Jews and Christians Together. A. Christian van Gorder
Judaism has lost” an “essential insight” into the true “sinfulness of sin.”51 The view that sin is both individual and corporate has been consistent throughout Jewish theological interpretation. Professor Jacob Neusner teaches: “Corporate Israel forms a whole that exceeds the sum of its parts. The parts, the individuals, attain individuation only on the terms dictated by the whole, all Israel viewed from God’s perspective.”52
The entire world waits for God’s saving work of redemption (Isa 11:6–11; Hab 2:14). This is also a New Testament theme (see Rom 8:18–25; Eph 1:9–11) that is often de-emphasized by those who stress the individual nature of the sinner before God Almighty. The New Testament passages that affirm these ideas borrow heavily from Genesis 3. It is not accurate, however, for Christians to dismiss the communal dimension of Jewish views about sin as a mere “typological understanding.”53
A Jewish response to those who embrace the concept of original sin as the basis for thinking about interactions between God and humanity is that such a view puts an undue focus on sin instead of ethical and moral obligations to honor God through right living. It must be stressed, however, that those Christians who fixate on sin at the expense of ethical obligation contrast noticeably with other Christians (such as Orthodox and Anabaptist Christians) who note that the Bible says that death—and not sin—was the universal result of Adam’s action (Rom 5:12). This is not a minor distinction. Indeed, the inevitability of our death, according to Orthodoxy, is the reason why people ultimately fall into sin in the first place. Most Evangelicals would agree with Michael Lotker: “Jesus came to solve a singular problem in a singular way. The problem was original sin.”54 This idea also explains, understandably, why Catholicism puts an emphasis on infant baptism. The Catholic tradition sees baptism as essential to the cleansing of sins before God (Rom 6:3–11), and if all children are born affected by original sin then it needs dealing with through baptism. All camps of Christians agree that after we are forgiven of our sins, a person should continue to seek forgiveness for their mistakes (see Matt 5:23–25; Deut 30:1-3). All forgiveness is ultimately rooted in Christ, who offers forgiveness to anyone, even a tax-collector willing to give everything away (see Luke 19:1–10) or a woman caught amid her sin (John 8:1–11).
I (Fuller) have taught that the Jewish tradition considers all sins to be actions, not simply thoughts or ideas. Of course, people often act on malicious thoughts, but many conservative Christians go one step further and claim that such thoughts confirm that people are evil at the core of their identity. An exploration of these distinctions can generate constructive discussions between Jews and Christians about basic ideas regarding human nature. Some conservative Christians, for example, look to the anguished statement attributed to King David: “In sin did my mother conceive me” (Ps 51:7) to show that the Bible reveals our inherent sin nature. Jewish commentators, in contrast, often reduce this passage to simply being a declaration of frustration on the part of David and not a general statement about the basic condition of human nature.
A Jewish Satan?
Aside from the biblical book of Job, Jewish legends are largely bereft of a “Satan” figure who represents an oppositional power to God. The heavens are not filled with two competing supernatural rivals. Instead of locating evil in a separate satanic being, each person has the capacity within themselves to be either good or evil (see Gen 6:5). A mythological Satan does appear in Jewish legends but he does not have supernatural powers. In the book of Job, “The Satan” (literally, The Adversary) is presented as a being who is a prosecutor and an accuser, whose task was to test those who challenged God. Christian mythology, in contrast, sees a Satan figure in the Garden of Eden story in the form of a conniving serpent who misleads our first ancestors into sin. Jewish renderings of this serpent show a being that has been made by God and sent to Eden to tempt humanity to rebel against the commands of God and not specifically a rebellious fallen angel named Satan.
There is a story in Genesis (6:1–4) in which it states that the “sons of God” had sexual relations with some of the women of the earth. Some rabbis have concluded that this passage refers to “fallen angels” forced to leave the heavenly realms because of carnal instincts. Over time, both Jewish and Christian scholars began to speak more of a Satan who had once been an archangel, but now has the function of tempting people in the world to be disobedient in rebellion to God. Legends in Aggadic writings (and a few times in Halachic writings) spoke of an evil fallen angel who had many underlings, or demons, which did his evil bidding. This creature was said to live in the underworld and cause harm to people who succumbed to various temptations.
This angel of death may well have had more connection with medieval Christian notions of Satan than to historic Jewish teachings. Some scholars have noted that the biblical word satan simply means “adversary” (1 Sam 29:4; 2 Sam 19:23) and that it is possible that God has created Satan to test us as an adversary for our souls. The Bible, some note, also speaks of an angel who is sent by God to obstruct the travels of the prophet Balaam (Num 22:32). Later Jewish literature mentioned a ruler of hell, or a “Prince of Gehenna,” but these descriptions are probably borrowed from Christian sources. It is likely that such notions parallel dualistic ideas about a force of evil as described by Persian Zoroastrianism which were encountered during the Jewish diaspora in Persia. Early Jewish writers were slow to ascribe power to any other supernatural being beside God Almighty; this may explain why some Jewish theologians through the ages have seen notions of a devil and physical demons as instances of a false, dualistic view of divine power.
Living in a Broken World
John T. Pawlikowski claims that one of the “greatest moral challenges of our time comes in the area of ecology” as we become increasingly aware that “the continued destruction of our biosphere may reach the point where any possibility of healing the world has effectively vanished.”55 The pressing environmental crisis that faces our world in these times is an area where sincere and concerned people of all faiths can unite. Both Jewish and Christian faiths provide adherents with ample moral and theological resources to respond thoughtfully and constructively to our world’s increasing environmental challenges. Liturgical traditions that affirm our responsibility to care for the earth, for example, should join with creative expressions of worship and education to underscore God’s call for environmental stewardship.
In Judaism, Genesis describes the creation and foundations of the natural world as inherently good. One can see in this affirming claim the heart of Jewish ideas about the promotion of environmental justice. Adam and Eve were called to carefully guard and preserve the Garden of Eden through their work and were not given a license to plunder it carelessly for their own selfish benefit. An individual cannot fulfill God’s charge to preserve the earth’s resources while at the same time relentlessly disregarding, abusing, exploiting, or destroying those resources. The scriptures, for example, command that farmers should leave their properties fallow every seventh year and that they should not immediately eat the fruit of certain trees but rather wait several years (Exod 23:11). The Bible also contains many verses that speak of protection for animals (e.g., Deut 25:4; 5:14; Exod 20:10).
The lesson of the Tower of Babel is that trouble ensues when humans go beyond their role in the natural order of things. Creative and innovative abilities, gifts of God to humanity, should not become tools for callous exploitation or self-aggrandizement. The most glaring example of this is in Deuteronomy 20:19, where it states that one is not allowed to destroy (lo-tashchit) fruit-bearing trees in order to lay siege against a city. Even in the most life-threatening situations of war, one is forbidden to use trees for weapons or to waste them on the creation of weapons of warfare. If such is the prohibition during a stressful time like war, how much the more so is it forbidden during times of peace? This phrase is the source text for almost all the environmental laws expounded by scholars who study the Talmud.
Humans should derive pleasure from the blessings of the physical world, made for our nurture and enjoyment. Some Jews have even claimed it is a sin when any individual does not fully embrace all the pleasures that the Almighty has provided for all of humanity to enjoy. Food, and all other sensual pleasures, are pathways to worship, not as evils to be avoided, except in unhealthy excess. When a person “blesses” bread and wine at a table (or numerous other encounters in nature), they are simply acknowledging with gratitude to God its inherent characteristics, as opposed to