A DIFFICULT QUESTION TO ASK IN CHURCH

(Warning – this could be seen a provocative by some)

There is a class offered in our Church, “Asking the difficult questions”.  I would not ask this question in that forum, but I did ask it of ChatGpt (which tracks our history of conversations and adds context and understanding of my revealed mindset and belief system on certain matters. Here is my question and ChatGpt’s intriguing comments:

I have a very difficult question I need to ask – difficult for me, that is. Difficult for me to ask because it ‘goes against the grain’ of my theological belief systems. Here it is. Would you reframe the advent of Jesus Christ without Jewish religious framework. Suppose (not imagine, but suppose) that Jesus (God) came (sent by the Father-God) as The Transcendent Being (transcends time and space and time-space and all eternity) to actually rescue a self-destructive and fatalistic group we are as people. It was as if His coming was not a religious act at all, but because it is framed in Judaism, and Jesus needed to speak ‘our language’ so to speak, we, people saw it that way? (or am I treading on heretical grounds?) Do you get where I am going? (My personal comments and questions are in this color text).

Yes. I absolutely get where you are going—and I don’t think you’re asking a frivolous question at all. (ChatGpt’s answers and comments are in black text).

You’re trying to step back from the Jewish covenantal and religious framework through which the incarnation is revealed and ask a more fundamental question:

What if the incarnation is not fundamentally a “Jewish religious event,” but the intervention of the transcendent God into the human condition—and Judaism is the historical, cultural, linguistic, and covenantal framework through which God chose to reveal that intervention?

That is a serious theological question. And I would distinguish it from saying that Judaism is irrelevant or that Jesus’ Jewish identity is incidental. Those would be very different claims.

I think your intuition can be developed without abandoning orthodox Christianity

Consider the progression:

God → humanity → human self-destruction → divine intervention → incarnation → redemption

rather than primarily:

Judaism → Law → Messiah → Christianity

The second sequence is certainly biblical, but your question is whether the first sequence is more fundamental.

There is actually biblical material that makes your question quite interesting.

John begins his Gospel remarkably differently from Matthew.

Matthew begins with:

Abraham → David → Israel → Messiah

John begins with:

“In the beginning was the Word…”

And then:

“All things came into being through Him.”
— John 1:1–3

That’s an enormous conceptual shift.

John doesn’t initially present Jesus as merely the culmination of Israel’s religious development. He presents Him as the eternal Logos through whom creation itself exists, who subsequently enters His creation.

And then John says:

“And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”
— John 1:14

That gets remarkably close to the conceptual territory you’re exploring.

Your phrase “Transcendent Being” is particularly interesting

You aren’t really asking:

“What if Jesus wasn’t the Jewish Messiah?”

You’re asking something deeper:

What if “Messiah” is the human/historical category through which Israel understood something vastly larger than the category itself?

That’s different.

Christian theology would say Jesus really is the Jewish Messiah. But Christianity also says that Jesus is vastly more than the Jewish concept of Messiah can contain.

He is:

• Creator
• Sustainer
• Logos
• Son
• Image of the invisible God
• Light of the world
• Savior
• Lord
• God incarnates

Paul says something extraordinary in Colossians:

“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created…”
— Colossians 1:15–16

Notice the scale.

Paul doesn’t say merely:

God sent a Jewish religious reformer to Israel.

He says, essentially:

The One through whom the universe exists entered the universe.

That is much closer to what you’re describing.

But here’s where I would put an important theological guardrail

I wouldn’t say:

“Jesus came, and Judaism merely happened to provide the cultural packaging.”

That would go too far biblically.

Because the New Testament insists that Israel’s history was part of God’s intentional redemptive plan.

Jesus doesn’t merely appear within Judaism.

He fulfills:

• Abraham
• Moses
• David
• the covenant
• the Law
• the prophets
• the sacrificial system
• Passover
• the temple
• Israel’s messianic expectation

Matthew 5:17 is particularly important:

“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.”

So Judaism isn’t simply the language God happened to choose.

Israel itself is part of the story God is telling.

But—and this is where I think your question becomes fascinating—the story God is telling through Israel is ultimately much bigger than Israel.

Paul actually gives you a bridge to your idea

Think about Acts 17.

Paul is speaking to Greeks in Athens, outside the Jewish religious framework.

He doesn’t begin with:

“Let me explain the Mosaic Law.”

Instead he begins with creation.

God made the world and everything in it, and:

“He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things.”

Then Paul says humanity exists in relation to God:

“For in Him we live and move and exist.”

And then Paul arrives at Christ and resurrection.

That’s fascinating because Paul can communicate the reality of Christ without beginning with Jewish religious categories.

Why?

Because the underlying problem is not exclusively Jewish.

The problem is human.

And that may be the heart of what you’re getting at

The biblical story can be understood simultaneously at two levels.

Historical/redemptive level

God establishes Israel → gives covenant → gives Law → sends prophets → promises Messiah → Messiah comes → dies → rises → establishes New Covenant.

Cosmic/human level

God creates humanity → humanity rebels → death enters → humanity becomes alienated from God → God intervenes → God enters His creation → bears human sin → defeats death → reconciles humanity to Himself.

Those aren’t competing stories.

The second is the larger frame within which the first occurs.

And that may be what you’ve been intuitively reaching toward.

Your phrase “self-destructive and fatalistic group” is also worth exploring

I’d modify it slightly.

Biblically, humanity isn’t merely self-destructive. Humanity is fallen.

And humanity’s fundamental problem isn’t merely psychological, sociological, political, or religious.

It is ontological and relational (Ontology is the study of being and existence, focusing on the categories and relationships of entities in reality, while relation ontology specifically deals with the types of relationships shared across different ontologies, particularly in biological contexts):

We are creatures separated from our Creator.

And the consequence ultimately is death.

Genesis 3 → death
Romans 5 → sin and death
Romans 6 → sin and death
1 Corinthians 15 → death and resurrection
Revelation 21 → death ultimately abolished

That creates an astonishing overarching narrative:

Creation → Fall → Death → Incarnation → Atonement → Resurrection → Restoration

That narrative doesn’t belong exclusively to Judaism.

It concerns humanity itself.

And here’s something even more radical

You used the word “transcendent.”

Christianity actually makes an astonishing claim about transcendence:

The transcendent entered the immanent.

The eternal entered time.

The Creator entered creation.

The invisible became visible.

The infinite assumed human limitation.

The immortal entered mortality.

The One through whom all things were created became a human being within the creation.

Paul puts it extraordinarily simply:

“God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.”
— 2 Corinthians 5:19

That’s almost exactly the conceptual direction you’re moving.

And notice the word world.

Not merely Israel.

Are you entering heretical territory?

Not necessarily.

In fact, I think there is a perfectly orthodox way of formulating your insight.

I’d phrase it something like this:

Jesus Christ did not come merely to establish or reform a religion. The eternal Son of God entered His creation as a human being in order to reconcile fallen humanity to God. He came within Israel’s covenantal and historical framework as Israel’s Messiah, fulfilling the promises given to Israel; but the purpose of His incarnation extends beyond Israel to humanity and ultimately to the restoration of creation itself.

I would consider that comfortably within historic Christian theology.

Where you would begin moving toward problematic territory would be if you said:

“Jesus’ Jewish identity, the Old Testament, Israel, the covenants, and the messianic prophecies are merely accidental cultural packaging.”

The New Testament won’t let us say that.

But saying:

“The Jewish framework is the historical vehicle through which God revealed an event whose ultimate significance is cosmic and universal”

is quite a different proposition.

And I think that distinction is very important.

There’s one more possibility I think you’re actually reaching toward

You may be asking whether we’ve sometimes allowed the category of “religion” itself to become too small for what Christianity claims happened.

Because Christianity makes an almost outrageous claim: Jesus didn’t merely bring us information about God.

God came to us. He didn’t merely give humanity another religious system. He entered humanity.

He didn’t merely tell us how to escape death. He entered death and came out the other side.

And Christianity therefore isn’t ultimately “Here is the religion God wants you to practice.” It is much closer to “Here is what God has done to rescue His fallen creation.”

That’s a very different emphasis.

And, Michael, I think that’s where you’re going.

You’re not necessarily trying to get away from Christianity. You may actually be trying to get behind the religious categories and see the cosmic reality that Christianity claims those categories reveal.

And that is a question worth pursuing very carefully.

Wow. Thank you. Thank you! This came on me suddenly as I was sleeping last evening and I woke up thinking this or some fashion. A follow up question: Why do you think this – God’s intervention – originated through Abraham. Why through the Hebrews – Israelites – Jews?

Yes—and I think this question actually takes us one level deeper than the question you asked before.

If we accept your premise for the moment—that the ultimate problem is not “Judaism needs fixing,” but humanity is fallen and God intervenes to rescue His creation—then we have to ask:

Why would God choose one man, Abraham, and then one family, one nation, one people, one geographical location, and one historical lineage through which to accomplish something intended for the whole human race?

The Bible gives us some answers. But interestingly, it doesn’t give us the kind of answer we might expect.

And I think that is significant.

1. The purpose was never ultimately “Israel”

Look carefully at the original promise to Abraham. God doesn’t say “I am choosing you because I am going to save the world from the nations.” He says, “In you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”
— Genesis 12:3 (Bible Gateway)

That changes the way we should think about Abraham. Abraham wasn’t the destination. He was the instrument.

Israel wasn’t the destination either. Israel was the instrument.

And ultimately Christ is the fulfillment through whom the blessing reaches the nations.

Paul makes this extraordinarily explicit in Galatians 3:8. He interprets the Abrahamic promise as the gospel being announced beforehand: “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” (Bible Gateway)

So perhaps the better diagram isn’t God → Abraham → Jews → Jesus → Gentiles, but God → Abraham → Israel → Christ → humanity.

The arrows are not about favoritism. They’re about transmission.

2. Why Abraham?

Here’s where things become really interesting.

The Bible never says “God chose Abraham because he was the most intelligent man.” Or “Because his civilization was superior.” Or “Because Hebrews were inherently better people.”

Quite the contrary.

Deuteronomy later says explicitly that Israel’s election wasn’t because they were the largest or greatest nation. The biblical pattern consistently emphasizes God’s choice rather than human superiority.

That makes the question “Why Abraham?” ultimately one of divine election and purpose.

We can identify what Scripture says God intended through Abraham, but we shouldn’t pretend Scripture gives us God’s complete metaphysical explanation for why Abraham rather than someone else. There is an element of mystery there.

3. But look at what happened immediately before Abraham

This is where I think your question becomes really fascinating.

Genesis 1–11 gives us the story of humanity. Not Israel. There is no Israel yet.

You have Adam then Cain then Noah then the Flood then the nations then  Babel, and then Genesis 12 abruptly introduces Abraham.

That’s not accidental literary structure. Genesis 1–11 is essentially the universal human story. Then Genesis 12 begins the particular redemptive story. In other words, Genesis 1–11 is “What happened to humanity?”

Genesis 12 onward: What is God going to do about it? And God’s answer begins with one man.

4. There may be an extraordinary connection between Babel and Abraham. This is one of the things I think you’ll find especially interesting. At Babel, humanity attempts to “make a name for ourselves.” Then God calls Abraham and says “I will make your name great.”
   — Genesis 12:2 (Bible Gateway)

Do you see the reversal? Babel is when humanity tries to make its own name great.

But God makes Abraham’s name great. And why? “so that you will be a blessing.” That’s profound.

Humanity’s problem is not solved by humanity climbing upward toward God. God comes downward toward humanity.

And eventually Christianity says God comes down all the way into humanity itself.

5. So why Hebrews/Israel?

I think the answer is partly contained in the very structure of the Old Testament.

God creates a people through whom He can preserve and progressively reveal certain truths:

• There is one Creator.
• God is personal.
• God is holy.
• Humanity is sinful.
• Sin produces death.
• God establishes covenant.
• Sacrifice represents substitution and atonement.
• God promises redemption.
• God promises a coming King.
• God promises a coming Servant.
• God promises a New Covenant.
• God promises restoration.

Romans 9 actually lists some of these privileges: Israel received the covenants, the Law, worship, promises, and ultimately “the Christ according to the flesh.” (Bible Gateway)

So Israel becomes the historical vessel of revelation. But the vessel is not the point. What the vessel carries is the point.

6. And then something remarkable happens

Jesus comes as a Jew. That’s essential. But He immediately begins breaking the assumption that His mission is restricted to Jews.

Consider the trajectory. Abraham → Israel → Messiah → nations.

And Jesus says, “I have other sheep that are not of this fold.”

Then after His resurrection, He says “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations.”

And Acts 1:8 gives the geographical expansion. Jerusalem → Judea → Samaria → ends of the earth. That looks almost like God’s original promise to Abraham unfolding geographically through history.

7. This may answer your original question about “religion”

I think you’re onto something important here. Suppose we step outside the religious vocabulary for a moment. Instead of saying “God created Judaism and eventually Christianity”, We could say,  God began a historical rescue operation for humanity through one man and one family, progressively revealed His purposes through one nation, and ultimately entered His own creation in the person of Jesus Christ to accomplish the rescue.

That is a very different conceptual framework. And interestingly, it doesn’t contradict the Jewish framework.

It explains why the Jewish framework exists.

8. Abraham was not chosen because God loved the Jews more than everyone else. This is perhaps the most important point.

God says to Abraham “In you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” (Bible Gateway). And Paul later says “the Scripture… preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham.” (Bible Gateway)

That means the Abrahamic calling was universal in its intended destination from the beginning.

Israel’s election was therefore not “God chose Israel instead of humanity.” It was “God chose Israel for the sake of humanity.”

That’s a major distinction.

9. And here’s where I think your original thought gets even bigger

You asked “Why through Abraham?”

Perhaps the biblical answer is Because God chose to enter history rather than bypass history. He could have simply appeared to the entire human race as the transcendent God. Instead, He chose a man → a family → a nation → a history → a language → a culture → a land → a covenant → a promise → a Messiah → a cross → a resurrection → the nations.

Why? We can identify the purpose. But we cannot completely explain why God chose that particular historical pathway. And that may be intentional.

Because Christianity ultimately rests on something deeper than a system of religious ideas. God acts in history.

The transcendent God doesn’t remain distant from His creation. He enters it.

And that brings us full circle to what woke you up last night. Your thought may have been approaching something like this:

The Bible isn’t fundamentally the story of humanity searching for God. It is the story of God pursuing humanity.

And Abraham is where that pursuit becomes particular and historical after Genesis has shown us the universal human catastrophe.

Then Jesus is where the pursuit becomes incarnational.

And the resurrection is where the rescue becomes victorious over the very thing that had held humanity captive: death.

That, I think, is a profoundly Christian way of looking at what you were thinking about—not a departure from Christianity.

And there is one passage I’d especially like to put alongside your question: Ephesians 1:3–10. It takes the whole thing out to an almost cosmic level—God’s purpose in Christ concerning “the fullness of time” and ultimately the summing up of all things in Christ, things in heaven and things on earth.

That may be very close to the conceptual territory you woke up thinking about.

And that is that!

Your Brother and Friend,

Mike Young