Jewish Biblical Theology: An Ongoing Dialogue

Introduction

Jewish biblical theology has established itself as an important force in the larger field of biblical studies. Although biblical theology is a normative Christian discipline, the widespread emergence of Jewish biblical scholars in colleges, universities, and even in Christian theological schools during the latter half of the twentieth century and beyond has enabled Jews to interact constructively with both their Christian and Jewish colleagues in interpreting the Hebrew Bible. ¹

There is extensive debate among Jewish scholars concerning the necessity, scope, and character of biblical theology when engaged by Jews. Jon D. Levenson maintains that Jews are not interested in biblical theology in large measure because of its Christian character and its frequently anti-Semitic tendencies, but he has nevertheless produced groundbreaking studies on the interrelationship between Sinai and Zion, the problem of theodicy, the interrelationship between resurrection and national restoration, and others. ² Michael Fishbane focuses on the mythological poesis of biblical exegesis, both within the Bible and beyond, in midrashic, Talmudic, and kabbalistic literature, as Jews continue to develop the teachings of the Bible for later times. ³ Tikva Frymer-Kensky views Jewish biblical theology as a means to reengage and rethink the rabbinic tradition. ⁴ Marc Brettler calls for literary-historical study of the Bible in an effort to understand its ideas in historical context. ⁵ Benjamin Sommer calls especially for intertextual study of the Bible, both within the biblical canon and in relation to later rabbinic literature, in an effort to see the Bible as part of a larger Jewish theology. ⁶ Tamar Kamionkowski challenges readers to rethink their assumptions concerning gender when reading biblical literature. ⁷ Isaac Kalimi stresses that there is no true center to the Bible, prompting interpreters to take account of the diverse viewpoints of the Bible’s authors, redactors, and its later tradents. ⁸ The present writer stresses the need to understand the distinctive form of the Jewish Bible, viz., the Tanak (Torah/Instruction; Nevi’im/Prophets; Ketuvim/Writings), in both its synchronic and diachronic dimensions as the basis for constructing a distinctive Jewish biblical theology at the foundation of Jewish thought. ⁹ He also raises important issues concerning how the Shoah influences our reading of the Bible, ¹⁰ among other issues. ¹¹

Even this brief survey demonstrates the wide variety of viewpoints and issues that are represented in current discussion concerning Jewish biblical theology. This essay therefore treats a number of key issues as a means to introduce readers to the field. Issues discussed here include the need for Jewish biblical theology; the distinctive form of the Jewish Bible; constructive questions of G-d, covenant, the nation Israel, and the conceptualization of the temple and the monarchy; and questions raised when the ideal conceptualizations of these issues are challenged by destruction and exile. The relation of the Bible to subsequent Jewish tradition is a concern throughout. Altogether, the essay demonstrates the inherently dialogical character of Jewish biblical theology, both within the Bible itself and among its interpreters within the Jewish tradition.

Jewish Tradition

Because biblical theology has been a Christian theological discipline, many Jewish scholars question the propriety and value of Jews engaging the field. Biblical theology in Christian contexts is often concerned with the systematic interpretation of the Bible, viz., the interrelationship between the Bible (as conceived in Christianity) and systematic theology as the basis for formulating the doctrines or theologies that guide Christianity in its understanding of G-d, human beings, the anticipated salvation of the world, and other issues. Judaism, however, is more concerned with the exegetical interpretation of the Bible and the development of its ideas in later rabbinic thought to support Jewish efforts to sanctify life and creation at large. In contrast to Christianity and its attempts to define G-d in relation to Jesus Christ, Judaism largely eschews efforts to define G-d and focuses instead on human beings as the partners with G-d in completing and sanctifying creation.

Jews have traditionally read the Bible through the lens of rabbinic tradition. Talmudic tradition briefly considers the form of the Jewish Bible and the general viewpoints of the books that comprise it. The Targums translate the biblical books into Aramaic, although they frequently work rabbinic traditions and viewpoints into the Aramaic translation of the Hebrew text. The midrashic, medieval, and more recent traditional commentators generally provide full commentaries on the books of the Bible, always from the standpoint of rabbinic tradition. Nevertheless, scholars recognize that the talmudic and subsequent rabbinic literature generally approaches the Bible in a piecemeal fashion by citing specific texts that address the concerns of the issue at hand and often arriving at interpretations that are quite at variance with the surface reading of the biblical text.

An example would be the discussion of the lex talionis in the Torah, which calls for an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life, etc., in determining the punishment of a criminal who has injured another party (Exod 21:22–25; Lev 24:19–21; Deut 19:16–21). But the rabbinic discussion of this issue in the Babylonian Talmud arrives at a very different conclusion in its efforts to discern the Oral Torah that lies within the written text of the Torah, viz., that the Torah calls for a perpetrator to compensate the injured party in order to ensure that a greater punishment is not imposed on the perpetrator and that the needs of the injured party are addressed (b. B. Qam. 83b–-84a). Such a decision is clearly more pragmatic, merciful, and just than the Torah’s initial statements, but most contemporary Jews lack a full rabbinic education that would help them fully to understand the issue. Although Oral Torah does indeed represent the fullest expression of the Jewish tradition, the Written Torah of the Bible is the entry point for Jews to learn what the tradition has to teach.

The Distinctive Form of the Tanak

One of the key issues in a Jewish biblical theology is the distinctive form—and thus the distinctive hermeneutical construction—of the Jewish Bible. ¹⁴ Many people presume that the Jewish form of the Bible, known as the Tanak, and the Christian Old Testament are one and the same. In the Protestant tradition, the Old Testament includes the same books as the Tanak, but they are organized very differently, and their distinctive organizations point to the distinctive theological viewpoints from which the Tanak and the Old Testament are read in their respective traditions.

Prohibition against Describing G-d

Judaism proscribes any attempt to portray G-d in finite terms. G-d is holy and wholly other and is therefore conceived as an infinite presence that cannot be portrayed in any finite form—human, animal, or otherwise. It is therefore impossible to follow Christian examples of biblical or Old Testament theology that describe G-d appearing in the human form of Jesus Christ. To do so would be considered idolatry and would suggest that G-d must be understood much like a human being, with all the strengths and weaknesses that such a depiction would entail. Indeed, the Ten Commandments specify that G-d is not to be depicted in any sculpted image or likeness of anything or anyone in the world of creation (Exod 20:4). The commandments also specify that the holy name of G-d, yhwh, is not to be uttered in vain (Exod 20:7), which has been understood to mean that the name of G-d is not spoken except for once a year at Yom Kippur when the High Priest enters the Holy of Holies of the Jerusalem temple to make atonement for the people of Israel. Many Jews therefore do not spell out the term, G-d, as a means of protecting the sanctity of the divine, although this is a disputed issue within the Jewish community since G-d is not the divine name, yhwh.

Consequently, even visionary texts that depict the divine presence focus on imagery surrounding G-d rather than on a finite image of G-d. Theophanies, such as the appearance of G-d at Mt. Sinai in Exodus 19, emphasize elements of nature, such as thunder and lightning, as descriptors of the divine presence. Alternatively, the narrative concerning Elijah’s vision of G-d in 1 Kings 19 denies that the divine presence can be equated with wind, fire, or earthquake, and instead finds the divine presence in “the absolutely silent voice” of G-d that instructs Elijah on what he should do. Isaiah’s vision of yhwh in Isaiah 6 employs imagery from the interior of the temple, such as the smoke from the incense burners and the flaming lights of the menorahs or candle stands, to depict yhwh’s presence. Ezekiel employs the imagery of the Ark of the Covenant in Ezekiel 1–3, and Zechariah finds his imagery in the various scenes of temple building and associated activities in Zechariah 1–6. Proverbs maintains that divine wisdom may be easily observed in the world of creation and human relations, whereas Job holds that divine wisdom is not so easily discerned (Job 28).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Menorah, 4^th cent. CE. Mosaic from the synagogue in Hammath, Israel. Photo Credit: Erich Lessing/Art Resource, NY

The prohibition of defining G-d also entails that divine qualities tend to be very abstract. Exodus 34:6–7 combines attributes of mercy and justice in describing G-d as “yhwh, yhwh, a G-d compassionate, long of patience, and much fidelity and truth, maintaining fidelity for a thousand generations, forgiving iniquity, rebellion, and sin; (G-d) does not acquit the guilty, but visits the iniquity of the parents upon the children and upon the children of their children to the third and fourth generations” (cf. Num 14:18; Nah 1:3; Exod 20:5–6; Deut 5:9–101; Jer 30:11; 46:28; Joel 4:21). Others, such as Ezekiel, maintain that G-d does not reward or punish subsequent generations based on the actions of their ancestors, but rewards and punishes based on the actions of each individual generation (Ezekiel 18). Neither the Hebrew Bible nor subsequent Jewish tradition understands G-d to be a G-d of love only, but both ensure that G-d is known as the source of both mercy and judgment.

Covenant: G-d’s Interaction with Human Beings

Throughout the Hebrew Bible, G-d is known through interaction with human beings, particularly the people of Israel, who are chosen to have a special relationship in covenant with G-d. ¹⁵ The Hebrew Bible makes it clear that Israel has no special merit that makes it superior to other nations. To be chosen means simply that Israel is obligated to serve G-d as a means to ensure divine sanctity that ultimately will be revealed when yhwh is recognized as the creator of the world at large. Such a relationship calls for a covenant between G-d and Israel, described in the Torah as an eternal covenant, in which Israel is obligated to sanctify the land of Israel as the center of creation. ¹⁶ Although many interpreters maintain that there are a variety of eternal covenants in the Pentateuch, e.g., with Noah (Genesis 9), with Abraham (Genesis 17), with Israel (based on the Shabbat in Exodus 31), with Phineas the son of Aaron and founder of what ultimately becomes the Jerusalemite priestly line (Numbers 25), and even later with King David (2 Samuel 7), all of these eternal covenants actually represent dimensions of the single covenant between G-d and Israel that stems from G-d’s choice of Israel within the world of creation.

The Theological Challenge of Destruction and Exile

When threats to the integrity of Israel’s covenant with yhwh are realized, e.g., by the destruction of the northern tribes of Israel or the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, biblical literature begins to speak of potentially conditional covenants, such as that of Deuteronomy in which Israel is obligated to observe yhwh’s torah or face exile from the land (Deuteronomy 28–30), or the qualifications made to the eternal Davidic covenant in Kings when it is recognized that the house of David might not rule forever. But even in these cases, Deuteronomy 30 makes it clear that the people will be restored to the land when they repent, and the Davidic kings will retain their thrones if they observe yhwh’s expectations. ¹⁹

Indeed, the Prophets attempt to explain the reversals in Israelite and Judean history, not as failures of G-d to abide by the covenant with Israel and Judah, but as failures by Israel and Judah to abide by their obligations to G-d. ²⁰ The Former Prophets, known in scholarly circles as the Deuteronomistic History, attempt to explain the destruction of the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah as the result of the failures of their kings. The founding king of northern Israel, Jeroboam ben Nebat, is said to have erected idolatrous golden calves at the sanctuaries at Beth El and Dan, prompting all of his successor kings to emulate him in leading the nation to sin, ultimately resulting in its destruction as a punishment for idolatry (1 Kings 12–13; 2 Kings 17). Jerusalem was destroyed because of the sins of King Manasseh of Judah (2 Kings 21), so that even the righteous King Josiah, arguably the ideal monarch of the Davidic line, could not save the city (2 Kings 22–23). The Chronicler has a different view, however. The northern kingdom is not an issue for the Chronicler; rather, in keeping with his priestly outlook (like that of Ezekiel), later generations do not suffer for the sins of their ancestors; they suffer for their own sins. Manasseh, who reigned for fifty-five years, longer than any other Davidic monarch, repents in 2 Chronicles 33 and becomes a righteous monarch. Josiah dies in 2 Chronicles34–35 because he defies the will of G-d in his attempts to resist Pharaoh Neco of Egypt, and Jerusalem is destroyed because the people, priests, and officers of Jerusalem corrupted the temple (2 Chron 36:15).

The Latter Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve), all attempt to explain the destruction of northern Israel and southern Judah as well, but each does so from a distinctive theological framework. Isaiah is rooted in the royal Davidic tradition that posits yhwh’s eternal relationship with the house of David and the city of Jerusalem. His book argues that the kings of Judah lacked sufficient faith in yhwh, and so yhwh brought punishment to demonstrate divine power over the entire world. Even in the second half of the book, apparently written during the exilic and postexilic periods by anonymous prophets, Isaiah posits that the eternal royal covenant of David will be applied to Israel while the Persian monarchy rules as yhwh’s agent in the world (Isa 55; 44:28; 45:1). Jeremiah, a priest from the line of Ithamar, Eli, and Abiathar, as well as a prophet, focuses on the torah of Moses, arguing that the people must observe Mosaic torah to fulfill their relationship with yhwh and ensure their safety (Jeremiah 7). Although Jeremiah looks for an ideal Davidic monarch, his book ultimately applies the eternal Davidic promise to the city of Jerusalem and the Levitical priesthood (Jer 23:5–6; 33:14–26). Ezekiel, a Zadokite priest from the Jerusalem temple chosen by yhwh to serve as a visionary prophet, holds that the sanctity of the Jerusalem temple both symbolizes and ensures the stability and sanctity of creation. He understands the destruction of the Jerusalem temple to entail a form of divine purging that will result in a new creation, a new temple, and a restored people with yhwh’s torah inscribed upon their hearts (Ezekiel 8–11; 33; 40–48). The Book of the Twelve Prophets assembles the works of twelve individual prophets into a single book in an effort to provide a counterpoint to Isaiah’s view that yhwh has chosen a foreign monarch as messiah and temple builder. Instead, the Book of the Twelve anticipates an eschatological war in which yhwh will defeat the nations that oppress Israel, restore the Jerusalem temple, restore the house of David, and call upon the people to observe divine torah (e.g., Hosea 14; Joel; Amos 9; Micah 4–5; Haggai 1–2; Zechariah 12–14; Malachi 3).

Although the Ketuvim (Writings) anticipate the restoration of Israel, Jerusalem, and the temple, many of the books found within examine the difficult questions concerning the morality, fidelity, and presence of G-d, the integrity of the covenant, and the ultimate meaning of life that follow from the experience of destruction and exile. ²¹ The book of Psalms is an important text in which the people of Israel and Judah give voice to their concerns. Although many psalms emphasize the praise of G-d, the lament or complaint genre is the most widely represented literary type in the book of Psalms, as the people ask when yhwh will save them from enemies, disease, and starvation. Indeed, many psalms demand to know why yhwh hides the divine face from the people. Whereas Proverbs posits an orderly world of creation in which divine torah is readily apparent to anyone who studies creation (like Solomon), the book of Job maintains that wisdom is difficult to find in the world. Job portrays a morally ambivalent G-d who will afflict the righteous when challenged by “the satan” and bluster about divine power when confronted by Job. Song of Songs is read allegorically on Passover to portray the intimate relationship between yhwh and Israel, and Ruth is read on Shavuot to portray the dedication of the Moabite woman, Ruth, to yhwh and Israel as she converts to Judaism and pledges to observe divine iorah. Lamentations is read on Tisha b’Av, the anniversary of the destruction of both the First and Second Temple, as well as other calamities, to give voice to the victimized Bat Zion (Daughter of Zion), i.e., the personified city of Jerusalem, who demands that yhwh look at her to see what she has suffered. Qoheleth (known in Christian tradition as Ecclesiastes), is read on Sukkot to express the fleeting and transitory nature of life in an attempt to define meaning in the world. Esther, which is read on Purim and anticipates the modern experience of the Shoah, posits divine absence when the Persian government threatens to exterminate its Jewish population, leaving the Jewish queen, Esther, as the human figure who must step forward to save the people in a time of crisis. Daniel calls upon Jews to fight to defend themselves in such a time of crisis and anticipates victory over those who threaten them. Ezra-Nehemiah relates the restoration of the Jerusalem temple in the early Persian period, as well as Jewish life in Jerusalem, based on yhwh’s torah. Finally, the Chronicler’s narrative concludes with an account of King Cyrus’s decree for the restoration of Jerusalem and the temple in the aftermath of the Babylonian exile. Indeed, Chronicles presents a very different account of Israel’s history. Manasseh is no longer responsible for the destruction of Jerusalem, because he repented before yhwh to become a righteous monarch. Josiah, the ideal monarch of the Book of Kings, is responsible for his own early death because he opposed G-d. The people, officers, and priests of the city of Jerusalem are responsible for the city’s destruction because they desecrated the temple.

Conclusion: Tanak and Tradition

Although the Bible or Tanak has its own literary and theological integrity, it can never stand alone as the sole sacred Scripture of Judaism. As we saw before, the Bible serves as the basis on which the Jewish people engage in dialog with, reflect upon, and continue to develop the tradition of Judaism, adapting it to the needs of newer times and continuing to probe the written text of the tradition in an effort to discern the Oral Torah which represents the fullest form of divine instruction. ²² Thus, the targumim, the Mishnah, the midrashim, and the two forms of the Talmud interpret the Bible and provide the foundations for Jewish life in exile following the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE and the defeat of the Bar Kochba revolt against Rome in 132–135 CE. The Heikhalot literature, developed from apocalyptic traditions, and the kabbalist literature began to probe divine action and character in an effort to discern how both justice and mercy, often reconfigured as evil and good, could coexist in the divine personality as well as the world at large. The philosophical literature and the medieval commentaries began to apply the tools of philosophical reason and philological study in an effort to respond to the challenges posed by Islam and Christianity and to expand Judaism’s understanding of its own tradition. The Hasidic literature developed Jewish spirituality for the masses in modern times, and the Zionist movement worked to rebuild Jewish life in the homeland of Israel.

Although Zionism was originally the product of Jewish secularism in the Haskalah, modern Zionism has become religious in an effort to reinstitute the ideals of the Torah. Diaspora religious movements, such as Reform, Conservative, Orthodoxy, Reconstructionist, Transdenominational, and other forms of Judaism, seek to develop forms of Judaism relevant to contemporary life. Altogether, Judaism is an ongoing tradition, founded on the Tanak or the Bible. Jewish biblical theology facilitates understanding of the foundations of Jewish tradition so that it might continue to develop for the future. ²³