Culture, Religion

The Theological Quandry of Enjoying Hazakim

Aw jeez. I find it utterly disappointing that these guys are “Messianics,” particularly in a world lacking much quality Jewish hip-hop. Cuz, frankly, this track is hott:

While admittedly, the J for J thing kills it for me, I suppose I have no problem listening to Killah Priest and other five pretenders who spew distortions of Torah and other assorted theological drivel. So is it so bad that I kind of like these guys, even if I think it’s pure kefirah?
And am I a sucker for giving them free promotion?

14 thoughts on “The Theological Quandry of Enjoying Hazakim

  1. they raise a good question. no man can see god and live, and yet, there are you are, with abraham and others seeing people who they identify with go. what’s up with that?
    There’s a recurring thing throughout the book of prophets, people called anonymous “ish eloHim”s God-men. What does it mean that a person could be identified as god?

  2. yes… you are a sucker… but aren’t we all.
    side note: the Hummash is full of refferences that can be twisted to justify Xtianity. Lil old Israeli me, having gone through the Jewish education system saw that I had to take a language at University. So naturally I took Hebrew (dont judge, you’re just jealous).
    Turns out it was Biblical Hebrew in the Lutheran Seminary – twas really interesting to see how the would twist the language against itself. Also fun to start fights with fundies.

  3. I liked it too. (Somewhat embarrasingly.)
    I don’t have a problem with people who use the tanakh to defend Christian beliefs. That’s the basis of Christianity. And it’s their Bible too!
    The problem is when they try to recruit Jews, saying that Christianity is the true Judaism. And telling people that they can be Jewish and Christian at the same time, which I think is not true.
    I don’t know that that track does that. I think it could just be seen as a Christian track that uses hebrew. So I don’t think it’s so problematic.
    In terms of their actual argument: you can’t see G-d and live but the patriarchs did. I think their argument is pretty poor. The bible is full of anthropomorphic descriptions of G-d, references to messengers, even to sons of God (see last weeks parsha – Bereshit). To say that all of these are references to Jesus seems far fetched to me. It violates the narrative that Jesus was a historical person, born to Mary. As far as I understand Christian theology (and I’m def not an expert), it’s important that G-d was incarnated in a real, historical person: that’s the act of charity – that G-d limited Himself, incarted into a person and suffered for people. Once Jesus starts appearing to the patriarchs, his identity as a person, seems to be compromised.
    There are plenty of Jewish interpretations of those angels, and the danger of seeing G-d that work fine. You can interpret that line about the danger of seeing God to be a general statement which has exceptions so that when the patriarchs see God and live, it is somewhat miraculous. For example, compare this with the bit in VaYishlash where Jacob sees G-d, face to face, and lives. It is obvious, literarily, that this is supposed to be significant. You can also say that there are degrees – if you saw the G-d completely, you wouldn’t survive but you can see a mediated version. That is analogous with the Christian interpretation shown on the video but can work equally well without Jesus coming into it. In fact, maybe it works better without him because it retains the miraculous nature of the encounters. All the normal people see Jesus and live in the Christian Bible – shouldn’t that be a bigger problem that the patriarchs seeing G-d?
    What do you guys think?

  4. pretty good rhyming and storytelling skills, but theologically it’s retarded, and so aside from their religious motives, intellectually it’s a turn-off. who says any of the angels were ‘equated’ with God? nobody is ‘equated’ with God. get a clue before you start posturing and prostelyzing against a beat.

  5. Shalom fam!
    Firstly I wanna thank you all for the respect you have shown us on the artistic level. We of Hazakim do strive to put out quality lyrics, rhymes schemes, wordplay and production (especially in a time when hiphop music has been reduced to “Chicken Noodle Soup with a Soda on the Side”). I also want to say that I deeply respect your positions, passion and opinions concerning the relevant track and the theology contained therein. I will however state in all candor that much of these posts display a poor understanding of what we truly believe. To put it simply, our beliefs have been over-simplified and misrepresented here by many of those posting. This little thread has really got me thinking though……I think it would be beneficial for us (Hazakim) to clearly detail the Theology, history and scriptural support for the concept of “Theophanies” and to misspell many of the myths surrounding what we believe about the “deity of Yeshua”. This is the same man who most if not all reputable scholars (Jewish, Christian and secular) readily admit was a Jew and not a Christian. I am working on an article for our site’s “Message” link which will more clearly spell out what the song (and the whole Theophanies project) is emphatically claiming. This is not about “converting Jews”. This is about providing truth and fact when claims arise. Thanks for the grace of your time and consideration.
    Lastly, “Mastermind”, try to be wiser when you post in the future. To assume that hiphop music is solely a “black thing” shows a lack of cultural understanding! Do you know how many whites (inculding Ahskenazi Jews) have contributed to emceeing, b-boying, DJing and graffiti art since hiphop’s inception? Read a little about hiphop history. Furthermore, to suggest that a “white person who acts black” (which is an absurd claim…..which “blackness” are you talking about?) is a “wigger” is racist and offensive. Are you saying then that blacks are n@ggers? If a gentile used the term “gike” to refer to a gentile observer of Noachide law as a “gentile who acts Jewish”, wouldnt that be considered an anti-semetic statement? I do not assume to know your age so forgive me if I am expecting too much from you but, if you are a Jew, you have a responsibility to be a light, not an offense, to the nations (both black and white). Besides, you have black brothers and sister around the globe who equally share Abraham Isaac and Jacob’s blood running through their veins. Just some food for thought. Holler back. Shalom and G-D bless.
    In Messiah’s Service,
    Anthony of Hazakim

  6. Actually the theology of the patriachs seeing God and living is consistent with Chrisitian/Messianic teachings on who Yeshua is. The belief is as such; Elohim in His plurality is One. The idea that it is wrong to believe that the Angel treated as Ha-Shem (in the song) can not be God (and in Christian/Messianic belief the pre-incarnate Messiah) simply because it is a christian dogma seems a little too simplistic. The Hazakim duo are simply giving the text a clear reading. The text in question reveals to us that Abraham did infact speak to God. The same God who sits on His Throne in the highest of Heavens and yet fills all the Heavens and The Earth. To assume that God simply used an anthropomorphic description in this passage is to make a huge assumption. Perhaps credit should be given to those who believe in the clear interpretation of this passage using the context of the passage to explain itself. God made himself known to Abraham of course not in all His Glory.
    The idea that the pre-incarnate Yeshua was the one Abraham was talking to should be taken at least seriously, especially in light of passages like the 45th Psalm or 23rd chapter of the book of Jeremiah where the future King from the line of David is called “The LORD our Righteousness” or rather “Ha-Shem our Righteousness.” Another example worthy of discussion is the description of the creation of Adam. It is written that Elohim said “Let us make man in our own image.” Some have interpreted this to mean he was speaking to the angels when He said this, but then does that mean we are made in the image of the angels also? If the heavenly host is the “us” he is talking about then which type of being specifically? The Seraphim with their 6 wings? Or perhaps the cherubim? Christians and Messianics believe this “us” was Elohim in His Fullness/ Plurality. The image in question was that of what christians and messianics call “The Father and The Son.” This is especially made clear in passages like that found in the first chapter of Ezekiel where the likeness of the Glory of God is describes as being like that of the son of Man. Or that of Daniel or Isaiah or Moses who said God had feet! The issue here is do we take the Scripture’s literally? Do we lean on God’s understanding or do we lean on our own?
    The identity of the messenger that is called by the Personal Name of Elohim is important. Thats what I perceive Hazakim was trying to portray in their song.

  7. moses never saw God , no man can see god and live yet moses saw the reflection of the invisible God throught the three angles that appeared on the mountain

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.