, сформировавшей иудаизм
Вызов нам: где мы можем увидеть противоречие с истинами Писания, толкованием и откровением?
B. Мишна: 13 принципов иудаизма
1. Существование Творца
Верить в существование Творца. Этот Творец во всем совершенен. Он – причина существования всего. Он сотворил все и все существует только благодаря Ему. Если бы вы только могли предположить, что Он не существует, то всё бы прекратило свое существование и ничего бы не осталось. И если бы вы только могли предположить, что все прекратит свое существование, то Его существование не прекратилось бы. Он бы ничего не потерял; Он – един и царство принадлежат только Ему. «Хашем силы» - Его имя, потому что достаточно только Его существования, только Его достаточно и не нужен кто-либо другой. Существование ангелов, небесных тел и все, что в них и под ними … все нуждается в Нем для существования. Это – первый столп, на который указывает стих «Я – Хашем Твой Бог»
2. Его единство
Квинтэссенциальная идея единственности. Это не единственность пары (пара обуви – это одна группа) или одного вида. И не подобно телу, которое можно разделить на много разных частей до тех пор, пока уже невозможно будет делить что-то. Более того, Бог Един и нет подобного единства как у Него. Это второй принцип, чему и учат «Слушай Израиль, Хашем Твой Бог, Хашем един».
Единство: эхад: объединен, вместе? Случай единства множественной природы Бога.
3. Отрицание Его телесности
4.
Единство, о котором мы упомянули ранее, - это не тело или телесная сила, у Него нет формы или образа и никакого отношения к телу или его частям. Вот почему благословенные мудрецы говорили о небесах: там не надо сидеть, ни стоять, ни просыпаться, ни уставать. Это означает, что Он не принимает участие ни в одном из физических действий и не обладает какими-либо физическими качествами. Если бы у него было тело, то оно было бы такое, как и остальных и Он тогда не был бы Богом. Обо всем этом написано в Священных Писаниях, и все описания Бога человекоподобны (антропоморфичны). Так сказал наш благословенный раввин «Тора говорит человеческим языком» (т.е. использует слова людей, чтобы донести некое понимание). И раввины уже подробно говорили по этому вопросу. Это – третий столп, который подкреплен стихом «Не сотвори себе кумира», что значит ты не видел образ или очертание, когда стоял у Синая, потому что как мы уже сказали, что у Него нет тела, ни телесной силы.
Антропоморфичная природа Бога:
Образ в противовес характеру?
Закон в противовес любви?
Сердечный крик пророков?
Псалмы, Притчи, Песни Песней Соломона?
4. Вечность Его существования
Бог существовал до всего, и будет после всего. Это множество раз доказано в Писании и также подтверждается стихом «Meuna Elokei kedem»
5. Только Творец может быть объектом поклонения
Но только не то, что находится ниже Его творения. Ни ангелы, ни звезды, ни планеты или что-либо еще, потому что они были созданы в природе и по их функциям, не существует альтернативы или судьи, кроме Самого Бога. Им невозможно служить, потому что они являются промежуточным звеном между нами и Богом. Твои мысли и поступки должны прилепляться только к Богу. Это пятый принцип, направленый против идолопоклонства, и большая часть Торы также против этого.
6. Он открывается через пророков
Людям известно, что пророк это создание высшего порядка и безупречности качеств его характера. Он обладает огромным знанием; к нему прибавляется больше сведений в процессе, когда знания человека прилепляются к знаниям Бога и зависят от них. Это пророки; это пророчество и сама идея. Толкование очень длинное и, намерение не в том, чтобы дать знамение и объяснить каждую фундаментальную доктрину, объяснить все знания (знания Бога), но об этом говорится в историях, что подтверждает Тора.
Истинное понимание природы пророчества?
Понимание природы Духа Святого?
7. Моисей наивысший среди всех пророков
Моисей был отцом всех пророков, которые были до него и будут после него. Он был на качественно высшем уровне, чем кто-либо другой, и он был избран из всех народов до и после него, знающих Бога. Он был самым великим. И он поднялся на уровень с ангелами. Он получил все знания и пророчество и его физические качества не были ослаблены. У него были другие знания и благодаря этой разнице, как он нем сказано, что он говорил с Богом без какого-либо посредника или ангела.
Я хотел бы объяснить эту сбивающую с толку концепцию и приоткрыть истины в Торе относительно стихов «лицом к лицу» и другие похожие ссылки, но их длина была бы огромной и они бы потребовали множества доказательств из Торы и других источников. Даже для краткого описания потребуется 100 страниц, потому я напишу об этом в другой книге. Пророчество Моисея, нашего учителя отличались от других таким образом:
1) Бог обращался к остальным пророкам через посредника. В случае с Моисеем, не было ни одного посредника, но как сказано, «лицем к лицу».
2) Пророчество другим было дано ночью, когда они спали, как сказано «в ночном видении» .и другие подобные ссылки; или днем, но только после глубокого сна, когда все их чувства были отключены, кроме мыслей. Но с Моисеем не так. Моисей получал пророчества всякий раз, когда он стоял между двумя образами ковчега «и откроюсь тебе там» и «не так с моим слугой Моисеем. Лицеем к лицу говорил Я с ним»
3) Когда пророк получал пророчество, то он не мог выдержать того сильного влияния, он бы трясся и не мог бы стоять, как сказано о Данииле и его встрече с ангелом Гавриилом. В отношении Моисея, с ним не было так. Как сказано, «лицеем к лицу говорил Я с ним, как говорит человек с другом своим». Несмотря на такую крепкую связь с Богом, он не пострадал.
4) Все пророки не могли получить пророчество по своей воле, но только тогда когда Бог хотел им дать это. Некоторые не получали пророчество днями и месяцами. Даже если они нуждались или хотели чего-то, то уходили дни, месяцы и годы или даже они так и не получали пророчество. Некоторые люди просили других играть на музыкальных инструментах, чтобы у них было хорошее настроение, как Елисей. Но Моисей получал пророчество во всякое время, когда он хотел, как сказано «Стой здесь и слушай, что Бог хочет от тебя» и «Скажи Аарону, своему брату, что он не может входить во святое святых во всякое время». Наши раввины говорили «Аарону было запрещено входить тогда, когда ему захочется, но с Моисеем не было так».
Иисус Навин: Стоял перед начальником воинства Господня (Иисус Навин 5:15)
Илия и Елисей: близкие взаимоотношения с Господом, «перед которым я стою» (3-Царств 17:1;18:15; 4-Царств 3:14; 5:16)
8. Тора была дана Моисею на горе Синай
Вся Тора, данная Моисею, нашему учителю, исходит из уст Бога. И значит, что она была полностью принята от Бога. И никто кроме Моисея не знает, как он принял ее. Он был как стенограф, который записывает все, что вы диктуете ему: все события, даты, истории, все заповеди. Нет разницы между «Сыны Хама: Хуш, Мицраим, Фут и Ханаан» и «Я Хашем, твой Бог» и «Слушай Израиль, Хашем твой Бог, Хашем Един», потому что все эти слова были даны Богом. Все это совершенная Тора Хашема: чистая, святая и истинная. И те, кто говорит, что эти стихи или истории, Моисей придумал сам, тогда он отвергает наших мудрецов и пророков, и хуже любых других еретиков, потому что он думает, что Тора дана из порочного сердца человека, и вопросы, утверждения, даты, истории не имеют никакой ценности, поскольку даны раввином Моисеем. Он верит, что Тора не дана с неба. Так говорили наши мудрецы «если он верит, что вся Тора дана с неба, кроме этого стиха, который произнес не Сам Бог, а Моисей, (он отвергает всю Тору)» Бог сказал это и то, и каждое утверждение в Торе от Бога и наполнено мудростью и приносит пользу тем, кто понимает их. И глубина ее знания больше всей земли и шире всех морей и человек может идти только по пути Давида, помазанника Бога Иакова, который сказал «Открой мои глаза, чтобы я мог видеть чудеса Твоей Торы» (Псалом 118). Подобно, толкование Торы было также получено от Бога и мы используем ее в наши дни, чтобы узнать, как выглядит сука, лулав, шофар, цицит, тфилин и как их использовать. Все это Бог сказал Моисею и Моисей сказал нам. Ему можно доверять, как посланнику, и стих, который учит этой фундаментальной истине записан в Числа 16. И Моисей сказал, «по тому узнаете, что Хашем послал меня совершить все эти чудеса, потому что они не от меня».
Дух закона?
9. Тора, происходящая от Творца, не подлежит изменениям
Тора от Бога и в ней нет никакого недостатка. Вы не можете добавить ничего и ничего не можете забрать ни от письменной Торы, ни от устного закона, как сказано «Ничего не прибавляй и не убавляй от этого», Второзаконие 3. Мы уже объяснили, что необходимо было объяснить эту фундаментальную истину в начале этого эссе.
Устная Тора? Традиция человеческая?
10. Творец знает все помыслы и действия людей
Его знание не таково, как кто-то говорит, что Бог покинул Землю, но как сказано в 32-й главе Иеремии «Великий в совете и сильный в делах, Которого очи отверсты на все пути сынов человеческих». «И воззрел Господь Бог на землю, и вот, она растленна, ибо всякая плоть извратила путь свой на земле» Бытие 6 «Жители же Содомские были злы и весьма грешны пред Господом» демонстрирует 10-й принцип.
11. Вознаграждение для соблюдающих заповеди и наказание преступающих закон
Велика награда - жизнь в грядущем мире, и наказание – это истребление души (в грядущем мире). И мы уже сказали в отношении этой темы. Стих, подтверждающий этот принцип находится в 32-й главе Исход «прости им грех их, а если нет, то изгладь и меня из книги Твоей, в которую Ты вписал». Бог ответил «того, кто согрешил предо Мною, изглажу из книги Моей». Это доказательство того, что Бог знает грешника и праведника, чтобы дать награду одному и наказание другому.
Понимание благодати и милости?
Понимание завета Бога с Авраамом, Исааком и Иаковом?
12. Вера в приход Мессии
Он придет в действительности, и мы должны ожидать его, даже если он задержится. И ты не должен высчитывать время Его возвращения или же искать в стихах Танаха, когда он должен прийти. Мудрецы говорят: «Мудрость тех, кто пытается вычислить время его прихода, невелика, и ты должен верить, что он будет более величественен и почитаем, чем все цари Израиля от начала времен, как были пророчества со времен Моисея, нашего учителя, до Малахии. И тот, кто сомневается или умаляет величие Мессии, отрицает всю Тору, которая явно свидетельствует о Мессии в разделе «Билам» и в разделе «Вы собраны». Нет царя в Израиля как, кроме того, из дома Давидова и от семени Соломона. Любой, кто подвергает это сомнению, отвергает имя Бога и слова всех Его пророков.
Политический Царь Мессия?
Другие пророческие места Писания?
13. Воскрешение мёртвых
Если человек четко верит во все эти основы, то он входит в Израильский народ, и мицва состоит в том, чтобы любить его и проявлять к нему милость и относится к нему так, как Бог заповедал любить своего ближнего. И если бы он даже согрешил всеми известными грехами Торы из-за чувсиченных желаний и победы его физической стороны, то он будет наказан за свои грехи, но у него все также есть часть в грядущем мире и среди грешников в Израиле. Однако, если он отвергнет одну из этих истин, то он оставит народ и будет еретиком, преступником и т.д. Мицва состоит в том, чтобы ненавидеть его и убить его (финансово – не убивать его физически). Относительно него сказано в 138 Псалме «Полною ненавистью ненавижу их: враги они мне»
Его мысли о вечной жизни и воскресении стали причиной множества дебатов и критики
C. Путеводитель растерянных
Верования Маймонида были в большей степени сконцентрированы на мировоззрении Аристотеля и Платона. Он верил, что возможно логику и ум с познанием Бога и традиционным пониманием пророчества. Далее он признал, что его путеводитель был предназначен, чтобы оградить людей глубоким научным и философским образованием от доктрин, которые они не могут понять. Для понимания истины необходима соответствующая интеллектуальная подготовка.
Книга III, глава XVIII
« … действие Божественного Провидения пропорционально интеллектуальному дару, как было упомянуто ранее. Потому отношение Божественного Провидения не одинаково для всех людей; чем большего совершенства достиг человек, тем больше пользы он получает от Божественного Провидения. Преимущества очень велики для пророков и варьируют в зависимости от их пророческого дара: в случае, когда они варьирует для набожных и хороших людей в соответствии с их благочестием и праведностью. Убеждение в том, что Бог заботится о каждом человеческом существе в зависимости от того, какую пользу это даст – один из фундаментальных принципов, на котором основывается Закон»
Оправдание по благодати или из-за заслуг?
Как Маймонид бы интерпретировал эти места Писания?
Исход 33:19 «И сказал Господь Моисею: Я проведу пред тобою всю славу Мою и провозглашу имя Иеговы пред тобою, и кого помиловать - помилую, кого пожалеть - пожалею»
Исход 34:5-7 «И сошел Господь в облаке, и остановился там близ него, и провозгласил имя Иеговы. И прошел Господь пред лицем его и возгласил: Господь, Господь, Бог человеколюбивый и милосердый, долготерпеливый и многомилостивый и истинный, сохраняющий правду и являющий милость в тысячи родов, прощающий вину и преступление и грех, но не оставляющий без наказания, наказывающий вину отцов в детях и в детях детей до третьего и четвертого рода»
III. Герман Коген: рациональность, этика, либерализм и гуманизм
A. Биография
• Жил в 1842-1918 гг.
• Преподавал философию в Марбургском университете
B. Духовность и познания
• Он верил, что духовность – это идея, которую можно приобрести благодаря вдохновению
• Он верил, что религия основывана на философии;
• Он защищал свою идею - «Один Бог морали» для всего человечества;
• Он верил, что природа пророчества имеет свои недостатки в сравнении с научным подходом, когда дело доходит до знания;
• Признавал, что пророческий подход выше подхода Платона, поскольку оно имеет отношение к идее нравственного поведения человечества
• В пророческих Писаниях он видел трагический стиль человека, ограниченный «интеллектуальным творчеством и артистическим воображением»
«Пророческое понимание является просто видением, в конце концов, интуицией: и это настоящий недостаток, что пророчества не могут дать достаточные доказательства этой интуиции методологически. Более того, недостаток религии как таковой не подчинить ее учения методологии науки, как принципиальный вопрос. И здесь божественный Платон убеждает нас искать вечные ценности, и навсегда остается сторонником научного подхода к знанию как единственной непогрешимой гарантии истины» («Размышления и надежды»)
«В отношении идеи благоразумия и морали – «Здесь становится понятно, почему пророчество, хотя односторонне и с недостаточным научным основанием, имеет практическое преимущество над платонизмом. Поскольку пророчество не терпит дискриминации и дифференцирования в отношении человека» («Размышления и надежды»)
C. Концепция Бога и отношение к/с Богом
• На него повлияло рациональное мышление Платона,и он верил, что выражение «образ» Бога не означает подобие – но идею. Он не полагал, что Бог имеет какую-либо форму или подобие, потому человек не мог быть создан по тому же образу. Это дает неправильное понимание слова на иврите «целем», которое означает сходство.
• Он поддерживал более рациональный, чем относительный взгляд на Бога. С осторожностью и не предполагая, что Бог мог стать человеком и перечеркнуть свою божественную природу человеческой природой.
«В принципе, неправильно говорить об отношениях между Богом и человеком, потому что Бог и человек – не одинаковые участники отношений. Сам по себе, Бог – не относительная концепция»
• Он видел природу Бога как отца, и признавал методы Бога дисциплинирования детей
• Также он видел природу Бога-Пастыря как друга, учителя и наставника
• Его понимание Бога все-таки не пошло дальше, чем просто идея
«Бог находится за пределами всякого понимания, за пределами всякого образа и подобия. Его, что-то вроде идеи, можно постигнуть только интуитивно, мысленно»
D. Освящение
• Он верил в концепцию само-свтятости, человек достигает личного освящения путем «достижения святости», поскольку «божественное освящение становится заданием человека»
• Он верил, что «Бог требовал само-освящения»; однако, это не дает святость. Он дал такую интерпретацию на основании Левит 22:32 «чтоб Я был святим среди сынов Израилевых»; Левит 11:44 «освящайтесь и будьте святы»
E. Дух Святой
• Он верит, что Бог дал Свой Дух Святой людям (Исайя 63:11)
• Потому он видит, что Дух Святой является силой, свойством и орудием Бога – «связь между Богом и человеком», которых не может разлучить грех, поскольку Бог является творцом человеческого духа. Потому после покаяния, Бог «воссоздает» человеческий дух, и хранит человека в святости и освящении.
• Он понимает, что такая концепция поддерживает еврейскую концепцию монотеизма, также отвергает пантеистическое представление бога в иудаизме
• Концепция Духа Святого для него – «литературное таинство»
F. Вера
• Концепция веры – «это познавательное действие, понимание идеи»
• Для него вера или доверие в том, что «Бог – гарант установления морали на земле»
• Мораль человека – или этика - сущность бога Когена. Это – фундамент гуманизма.
G. Мессианство
• Обязанность каждого еврея – помочь прийти Мессианскому Царству.
• Он видел, что мессианское Царство – это продукт моральности человека, в процессе рассуждения и принятия Божественного качества любви и цели человека жить в мире; и время, когда «новое небо – это новая мораль, и новая земля – это новое человечество»
• «Люди способствуют морали на земле; большинство из них должно сделать так, чтобы войны исчезли, подготовить путь к будущему, когда можно будет жить в гармонии и справедливости…»
• Он верил, что концепция Мессии, как «династичного человека» была развита образованными людьми, чтобы обозначить «моральное человечество», которое стало «помазанным Богом».
• Потому он верил, что перевод термина «Мессия», как «Христос» более не логичен
• Он верил, что «Мессию никогда не представляли как того, который влияет на индивидуальное спасение от греха; также в его пришествия никогда не ожидалось достижения этой индивидуальной религиозной цели».
• Потому он верил, что пророки учили: «человек с помощью религии должен завершить свое спасение»
• Христианство он рассматривал в качестве отрицания права еврея быть евреем
H. Сионизм
• Он смотрел на историю с моральной точки зрения. Иерусалим теряет свою политическую концепцию
«Пророк должен потерять свою родину, потому что человечество станет его родиной»
«Израиль должен пожертвовать своим населением ради своего Бога. Его имя и семя будет спасено, но его государство должно исчезнуть … население Израиля замещает народ завета. Потому что сейчас в сердцах написан Новый Завет, а Ветхий завет должен погрузиться в забвение»
• В своей переписке с Мартином Буберомж, он выступал против Сионизма, защищая «универсальный иудаизм, ориентированный на человека» и «моральный мир», что в действительности является нашей «настоящей Обетованной Землей».
«Сионизм безжалостно разоблачает в нас либеральных евреев, называя нас заблудшими, потому что чувствуем себя как дома в тех цивилизованных странах, где мы живем»
«только универсальный иудаизм, ориентированный на человека может сохранить религию евреев. Потому что наша политическая интеграция – это предпосылка, так же как и гарантия нашего религиозного выживания…»
I. Немецкий гуманизм и уместность иудаизма
• Коген отстаивал духовное родство между немецким и еврейским народом.
• Он верил, что немецкий еврей был частью идеальной личности его народа и его посвящение Германии - «политическому отечеству и культурной родине»
«Я верю, что евреи Франции, Англии и России должны Германии, как благочестивые сыновья, потому что она является отчизной их души, до такой степени, насколько их религия составляет их душу. В эти судьбоносные времена, настолько важные для всех народов, мы - евреи горды, что являемся немцами. И мы знаем наше задание - убедить наших религиозных однодумцев по всему миру о религиозном смысле и влиянии немецкого народа, так же как принадлежности к ней евреев из всех народов; их влиянии на свое религиозное развитие и на культурные устремления … наш пример может очень хорошо сослужить в качестве модели для тех, кто желает признать огромное превосходство ума немца во всех интеллектуальных и духовных вопросах»
• К сожалению, для Когена, цель иудаизма -«это абсолютный монотеизм … идеал чистой религии …сродни немецкому духу, чем любому другому человеку»
«Когда-то вы должны задать вопрос, является ли религия евреев все также уместна в наши дни? Может ли она внести какой-то вклад в современность и будущую культурную жизнь – или же ее значимость осталась исключительно в прошлом, а именно, сомнительный факт, что она представляет раннюю стадию в развитии религии»
Личная молитва
Авину шебах шемаим, прости такие мысли и размышления! На самом деле наш народ был обманут и обольщен; стал жертвой лжи и тщетного воображения пустой человеческой мудрости, обманутый философией и пустым обольщением. Мы уступили царю гордости и упали в могилу катастрофического гниения. Прости нас и обнови нас, как народ призванный служить Тебе – Адонай Элохэйну – живой Бог Авраама, Исаака и Иакова – наполнивший нас Своим Руахом, чтобы быть свидетельством и очевидцем другим народам, чтобы весь мир знал, что только Ты – Бог, и ты должен быть прославлен. Аминь.
IV. Мордехай Каплан: натурализм и реконструкционизм/ мирской иудаизм
A. Биография
• Годы жизни 1881-1983
• Родился в Литве; жил в Нью-Йорке
• Подпал под влияние Эмиля Дюркгейма – французский «отец социологии»
• В качестве ортодоксального раввина помог создать молодежное движение в Израиле, но позднее был обвинен в еретичестве
• Стал лидером в создании основной концепции еврейской общины
• Преподавал в Консервативном Еврейском Теологическом Обществе в период с 1909 по 1693гг.
• Его зять Айра Айзенштайн основал Реконструкционистский Раввинистический Колледж в 1968г., в котором философия реконструкционизма иудаизма Каплана превратилась в новую деноминацию
B. Национализм и демократия
• В европейской эмансипации видел сдвиг от монархии к демократии
• Светское общество, основанное на предпосылке социального соглашения, дает право гражданам на обоснованные равные социальные права; которые бы поддерживали и пронизывали еврейскую сущность
C. Натурализм и новый мировой порядок
• Отвергал сверхнатурализм в пользу современного способа отношения к миру
• Оказывал предпочтение научному подходу для установления истины и определения реальности
• Сдвиг от тео-центричного взгляда на религию к гуманистичному, сфокусированному на людях
• Приспособить Бога в естественном окружении
• Сократил универсальные концепции до аморальных механизмов
• Видел универсальную религию в будущем с общей теологией и этикой, в контексте различных культурных и социальных вариантов
• Рассматривал мицвот в метафорическом смысле, с целью пробуждения еврейского сознания
• Потому заповеди могли измениться, чтобы соответствовать потребностям
• Еврейская расовая принадлежность заместила миссию евреев
D. Гуманизм и новая концепция Бога
• Бог не состоит из вещества; но это Энергия, Процесс и Сила
• Поиски себя и в конечном счете – самоактуализация – определяет Бога Его надеждами
• Вера – субъективна и основана на том, что Сила воплотит себя
• Светская деятельность замещает религиозную деятельность, чтобы отождествить себя в качестве культурного еврея
• Бог – проекция самого образа Бога
V. Лео Бек: Реальность Бога; особенность, самосознание и развитие иудаизма
A. Биография
• Бек был раввином в Берлине во второй половине 19-первой половине 20-го века.
• Он был более теологом и историком, чем философом
• Он решил остаться в Берлине в 30-40 х гг. XX в.
• Выжил в концентрационном лагере в г.Терезиенштадт
B. Духовность и взаимоотношения с Богом
• Он верил в живого Бога, у которого были взаимоотношения с людьми
• Его идеи пошли далеко за пределы абстрактного понимания Бога, фокусируясь на переживании Бога
• Потому он продвигал концепцию религиозной совести
• Он верил, что Бог сотворил человека по своему образу и образ этот – любовь
• Этот образ также включал в себя способность достичь чистоты и свободы души
• Образ – способность творить
• Благодаря сохранению близости с Богом через молитву и размышление можно получить откровение от Бога
• Он верил, что человек может слышать заповеди Бога в своем сердце и отвечать на них, которые звучат в форме повеления, а не обычного совета
• Поэтому он не видел места духовному безразличию или нейтралитета
• Жизнь с чувством вины и без направления произошла от греха, противоречит требованиям Бога, отвергает божьи пути
• Можно испытать славу Бога благодаря вере и смирению
• Он отстаивал мудрость Бога и концепцию Божьего страха и почтения
C. Добро, зло и достоинство человека
• Несмотря на зло человечества, он свидетельствовал о своем оптимизме и вере в моральную человеческую волю.
• У него было такое же почтение и страсть по Богу, и потому был наделен Божьим чувством собственного достоинства
• Он не верил в то, что у человека была греховная природа, но «греховные наклонности»
• Человек способен делать выбор – потому он не верил в жребий, рок
• Он верил, что человек творит грех и потому должен принять на себя ответственность
• Он верил, что благодаря тешува (покаянию) человек может возвратиться к правильным взаимоотношениям с Богом
• Однако, он не верил, что это зависит от благодати Бога, но от выбора человека
• «Первый шаг – возвращение человека, потому что искупление – это работа творческого человека»
• Он приписал прекращение храмовых жертвоприношений человеческому пониманию искупления – «возвращение и добрые дела»
• Он верил, что свобода влечет за собой новую ответственность, в результате чего эта работа искупления становится непрекращающимся заданием
• Он перевел фразу «всем сердцем своим», означающая чистоту дел – что происходит из человеческого чувства морали и этики
• Он верил в окончательную мицву – «Кульминационный пункт этого требования – мученичество»
D. Миссия иудаизма
• Он верил, что роль иудаизма – примирить мир с Богом
• Он интерпретировал избранность иудаизма – задание Бога для определенного народа
• Потому он отстаивал ответственность евреев подготовить мир для Божьего Царства
• Эта подготовка была бы в виде соблюдения шаббата и послушания Божьим заповедям в вере
• Также он верил, что роль иудаизма в обществе – благоприятствовать социальной справедливости
• Он защищал человеческие права и рассматривал общество с коммунистической точки зрения
• Такая концепция также включала благотворительность и толерантность друг ко другу
• Миссия иудаизма – подготовить мир к приходу Божьего Царства
• Эта роль поддерживает нон-конформистский стиль жизни, основанный на вере, посвящении и отваге
VI. Франц Розенцвейг: пионер экзистенционализма и откровения
A. Биография
• Годы жизни 1886-1929
• Получил светское образование
• Его родственники приняли христианство, он почти мог принять христианство
• Основал Свободный Дом еврейского учения, который стал местом, где евреи могли узнать и изучить свое еврейское наследие
• Сотрудничал с Мартином Бубером по повторному переводу Торы с иврита на немецкий язык
• Он полагал, что либеральный иудаизм предрасположен обращаться к злой человеческой природе человечества
• Он верил, что иудаизм должен приспособиться, чтобы прореагировать на реальность исламской культуры
• Он развил философскую систему «Звезда Искупления» во время 1-й Мировой Войны, чтобы подготовить иудаизм к вызовам нового мира
B. Философские предпосылки
• Он видел, что европейское просвещение изменило роль христианства и эмансипировало иудаизм
• Он смотрел на мир в перевороте необходимого искупления
• Он верил, что евреи должны жить в предвкушении исполнения этого искупления
• Евреи – особенный народ с уникальной Землей, языком и законом
• Его беспокоили про-германские / анти-сионистские либеральные идеи Когена
• Он верил, что Бог – это живой Бог, который желает, действует и участвует с Ним в относительном и разоблачительном пути
• Испытание на законность евреев – это отношение, а не исполнение
• Он понимал взаимосвязь между еврейскими праздниками и тремя категориями времени: Творением, Откровением и Искуплением
C. Звезда Искупления
• Желание человека познать извечные истины преодолевает страх смерти
• Три элемента – Бог, Мир, Человек – не существуют сами по себе, но только во взаимодействии друг с другом
• Три пути – Творение, Откровение, Искупление – извечные процессы, соединяющие эти три элемента
• В Творении Бог дает миру реальность
• В Откровении, Бог являет человеку любовь. Человек откликается и преодолевает изоляцию от Бога. Отклик на Божье откровение – это первая заповедь, любовь к Богу и ближнему. Любовь к Богу и ближнему – начало Искупления, третьего пути.
• И Иудаизм, и христианство ожидают наступления вечности и религии основаны на любви к Богу и ближнему. Звезда Давида – это картина реальности. Иудаизм – это внутренний огонь в центре звезды.
VII. Мартин Бубер: Контакт и личные отношения с Богом
A. Биография
• Австрийский еврейский философ, научный деятель живший в 1878-1965 гг.
• Был активным участником Сионистского движения, пропагандируя Сионизм за его как социальные так и духовные ценности
• В 1902 г. Бубер стал издателем еженедельника «Ди вельт»
• Вскоре принимал участие в еврейском Хасидском движении; восхищался хасидской культурой; как хасидские общины выражали свою веру в повседневной жизни
• Он был издателем ежемесячника «Дер юде» (Немец для «еврея»), 20-е гг. XX в.
• Проявлял политическую и социальную активность; помог установить Еврейский Национальный Комитет с целью улучшения условий евреев Восточной Европы
• Уехал из Германии в 1938 г. и поселился в Иерусалиме
• «Бог – Бог общины, сфокусированный на социальном порядке
B. Переживание Бога
• Он делал акцент на взаимоотношения с Богом через внутреннюю жизнь
• Большинство людей относятся к взаимоотношениям с Богом как «Я - Это»;
More
Less
Experience
Years of experience: 22. Registered at ProZ.com: Jul 2012.
Adobe Acrobat, DejaVu, Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Word
CV/Resume
CV available upon request
Bio
Experienced translator, native in Russian, 10 years of translation and interpretation experience.
My main priority is quality, the rest follows. Satisfaction with results and happiness of my customer makes me happy! I possess two souls, just because ❝the one who has another language possesses a second soul❞, as Emperor Charlemagne said.
Provided approximately 1500 hours of effective oral consecutive interpretation of information from English into Russian and vice versa during lectures, seminars, conferences, using extensive vocabulary and relevant terminology in both languages (over 70 hours of documented videos)
Transcribed audio from English video DVD’s into Russian using Cyrillic with high degree accuracy, while also creating subtitles (over 260 000 transcribed words and 60 hours of video)
Accurately translated texts, documents, books, manuals, Power Point Presentations in electronic and paper formats.
Even though I obtained my Master's Degree in Management, my knowledge of English comes from extensive experience and many years of persistent language education, profound experience and constant self-improvement.
Among my qualities are honesty, reliability and attention to details, excellent work ethic. Give me a chance and you won’t regret.
Currently, I provide over the phone consecutive interpretation services from English into Russian and vice versa.
Let me know if I could be of any help to you
Keywords: English, Russian, translator, interpreter, medical, insurance, finance, banking, government agencies, 911. See more.English, Russian, translator, interpreter, medical, insurance, finance, banking, government agencies, 911, education, eLearning / Training, Healthcare, Legal, Marketing. See less.
Portfolio