The Scandal of a Divine Messiah: A Response to Maimonidean and Kabbalistic Challenges to the Incarnation. by Brian J. Crawford

Reviewed by Rich Robinson

 

Summary

Brian Crawford’s new book represents the fruit of several years of thinking about Jewish apologetics. It comes with hearty endorsements from Richard Harvey, Darrell Bock, Mitch Glaser and others who are known to many readers of Kesher, and also from an Orthodox Jew who is not a follower of Yeshua. The level of research and argumentation goes well beyond that of many others who are also engaged in Jewish apologetics. In Crawford’s own words:

[This book] is an exploration of the nature of God as he has been understood in Greek philosophy, Orthodox Judaism, and Christianity. The book seeks to depict how Orthodox Jewish theology came to be, how it has departed from Scripture and science, and why the Incarnation, as articulated by Chalcedon, is the best solution to the unanswered questions in the Hebrew Scriptures.1

The three main sections are first, “Part I: Setting the Stage for the Incarnation,” which delves into God’s attributes and Jewish precedents for incarnational thinking. Here Crawford explores recent scholarship both Jewish and non-Jewish on the subject of the “embodiment of God,” and the varieties that this idea took. Part II is “A Critique of Non-Incarnational Maimonidean and Kabbalistic Thought,” which forms the heart of the book. This part consists of first, a close analysis of Maimonides and the Greek philosophical background to his “Non-Incarnational” (Crawford’s term) theology. Second, Lurianic Kabbalah is examined in the same way regarding its indebtedness to non-Jewish philosophy. Crawford offers an assessment of both systems, concluding that on the subject of the incarnation, they owe far more to various streams of Greek philosophy than to Scripture. Finally, in Part III (“The Incarnation of the Son of God”), Crawford moves into the New Testament’s portrayal of divine incarnation. Here we find sections on the New Testament as well as Chalcedon and the creeds. The aim of this part is to look into “the theological model presented by the NT . . . .” and to “assess whether its theology presents a coherent and justifiable worldview.”

What we have then is a kind of triptych: earlier Jewish views that divine embodiment was a real phenomenon; presentation of the sea change that happened with the Maimonidean and Kabbalistic systems; and the incarnation as presented in the New Testament and beyond.

According to Crawford, the audience of the book is quite broad; it is written for Messianic Jews, Gentile Christians, Orthodox Jews, and scholars of Maimonides and Kabbalah.

Detailed Description

In the Introduction (which is also Chapter 1), Crawford presents some terms of the debate. Prior to medieval times, many Jews (including the sages and rabbis) believed that God has a body. Beginning in the middle ages, however, and particularly with Maimonides, the mainstream Jewish view shifted to the idea that God is incorporeal. The idea that Jews once conceived of God as embodied is no doubt startling to modern Jews regardless of their religious bent. Even Rashi, Crawford tells us, believed in God’s embodiment. Yet, as anyone who broached these topics in Hebrew School will know, the current de facto and axiomatic understanding of God’s nature in the Jewish community (as well as by Christians) is that God is incorporeal. Rashi did not carry the day. Rather, from Maimonides onwards, “medieval Judaism took a philosophical turn that reverberates to this day.”

Then we have Kabbalah, a panentheistic view of the world which leads to the conclusion that Jesus was “divine just as the rest of the universe is divine” (at least it would if Kabbalists were thinking about Jesus, which they generally are not!). As Crawford sums up, “If Maimonides made the Incarnation impossible, Kabbalah makes the Incarnation redundant” (emphasis original). He cites Jewish thought leader David Novak: “Indeed, even today one can see the two main options in Jewish God-talk as being either Maimonidean or Kabbalistic.” In addition to explaining the Maimonidean and kabbalistic worldviews, Crawford also provides an apologetic response that seeks to overcome objections based on these two worldviews.2

The Scandal of a Divine Messiah is not for the faint of heart. It helps to have a background in — or at least a curiosity about — philosophy. As Bette Davis once said, “Fasten your seat belts . . . it’s going to be a bumpy night!”3

Let us unpack in more detail what Crawford has to say in Part II. In this large and discursive section, even before talking about Maimonides or Kabbalah, Crawford first introduces us to Plato, Aristotle, Neopythagoreanism, Gnosticism and Neoplatonism, all elements that contribute to the stew that became medieval Jewish philosophy. The outlines in the table of contents are detailed: section 4.1, then 4.1.1, then 4.1.2, etc., like a professor’s syllabus.

The topics pile on fast and furious. When we come to Maimonides, chapter 5 explains his “system of absolute divine incorporeality,” covering his arguments against Christianity, his famous book Guide to the Perplexed, his “Aristotelian-Neoplatonic Cosmology and Theology,” his well-known “negative theology,” and more. Following the explanation,
chapter 6 then assesses Maimonides, affirming what is good in the Maimonidean system before arguing against Maimonides’ conclusions.

Ch. 7 continues by introducing us to Lurianic Kabbalah (henceforth abbreviated LK), a particular variety of the larger kabbalistic system as formulated by Isaac Luria. Here again we have a crescendo of topics. The history of LK is given, its panentheism explained, its esoteric characteristics and “theurgical-magical” components unpacked, its mapping with Greek philosophies outlined, and its challenges to the Incarnation examined. Ch. 8 assesses LK’s metaphysics, offering an argument against its “Pan-Incarnational Panentheism” and critiquing its metaphysics, theology, and cosmology, including how LK interfaces with the doctrine of creation ex nihilo (“from nothing”), and more. The assessment continues in chapter 9 which covers LK’s “history, predecessors, and science.”

The discussion is something of a tour de force. It is ambitious, wide-ranging, and erudite, representing an extended argument that Judaism from medieval times on has been molded far more by Greek philosophy than by Scripture, and offering a detailed critique of two influential systems of Jewish thought that shape Jewish thinking to this day. Indeed, Crawford is not shy about calling the conclusions of those two systems “false” even when he finds positive things to say: “I seek to apply an evenhanded critical method to the doctrines of Maimonides and Kabbalah: keeping what is good and true, and calling for the removal of what is false.”

Crawford’s approach is two-pronged: first, a “historical-textual” approach that draws on Jewish texts of the past which are compatible with trinitarian thought; and second, a “theological-philosophical” approach, with which the book will largely be concerned, and which will help answer objections that the first approach does not address. I do not know how professional philosophers will assess Crawford’s arguments, but clearly he has done his homework and his discussion needs to be taken seriously. I know of nothing else like it.

As to Part III, Crawford summarizes it this way:

After investigating the Trinitarian and incarnational model proposed by the NT, I will compare its doctrine of God with the Maimonidean and kabbalistic models. The best theological model will have the greatest explanatory scope and plausibility, the least ad hoc doctrines, and the least known falsehoods. In the course of this investigation, I hope to demonstrate that the NT’s incarnational model exceeds its rivals in each of these areas.

However, Crawford also moves past the New Testament to the Nicene Creed, and his short discussion here is spot on:

Contrary to the perceptions of some, the Nicene Creed does not represent a surrender to Greek thought but rather a rebellion against the Platonic metaphysics that Arius (and Origen before him) had brought into the church.

In that connection he also cites Mark Kinzer: “In rejecting Arianism, the Nicene Creed took a stand against the common philosophical notions of the day, and for the biblical
portrayal of the God of Israel.”4 This needs to be said as there have been those in the Messianic Jewish community who believe that the early creeds corrupted the Jewishness of the gospel. That assessment, it turns out, is quite wrong, at least as far as trinitarian theology is concerned.

What Now?

Crawford has worked among Orthodox Jews in the past. The question now is how can his work translate into on-the-ground conversations and ministry among the Orthodox. Some questions come to mind that could well be addressed in, say, a future conference in a panel format:

• Crawford speaks about the authority of Scripture only, saying “I begin this book with only the assumption that the Hebrew Scriptures have the highest authority concerning what they teach, reflecting their prophetic status and freedom from error.” How does this interface with the haredim and other Orthodox who normally filter Scripture through the lens of Talmud and other rabbinic discussions? Traditionally, in these communities, Tanakh alone is for children just beginning their studies. But they are expected to “graduate” to studying the Talmud and the commentators. Do we have a common basis from which to proceed?
• As a corollary, the Jewish approach to Scripture has generally been to find multiple interpretations — the more the better. On the other hand, the traditional Christian approach is usually to find the one right interpretation. How do we navigate these different starting points to avoid speaking past one another? Interestingly, Crawford writes, “Maimonides follows Aristotle’s lead in believing that it is humanly possible to find the one ‘correct’ literal or allegorical meaning of a text.” In contrast, “in Kabbalah, the grammatical-historical interpretation of a text is not the meaning of a text, but only the first and lowest meaning.” Given Kabbalah’s dependence on Greek philosophy, could the emphasis on many meanings in a given text be traced to e.g., Neoplatonic influence? I would like to hear more about all of this.
• Crawford speaks about how Maimonides should be re-evaluated in an era that now looks to Copernicus and Newton for its views of the universe. “Maimonides’s cosmology is long dead in an era where we send astronauts to the moon and probes outside the solar system using heliocentric physical models derived from Newton and Einstein. How does the loss of Maimonides’s pre-Copernican cosmology affect his theology?” While Einstein gets a brief shout-out here, to the extent that he, along with quantum mechanics, etc. overturn or modify Copernicus/Newton, to what extent does the refutation of Maimonides need to be changed or qualified?
• Practically speaking, how can Jewish disciples of Jesus use this material as we engage in conversations with our Orthodox co-religionists (as a lover of history, I couldn’t resist using that older term for other Jews.). Most people are not convinced by argumentation alone; there are many other factors at work. In fact, in seminary, we discussed whether apologetics was really for nonbelievers or for believers. Does it help bring us to faith? Or is it really something that helps us make sense of things once we have already come to faith?

Conclusion

One factual correction: Crawford writes that, “The importance of history is most evident in the books called “historical books” by Christians and “Writings” (Ketuvim) in Judaism.” Actually, the historical books in the Jewish canon are mostly the “Former Prophets” (i.e., Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings). The only history in the Ketuvim would be Chronicles (and perhaps some of the megilloth).

Using a Mac desktop version I found the Abbreviations and Index to be entirely illegible. The Kindle version has the footnotes all numbered continuously except for the beginning and the Appendices. In general, Kindle formatting seems to remain problematic in many cases.

To date, the person best known for Jewish apologetics has been Michael L. Brown, especially in his five-volume series on Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus. Where Brown wrote more conversationally, often addressing his interlocutors directly, Crawford’s writing is a more straightforward exposition. He represents a new generation of Jewish apologists, and we will hope to hear more from him.

At a recent conference, Crawford promised a more lay-level user-friendly version of this book. Hopefully that will materialize in order to make the material more accessible and usable for many. In the meantime, The Scandal of a Divine Messiah is really required reading for all Jewish disciples of Jesus who are engaging with the Jewish community today, and especially its Orthodox manifestations.

Dr. Rich Robinson is a senior researcher for Jews for Jesus. He earned a PhD in Biblical Studies and Hermeneutics from Westminster Theological Seminary. Dr. Robinson’s major focus is on the intersection of the Bible, Yeshua and Jewish culture.

---

• 1 Brian J. Crawford, The Scandal of a Divine Messiah: A Response to Maimonidean and Kabbalistic Challenges to the Incarnation (Wipf & Stock, 2024),17 (Kindle edition).

• 2 Apologetics is not a word in favor in many scholarly circles. It seems to imply an agenda as opposed to an objective approach. But apologetics is an integral part of many kinds of discourse, from popular conversations (“here’s why you need to see this movie!”) to the work of scholars, who even as they advocate for a level of objectivity are apologists for the “objective” view of scholarship. Apologetics, it turns out, is an inescapable part of life.

• 3 All About Eve (1950).

• 4 Mark S. Kinzer, “Finding Our Way through Nicea,” in Stones the Builders Rejected: The Jewish Jesus, His Jewish Disciples, and the Culmination of History (Cascade Books, 2024), 20-52.