Introduction to Messianic Judaism: Reading the Bible in Flux

April 17, 2013 James Pyles 7 Comments

Messianic Jews accord Scripture a unique status as the inspired and authoritative Word of God. They study it, use it liturgically, and base their life and practice on it. However, Messianic Jews grapple with certain issues involved in biblical interpretation that are particularly relevant to Jewish followers of Yeshua. In the first two parts of this essay I will focus on how Messianic Jewish interpretation of Scripture is affected by interpretive traditions and how this leads to the task of shaping a post-supersessionist canonical narrative. In the third part I will focus on unique uses of Scripture in Messianic Judaism.

-Carl Kinbar
“Chapter 4: Messianic Jews and Scripture” (pg 61)
Introduction to Messianic Judaism: Its Ecclesial Context and Biblical Foundations

In my conversations with Pastor Randy at the church I attend, the core of our conversations are on interpretation of the Bible. Pastor says that the first step in any proper interpretation is understanding the literal meaning of the text in its original language and within its context. I can hardly argue against that, but there are two additional steps: “what the text means” and “what the text means to me.” The former is an application of the text in its original context and the latter is an application of the text today.

Hyper-literalists would say that the application of all Biblical text is uniform across time, being the same both the day it was written and right now in 21st century America. I don’t think I can go that far, since, for instance, many portions of scripture in Tanakh (Old Testament) and New Testament addressing slavery are not particularly applicable in today’s world, whether in Israel or the rest of the nations.

But Dr. Kinbar suggests a finer degree of application depending, in this case, on whether one is or is not a Messianic Jew. We do know that, depending on whether one is an observant Jew or a Gentile Christian, certain passages of the Tanakh, specifically those often understood as “Messianic,” are interpreted differently, with the latter population seeing Jesus in the text and the former group seeing the future Messiah or sometimes national Israel instead.

Even when both populations interpret the same text in terms of its literal meaning within its original context, the application, especially in the present age, differs radically because it is being interpreted by two different populations, each with a different “agenda.”

It’s what I keep trying to explain to Pastor Randy. Even multiple parties who are honest and who seek truth can arrive at different interpretations of the Bible depending on who the parties are and how they’ve been “programmed” to interpret the Bible, sometimes just based on who they are (the ultimate arbiter of scripture may be the Holy Spirit, but that doesn’t prevent many people of good faith and character from interpreting scripture quite differently from one another, sometimes even within the same church).

But Christians will always see Jesus in Messianic texts. Religious Jews, not so much.

Now Kinbar is factoring Messianic Jews into the equation in his article. What can we expect?

Perhaps no one specific application.

Mark Kinzer, another Messianic Jewish thinker, approaches the interpretation of Scripture from a different direction. He argues that the Bible must be interpreted in the context of interpretive traditions, which consist of “the accumulated insights of a community transmitted from one generation to the next. In a Messianic Jewish context, tradition represents the understanding of Scripture preserved through the generations among the communities – Jewish and Christian – within which Scripture itself has been preserved. If we are connected to these communities, then we are also heirs of their traditions.”

-Kinbar, pg 62

That’s something of an adaptation to how Orthodox Jews see Biblical interpretation. My wife occasionally quotes our local Chabad Rabbi as saying that the Bible cannot be interpreted correctly except through tradition, which in this case, means the traditions of Orthodox Judaism. According to Kinbar, Kinzer includes Jewish and Christian traditions as part of the requirement for correct Biblical interpretation, but Jewish and Christian interpretive traditions (and make no mistake, Protestant Christianity does have traditions for interpreting the Bible) are often at odds with each other, including the rather critical element of identifying the Messiah. Establishing the particulars of which traditions to use from each religious perspective must be an enormous challenge.

But there’s more than one way Messianic Jews look at this matter.

(Daniel) Juster argues for a more cautious approach toward Jewish tradition, asserting that “only biblical teaching is fully binding, whereas other authorities might be followed because we perceive wise application or respect community practices.” In other words, Scripture is the measure of tradition, never the reverse. Juster does not address the claim of traditionalists that the cumulative weight of centuries of interpretation is necessarily of greater weight than the judgment of the individual.

The positions of Juster and Kinzer on the place of tradition in the interpretation of Scripture represent the views of two branches of Messianic Judaism and are emblematic of broader disagreements in the movement over the place of traditional practices in Messianic Jewish life.

-Kinbar, pp 62-3

How I define Messianic Judaism is fairly conservative, and possibly closer to how the contributors of the Rudolph/Willitts book see the definition as opposed to how Hebrew Roots identifies the movement. I see Messianic Judaism as a “Judaism” (most or all of the other “Judaisms” in the world will disagree), that is, a religious, cultural, and ethnic group made up primarily or exclusively of Jewish people who are desiring to establish and nurture a Jewish cultural and religious community for the purpose of worshiping the God of Israel and having “fellowship” with other Jews. The distinction of “Messianic Judaism” is the centrality of Yeshua (Jesus) as the Jewish Messiah King in accordance with his revelation in the Apostolic Scriptures.

I’ve periodically encountered Hebrew Roots congregations (including the one I once attended and taught at) that have defined themselves as “Messianic Judaism,” in spite of the fact that few halachically Jewish people made up their membership and even fewer Jews within that group were born and raised in an ethnically, culturally, and religiously Jewish family. Few of the Jewish people within a Hebrew Roots “Messianic Jewish” group have any more familiarity with Jewish halachah and worship practices than the non-Jews in attendance. I base that statement on personal experience, and since I have little to no equivalent experience in more “authentic” Messianic Jewish congregations, I cannot comment on the membership demographics of their groups. I can only say that the ideal of Messianic Judaism is to provide Jewish communities for Jewish worshipers of God and disciples of Yeshua the Messiah, with some Gentile believers attending to “come alongside” their Jewish brothers and sisters.

But as we’ve seen, relative to Biblical interpretation, even Messianic Judaism as I define the movement, isn’t a single entity. If Kinzer and Juster represent two different perspectives in this arena, then there are two different expressions of Messianic Judaism based on how scripture is interpreted and subsequently applied. I’m not saying this to throw a monkey wrench into anyone’s machine, but to point out that these issues of religious identification and affiliation aren’t as simple as they may appear on the surface. Many Christians in the church see “Messianic Judaism” as a single container, and when visiting Hebrew Roots congregations, assume that all groups are identical in composition and practice and erroneously believe that all Hebrew Roots groups are “Messianic Judaism.”

Obviously this isn’t the case.

But returning to Messianic Judaism and interpretation of scripture, there are a few important matters to address.

Kinzer remarks that Christian theology generally ignores the eschatological character of Israel’s holiness and accentuates the “discontinuity between Israel’s covenant existence before Yeshua’s coming and the eschatological newness that Yeshua brings. Messiah is thus exalted by the lowering of Moses and Israel.” To the contrary, God’s presence with Israel is an ongoing reality that always anticipates the time of consummation. Kinzer agrees with (R. Kendall) Soulen’s argument that the death and resurrection of Yeshua anticipates what will be achieved for Israel and the nations at the time of the consummation of all things…Israel’s vocation is thus not occluded but brought to a new height in Yeshua, the one-man Israel. The person and work of Yeshua may thereby be seen in the context of Israel’s ongoing life and vocation and not its replacement.

-Kinbar, pg 65

In other words, the coming of Jesus didn’t do away with Israel and the Jewish people but insured their continuation into the future Messianic age. A rather radical thought for many Christians to absorb. But it’s not just Israel’s continuation as a wholly Jewish nation and people, but their ascendency to the head of the nations and the core of Christ’s Kingship on Earth that is being presented. Israel isn’t replaced by Christianity but rather, placed at the head of the table, so to speak. The Jews not only have a future, but an exalted and glorious future.

This is a unique interpretation of the Bible, not so much for religious Jews in general, but for Jews who believe that Jesus is the Messiah and who see him in both the prophesies of the Tanakh and the words of the New Testament.

There’s just one more unique Biblical interpretation attributed to Messianic Judaism I want to point out.

Among the Scriptures, the Torah (the five books of Moses) holds a primary place in the history and affections of the Jewish people as the record of the progenitors of Israel and the formation of Israel as a community bound to God by the commandments (also called collectively “the Torah”). Mainstream Messianic Jews, especially those who adhere to Jewish tradition, depart from the classic Christian teaching that the Torah was made obsolete in Messiah. Rather, they see that Yeshua has affirmed the Torah as the basis for life of covenant faithfulness in keeping with their calling as Jews (Matt 5:17-19).

-Kinbar, pg 69

Pastor Randy and I go back and forth on this particular issue, and I continue to maintain, in agreement with Kinbar, that Torah observance for Messianic Jews remains in force if, for no other reason, than such observance defines Messianic Jews as Jews. There may be a variety of other reasons for the continuation of Torah observance within the Messianic Jewish community, but if we believe that Yeshua and subsequently the Apostles, including Paul, supported such observance (and I’ve been writing a good deal lately about Paul’s life of Torah observance) as a life long pattern for Jews in the Messiah, then these are compelling reasons not only for Messianic Jews to interpret scripture in this manner, but to continue to live their lives in accordance with the commandments, as do other Jews in other branches of religious Judaism.

But this is just the beginning, and Messianic Judaism, relative to scripture and a good many others elements, has a long way to go.

The Messianic Jewish construal of the relationship between Scripture and tradition is in flux. Messianic Judaism is still in need of a canonical narrative that is clear and comprehensive, accounting for Israel’s ongoing vocation as a holy people.

-Kinbar, pg 70

The dynamic between scripture and tradition is at the heart of many arguments regarding how a Jew is supposed to relate to the Messiah. For some observers and even some practitioners of Messianic Judaism, observance of Torah is not the issue but observance of “the traditions” very much is. As Dr. Kinbar said, the debate is “in flux” and Messianic Judaism is in many ways, still a “diamond in the rough.”

Of all of the contributors to the Rudolph/Willitts book, only Carl Kinbar (as far as I know) regularly (or periodically) reads this blog and occasionally comments on it, so if I’ve gotten anything wrong in my analysis of his article, I can expect he’ll come by to correct me. While this is slightly intimidating on one hand, on the other, it is rather comforting since it is part of the expected and required dialogue between Messianic Judaism and Gentile Christianity that David Rudolph expressed earlier in the book.

If, as I believe, Gentile Christians have a major role in supporting Israel and encouraging Messianic Jews in taking up and observing the Torah mitzvot as part of the process of a returning Messiah, then conversation and cooperation between our two populations within the body of Yeshua brings us one step closer to repairing our broken world and anticipating the return of the King.

161 days.

Uncategorized

Paul the Christian Pharisee

April 16, 2013 James Pyles 16 Comments

Now when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, “Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees.

–Acts 23:6

Paul used the present tense, “I am a Pharisee,” not “I was a Pharisee.” Christian commentaries are uncomfortable with the statement, and they usually try to dodge the implications by explaining that he used to be a Pharisee prior to becoming a Christian.

Did Paul perjure himself before the Sanhedrin (a grave sin) by saying, “I am a Pharisee” instead of saying, “I was a Pharisee”? If so, none of his accusers had the wherewithal to challenge him on it. If he was no longer a Pharisee at the time of the trial, his testimony would be easy enough to discredit.

-D. Thomas Lancaster
Torah Club, Volume 6: Chronicles of the Apostles
from First Fruits of Zion (FFOZ)
Torah Portion Tazria (pg 711), Commentary on Acts 23:1-24:27

I suppose you could say this is a continuation of my previous “meditation,” Paul the Apostle, Liar, and Hypocrite and earlier commentaries. As I continue to read through Lancaster’s “Chronicles of the Apostles” Torah Club study, I continue to follow Paul through his various “legal problems” and his journey that will eventually lead to Rome, Caesar, and death. I also continue to watch as Paul repeatedly defends himself against the charges brought against him by the Jewish authorities of the Sanhedrin. From Paul’s point of view, he did nothing wrong to the Jewish people, to the Torah, to the Temple, or even to Rome.

Paul argued in his defense, “Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I committed any offense.”

–Acts 25:8

In verse 7 of the same chapter, Luke records that “…the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem stood around him, bringing many serious charges against him that they could not prove.”

As we’ve seen in earlier chapters of Acts and in my earlier commentaries on those chapters (thanks to Lancaster and the Torah Club), there simply was no evidence to support the wild accusations that had been made against Paul. He should have been set free, and except for various political reasons, finally including Paul’s appeal to Caesar and Rome, he never was.

Not only do I want to pursue the scriptures and commentaries that support Paul’s innocence, but I want to continue to illustrate how Paul never imagined that being an apostle of Jesus required in any sense, surrendering observance of the Torah mitzvot and the lifestyle of a Jewish Pharisee, nor did he expect this of other believing Jews.

All believers could claim to adhere to Pharisaic doctrine, but not all of them could claim to actually be Pharisees. Paul concluded his testimony with the declaration, “Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead!” (Acts 23:6).

-Lancaster, ibid

That statement might come as a shock to you if you’ve been taught that all Pharisees were horrible, legalistic monsters and hypocrites. After all, Jesus had some pretty rough things to say to the Pharisees.

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

–Matthew 23:27-28

On the other hand, Jesus also said this:

The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do.

–Matthew 23:2-3

Do what they say but not what they do. What do they say?

And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.

–Acts 23:7-8

For Paul, the Pharisaic belief in the resurrection of the dead and a life in the world to come was lived out by his faith in Yeshua (Jesus) as the risen Messiah King.

That is why his faith was “counted to him as righteousness.” But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.

–Romans 4:22-25

The doctrine of “the Way” was generally Pharisaic and in believing in the resurrection, so is modern Christianity.

I know, that’s probably a stretch for most of you, but if you follow the logic of Paul’s defense as recorded by Luke, it is very compelling. Lancaster comments further on this point.

The teaching and beliefs of Yeshua, Paul, and all the apostles echo the theology of the Pharisees. A Pharisee could become a disciple of Yeshua and still be a Pharisee…

-Lancaster, pg 713

Not so the Sadducees or any other branch of Judaism that did not believe in resurrection.

Even though the Master sometimes disagreed with the specific priorities of the oral law, He and the apostles practiced and transmitted Pharisaic, rabbinic tradition and interpretation. Their teachings and methods of biblical exegesis mirror those of the Pharisees. The Sadducees, on the other hand, were the first-century equivalents of Karaite Jews and sola-scriptura Protestants. They rejected most Jewish tradition, oral law, and rabbinic exegesis.

-ibid

From a modern Christian’s point of view, we almost want to make the Sadducees the heroes of the story because they rejected Jewish oral law and traditions, and Jesus heavily criticized the Pharisees for some of their traditions. But while many of the Pharisees far exceeded the Torah’s intent by creating enormous burdens from their rulings that weighed heavily on the Jewish people, Jesus did not criticize their core teachings. Being a Pharisee wasn’t the problem. Being a hypocrite and a liar was. Paul was the former but never the latter.

But Paul had a “confession” to make.

But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets, having a hope in God, which these men themselves accept, that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust. So I always take pains to have a clear conscience toward both God and man.

–Acts 24:14-16

Paul admitted to the charge of belonging “to the sect of the Nazarenes,” but he rejected any implication that the teachings of the Way deviated from normative Jewish expression. To Paul, faith in Yeshua was not simply one more sect of Judaism, it was “the Way of the LORD,” a spiritual restoration and redemption of all Israel that transcended sectarian divides. He admitted to “believing everything that is in accordance with the Torah and that is written in the Prophets.” He declared his hope in God, a hope which his accusers also cherished.

-Lancaster, pg 723

There’s one sentence in my last quote from Lancaster that I hope you caught. Here is is again:

To Paul, faith in Yeshua was not simply one more sect of Judaism, it was “the Way of the LORD,” a spiritual restoration and redemption of all Israel that transcended sectarian divides.

This is as true today as it was the moment Paul said it. Faith in Yeshua the Messianic King is not just a way for the world to be saved (which, of course, is no small thing) but it is the way to spiritual restoration and redemption of all Israel. That is the critical piece of knowledge both Jews and Christians must understand. Jesus doesn’t stand in opposition to the Jewish people, he stands for their redemption as a people and their restoration as a nation.

The good news of forgiveness from sins, salvation, and a life in the world to come is what we focus on as Christians, but most of the time, we miss why Jesus is uniquely special to the Jewish people. He doesn’t just save the individual Jewish soul as he does the individual Gentile soul, he saves Israel, he restores their nation to the head of all nations, he gathers his people back to him and to their Land, and he is their King, the King of the Jews, even as he is also the King of the World.

Paul, the “Christian” Pharisee knew all that, and the evidence of his innocence is also a shining lamp for every Jew and Gentile who turns away from darkness and to the light. To turn toward the light, we Gentiles must surrender a life of disobedience and learn to love, listen, and obey God. For a Jew to turn toward the light of the world in Messiah, they also must learn to obey, but Torah observance for the Jew is part of that obedience. We in the church are obedient, not only when we refrain from sin, but when we act to encourage our Jewish brothers and sisters in the faith to continue to live wholly Jewish lives in accordance with the commandments.

Paul lived his life enthusiastically as a disciple of Jesus Christ…and as a Pharisee.

162 days.

Uncategorized

Pray for the Victims of the Boston Marathon Bombings

April 15, 2013 James Pyles Leave a comment

Two bombs exploded near the finish line at the Boston Marathon on Monday, leaving two people dead and dozens more wounded.

A third explosion was heard just before 4 p.m., about an hour after the first two blasts, at the nearby John F. Kennedy Library. The police later said that episode may have been unrelated.

By John Eligon and Ken Belson
“Explosions at Boston Marathon Kill 2”
Published April 15, 2013
The New York Times

What can I say that hasn’t already been said except to encourage everyone reading this to pray for the victims of the blasts and their loved ones. May God grant mercy and consoling to them and to everyone touched by this horrible tragedy.

My heart grieves with the victims.

163 days.

Uncategorized

Introduction to Messianic Judaism: The Silo Invasion

April 15, 2013 James Pyles 8 Comments

A synagogue is above all a sacred community of Jewish people who gather for worship, prayer, study, benevolence, social justice, lifestyle events, outreach, and other Jewish community activities. What distinguishes Messianic synagogues from mainstream synagogues is the centrality of Yeshua, the prominent place of the New Testament, and the presence of Gentile followers of Yeshua who come alongside Messianic Jews to build a congregation for Yeshua within the house of Israel.

-David Rudolph and Elliot Klayman
“Chapter 2: Messianic Jewish Synagogues” (pg 37)
Introduction to Messianic Judaism: Its Ecclesial Context and Biblical Foundations

Let’s look at part of the above-quoted paragraph again.

…and the presence of Gentile followers of Yeshua who come alongside Messianic Jews to build a congregation for Yeshua within the house of Israel.

For a long time, I’ve been hearing some Messianic Jews describe the relationship between themselves and we Gentile Christians (whether we call ourselves “Christians,” “Hebrew Roots,” or “Messianic Gentiles,” in this context, it’s all the same) as two groups who come alongside each other, or more commonly expressed as “Christians coming alongside” Messianic Jews.

What does that mean?

I know the Messianic Jews who make this statement have an internal conceptualization about what it means, but I’ve never had access to that conceptualization. As someone on the outside looking in, this whole “alongside” thing has reminded me to two silos standing next to each other on a farm somewhere. Sure, silo B is standing “alongside” silo A, but otherwise, what do they have in common? They’re both silos, but let’s assume they hold different contents. Let’s also assume that there is no conduit (tunnel or other direct link) that attaches one silo to another and allows the contents of each silo to freely flow from one to another.

That’s how I’ve imagined the whole “alongside” thing.

Then I read the introduction to the Rudolph/Willitts book (pg 15) written by David Rudolph and received a revelation.

One of the main purposes of this book is to give Gentile Christians vision for the dialogical relationship they share with Messianic Jews so that they will come alongside the Messianic Jewish community and assist it. Coming alongside can take many forms, including (a) praying for the Messianic Jewish community, (b) sharing the good news of Yeshua in a way that affirms the calling of Jews who follow Yeshua to remain Jews and to become better Jews, (c) encouraging Jews in churches to be involved in the Messianic Jewish community, (d) supporting Messianic Jewish education, (e) contributing to the welfare of Messianic Jews in Israel, (f) helping local Messianic synagogues, (g) collaborating with Messianic Jewish ecclesial leaders and scholars, (h) preaching and teaching the Scriptures in a way that affirms God’s covenant faithfulness to the Jewish people and the bilateral (Jew-Gentile) nature of the church, and (i) including Messianic Jews in Jewish-Christian dialogue.

In reading Rudolph’s definitions for “coming alongside,” I seem to fit several of those points, at least as I perceive myself. Thus being alongside doesn’t mean just standing there next to, but actually being directly involved on numerous levels with the Messianic Jewish community including, as we saw in the quote at the top of the page, worshiping with Messianic Jews in a synagogue setting (and I’ll be coming alongside a number of Messianic Jews next month at the First Fruits of Zion (FFOZ) Shavuot conference).

Now, some people are going to take exception to this next part:

The demographic reality of Messianic Gentiles, including a second and third generation, raises a number of questions that the Messianic Jewish community is currently engaging. Many of these questions relate to time-honored traditions in the Jewish world concerning the participation of non-Jews in Jewish life. In mainstream synagogues, for example, Gentiles are not generally permitted to have a bar/bat mitzvah, wear a tallit, or read from the Torah because these are all activities in which a Jew affirms his/her covenant responsibilities as a member of the people of Israel, something a non-Jew cannot do. Some Messianic synagogues believe that these normative standards should be maintained for reasons of conscience and to avoid blurring the distinction between Jew and Gentile in the body of Messiah, a differentiation that the New Testament upholds (1 Cor 7:17-24; Acts 15; 21:24-25). Other Messianic synagogues contend that these customs should be modified so that Messianic Gentiles may participate more fully in Jewish community life.

-Rudolph/Klayman, pp 48-9

I remember taking my three Jewish children to the local Reform – Conservative synagogue a number of years ago. As a Gentile I felt somewhat uncomfortable in reading from those portions of the siddur where I was supposed to refer to myself as “Israel” or to the patriarchs as my “Fathers.” Since it’s a pretty liberal place, the Rabbi once offered me an aliyah (to go up and read from the Torah) but I was incredibly intimidated and turned it down. In retrospect, and given my current values, I am glad I refused the honor because in a synagogue setting the honor is not mine. My children, once past bar/bat mitzvah age, were the ones accepting the aliyot because they (and their mother) are Jewish.

But as we’ve just seen within the Messianic Jewish community, the struggle continues regarding how to include and incorporate those Gentiles who have come alongside their Messianic Jewish brothers and sisters. Messianic Judaism is still in the process of creating itself and a “silo” containing both Jewish and Gentile components.

And that’s good. There should be a struggle. There was a struggle in Apostolic times, which was the whole point of Acts 15, but the Jerusalem letter didn’t define the specific halachah for Gentile participation in Jewish worship and ritual within the synagogue setting, at least not with any detail. In other words, we don’t have a Biblical model for how to include Gentiles in Messianic Jewish communities today.

At least not a good one.

And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed. And the word of the Lord was spreading throughout the whole region. But the Jews incited the devout women of high standing and the leading men of the city, stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and drove them out of their district.

–Acts 13:48-50

And he said to me, ‘Go, for I will send you far away to the Gentiles.’

Up to this word they listened to him. Then they raised their voices and said, “Away with such a fellow from the earth! For he should not be allowed to live.” And as they were shouting and throwing off their cloaks and flinging dust into the air…

–Acts 22:21-23

As you can see, many Jews didn’t have a problem with Paul’s message about the Messiah, but they had a really big problem with including non-Jews into a Jewish worship and ritual community. At that point in history, James and the Council of Apostles were the highest authority in our world for the Messianic community. Today, we have reversed the order, with Gentiles being the largest single body of people who worship the Jewish Messiah and Messianic Jews being only a tiny minority.

So should Gentile believers have control over the Messianic Jewish community? Common sense says “no” but that won’t stop some Gentile Christians from trying. Now keep in mind that for nearly twenty centuries, Gentile Christians have been treating Jewish people and Judaism with less than kindness and courtesy. It’s understandable that Jewish people should feel a little “standoffish” when approached by Christians since historically, Christians have been responsible for inquisitions, pogroms, and burning synagogues, Torah scrolls, volumes of Talmud, and occasionally bunches and bunches of Jewish human beings.

Remember those two silos I mentioned before? Now imagine that “coming alongside” wasn’t sufficient for a subset of Gentile believers. They want inside the Jewish silo and to take possession and control of the covenant identity and responsibilities assigned by God to Jews. Frankly, it doesn’t matter to this population of Gentiles if the Jews want them to do this or not.

Which is crazy, because based on my quotes of Rudolph, both in this blog post and in yesterday’s, Gentile Christians are not just welcome in Messianic Jewish communities, but we are an integral part of the body of Messiah. Messianic Jews and Gentile Christians must be united elements in a single body in order for the body to live and thrive, just as the human body must contain a heart, lungs, and liver in order to be alive. Yeah, they’re radically different organs with different functions, roles, and purposes, but they all work together.

For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single member, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.

–1 Corinthians 12:14-20

I know Paul wasn’t necessarily talking about differences in Jewish vs. Gentile roles, and he was likely talking about the differences between prophets, preachers, teachers, and the guy who has to take out the garbage at church, but the principle and analogy holds up, at least to a degree. There are aspects to Jewish worship and community life that confirm the covenant identity and responsibility of a Jew as a Jew. Should Gentiles in the community also claim that identity, especially by force or demand? In First Century CE Jerusalem, the Jewish Council of Apostles had the authority to issue halachah that impacted both the Jewish and Gentile believers in Messiah. Shouldn’t Messianic Jewish communities in the Twenty-First Century CE have the right to issue halachah just for themselves and whoever attends their synagogues?

I know this gets into arguments that involve “flesh” and there are accusations of bigotry and even racism that fly about the blogosphere, but Gentiles aren’t being excluded from the Messianic community. The Messianic community is just in the process of defining itself and how it is supposed to work, something that was never made clear in the letters of Paul (and who better than Paul to have known such a thing?).

Both Judaism and Christianity are communities with unique cultures and characteristics. Some Gentile believers, for whatever reason, desire or fit better within the Messianic Jewish community than the Christian church community and that’s fine. Some Gentile Christians such as myself, take pieces of that Messianic culture, identity, and conceptualization and live it out within a church setting to support and encourage an understanding of Messianic Judaism in the church. I think that’s part of coming alongside, too.

But I don’t tell my Pastor or the congregation what to do, what rights I have, how they aren’t being Biblical, or otherwise “storm the gates” of their community with my ideas and my personality just because I think the Bible tells me that I should (and I don’t think it tells me that I should). I respect the community and only speak my mind freely when invited (and Pastor Randy has been abundantly gracious with me in this area). I would never dream of going into the local Conservative – Reform shul or the local Chabad and telling the respective Rabbis that they’re doing it wrong and I’m there to straighten them out (although some local Hebrew Roots people have done exactly that in the past). Why would I do such a thing either in a church or in a Messianic synagogue? What would give me the right, even if I thought they had erred in relation to the commands of God?

In some ways, I’ve “come alongside” the church by going back to church since culturally, I’m not a “typical” Christian. Being part of a community isn’t about individual rights or making demands. It’s about being an active part of the community, making a contribution, benefiting the whole. Sure, the community gives back, but the community is about the community. We all benefit each other. I’m not there just to have my needs fulfilled, especially if that results in causing others in the community pain or discomfort.

One of the traditional songs sung at the Passover seder is Dayenu or “It would have been sufficient…” One portion of the traditional song goes:

If He had brought us before Mount Sinai, and had not given us the Torah – Dayenu, it would have been sufficient!

Part of my personal version goes:

If He had given us His only begotten Son so that the world might be saved, and had not given us the Torah – Dayenu, it would have been sufficient!

God has given us so much. What more do we want besides grace and mercy…and for believing Jews and Gentiles to come alongside each other and together bring honor and glory to King Messiah? It is sufficient.

I don’t share my thoughts because I think it will change the minds of people who think differently I share my thoughts to show the people who already think like me that they’re not alone.

-Anonymous

163 days.

Uncategorized

Introduction to Messianic Judaism: An Exercise in Wholeness

April 14, 2013 James Pyles 10 Comments

Similarly, New Testament scholars have long-held that the Jerusalem community headed by Ya’akov/James was (1) primarily composed of Yeshua-believing Jews who (2) remained within the bounds of Second Temple Judaism and (3) lived strictly according to the Torah (Acts 15:4-5; 21:20-21). Michael Fuller, Richard Bauckham, Craig Hill, Darrell Bock, Robert Tannehill, and Jacob Jervell are among the many Luke-Acts scholars who maintain that the Jerusalem congregation viewed itself as the nucleus of a restored Israel, led by twelve apostles representing the twelve tribes of Israel (Acts 1:6-7, 26; 3:19-21). Their mission, these scholars contend, was to spark a Jewish renewal movement for Yeshua the Son of David within the house of Israel (Gal 2:7-10; Acts 21:17-26).

-David Rudolph
“Chapter 1: Messianic Judaism in Antiquity and in the Modern Era” (pg 22)
Introduction to Messianic Judaism: Its Ecclesial Context and Biblical Foundations

I very recently discovered this book in the “New Books” section of my local library. When I saw it, I immediately checked it out (on Thursday) so that means I have only two weeks to read it before I have to return it (no renewals for new books). I was pretty excited to find this book in my local library system (which covers several counties in Southwestern Idaho) since I’ve never seen any book that could remotely be called “Messianic” in our collection of libraries before. Congratulations Rudolph and Willitts for “breaking the barrier,” so to speak.

But what made me write this “meditation” based on the Introduction and Chapter 1 of this book was the focus on a topic that has been near and dear to my heart these past few months: the ancient Messianic Jewish world and how it impacted newly minted Gentiles disciples of the Jewish Messiah.

You all know the argument. In Acts 15, what exactly did James and the Council do? Did they cancel the Torah for all disciples of Jesus or only for the Gentile disciples? Opinions vary widely (and sometimes wildly), with most Christians seeing the chapter as the final death knell of the Torah and a minority Hebrew Roots group stating that it was the foundation of universal Torah obligation for everyone.

Messianic Judaism as I’ve come to understand the movement, somewhat splits the difference.

As F. Scott Spencer points out, “The representatives at the Jerusalem conference – including Paul – agreed only to release Gentile believers from the obligation of circumcision; the possibility of nullifying this covenantal duty for Jewish disciples was never considered.” If the Jerusalem leadership had viewed circumcision as optional for Yeshua-believing Jews, there would have been no point in debating the question of exemption for Yeshua-believing Gentiles or delivering a letter specifically addressed to these Gentiles. Michael Wyschogrod rightly notes that “both sides agreed that Jewish believers in Jesus remained obligated to circumcision and the Mosaic Law. The verdict of the first Jerusalem Council then is that the Church is to consist of two segments, united by their faith in Jesus.”

-Rudolph, pg 23

Sometimes when I’m having these debates with Pastor Randy in his office, I feel like it’s just him and me (well, it is just the two of us) with my tacit partner being D. Thomas Lancaster, since it is his book we are using as the object of our talks. In finding the Rudolph/Willitts book suddenly available to me, it’s a little like finding gold or a golden information treasure trove that links back to numerous, scholarly information sources, all supporting the basic belief that the ancient Jewish believers in Jesus (Yeshua) never saw being released from circumcision and Torah observance as an option. The only question on their minds was whether or not the Gentiles had to be circumcised and thus obligated to said-Torah observance as Jews.

It’s no secret that I depend on First Fruits of Zion (FFOZ) as my primary information repository for all things Messianic (and by inference, all things Christian), but no matter how reliable a source they may be, they are still one source. It’s sort of like putting all my eggs in one basket. I know better than to believe a single source of data without searching for corroborating support. While the authors and contributors of the “Introduction” book (Rudolph and Willitts are the primary authors of the book, but there are multiple, scholarly contributors as well, so the book reads like an anthology) share many of the views espoused by FFOZ, they don’t share all of them, and that variability lends itself quite well to my corroboration requirement. Do other scholars in the Messianic and Christian academic spaces support the basic belief of early believing Jewish adherence to the Torah that was considered normative and not anachronistic or transient, and do they also share the belief that Gentile disciples were united with their Jewish counterparts in the body of Messiah without having to ever accept obligations to Torah observance that were identical to Jewish observance?

I’ve only read the Introduction and Chapter 1 of the Rudolph/Willitts book as I write this, but so far, the answer is a resounding “yes.”

Rudolph cites Philip S. Alexander’s “Jewish Believers in the Early Rabbinic Literature (2d to 5th Centuries) from the book Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries (ed. Skarsaune and Hvalvik), 686-87:

They lived like other Jews. their houses were indistinguishable from the houses of other Jews. They probably observed as much of the Torah as did other Jews (though they would doubtless have rejected, as many others did, the distinctively rabbinic interpretations of the misvot). They studied Torah and developed their own interpretations of it, and, following the practice of the Apostles, they continued to perform a ministry of healing in the name of Jesus….[T]hey seem to have continued to attend their local synagogues on Sabbath. They may have attempted to influence the service of the synagogue, even to the extent of trying to introduce into it the Paternoster [the Lord’s Prayer], or readings from the Christian Gospels, or they may have preached sermons which offered Christian readings of the Torah. The rabbis countered with a program which thoroughly “rabbinized” the service of the synagogue and ensured that it reflected the core rabbinic values.

According to Rudolph, this is a description of Jewish believers who lived in the Galilee during the Tannaitic period or during the first two-hundred years (or so) of the Common Era (CE). In other words, according to Alexander, Jewish believers in Messiah continued to live as observant Jews after the lifetimes of the original Jewish Apostles of Christ.

I know I’ll get some criticism on a couple of points: the first being “circumcision” since it’s not Biblical as a means of conversion from being a Gentile to being Jewish (it certainly is Biblical in terms of the Abrahamic covenent which was re-enforced for the Jewish people by the Mosaic and New Covenants). I’m not going to get into a big argument. The Torah doesn’t presuppose circumcision as a sign of conversion because in the days of Moses, it wasn’t possible to convert to Judaism. One does not convert to a tribe or later, to a clan. By the days of the Maccabees forward, tribal and clan affiliation as a primary definition within national and covenantal Israel had been lost and Jewish religious authorities halachically introduced the process of allowing Gentiles entry into the covenants through ritual conversion.

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte (convert)…

–Matthew 23:15

Even Jesus accepts that the Pharisees and scribes (scribes can include other sects of first century Judaism including Essenses and Sadducees) were converting Gentiles to Judaism.

The second point of criticism I’ll receive is how I believe that Jewish but not Gentile believers were obligated to full Torah observance as a result of the Acts 15 ruling (I’d receive a different criticism from most Christians by my belief that the Jewish apostles and disciples remained “under the Law”). See the earlier quotes in this blog post plus my six-part Return to Jerusalem series for my opinion and text supporting said-opinion on this topic. Again, I don’t want to spend a lot of time on this point. I have something more important to talk about.

The beginnings of this book go back to England. Joel Willitts and I met as PhD students in the New Testament at Cambridge University, where we studied under the same supervisor…

Joel and I became good friends and found that much mutual blessing took place whenever we had conversations about the Bible and theology. I valued Joel’s perspective as a Gentile Christian and Joel valued my perspective as a Messianic Jew. There was a synergy in our exchange that often led to fresh insights and unforeseen avenues of theological inquiry. My experience at Tyndale House with Joel and other Gentile Christian friends taught me that there is indeed a God-designed interdependence between Messianic Jewish and Gentile Christian ecclesial perspectives, and that one without the other is woefully inadequate.

Those were magical days in Cambridge. Joel and I talked about what we wanted to accomplish after we completed our doctoral programs and agreed to write a book together.

-Rudolph from the book’s Introduction, pg 18

The result of that dream is the book that’s sitting next to me on my desk as I compose this blog post. A Gentile Christian and a Messianic Jew collaborated together as co-authors, co-editors, and close friends to do what in all likelihood, they could never have done independently. In fact, it took twenty-six Messianic Jews and Gentile Christians to create Introduction to Messianic Judaism. The product is a physical example of an ecclesial reality. Messianic Jews and Gentile Christians need each other. Apart, each one is only half of the whole. Together they…we are the body of Messiah.

Christianity, in general, is the ultimate in inclusionist movements. Any one from any place can turn to Messiah and be accepted. No prior experience required. As it turns out in reading Rudolph, his vision of Messianic Judaism is one that isn’t whole without including Gentile Christians. Our differences complement each other, as do the differences between a man and a woman in a marriage. We aren’t complete without each other.

I look forward to continuing my reading of Rudolph’s and Willitts’ book. So far, it is inspiring hope.

Uncategorized

Tazria-Metzora: Time Out

April 12, 2013 James Pyles 13 Comments

Tzara’at, the skin discoloration mistranslated for millennia as “leprosy,” is a curious disease. It is not contagious—it was only acquired by virtue of speaking badly of other people. It was a physical skin discoloration caused by a spiritual defect. The “metzora,” the sufferer with tzara’at, had to stay outside the city and inform all that he or she was spiritually impure.

-Rabbi Shlomo Yaffe
“Healing Hubris”
Chabad.org

Judaism does not believe in free speech.

Talking ill of your neighbor, even if it is the truth, is unequivocally banned. In fact, the Talmud (Erchin 15b.) equates gossip-mongering with idolatry, licentiousness and murder—the three cardinal sins—combined!

Moreover, the Jerusalem Talmud tells us that “King David’s soldiers would fall at war, for although they were completely righteous, tale-bearing was widespread among their ranks… Ahab’s militia, however, although they were notorious idol-worshippers, were victorious on the battlefield because of their exceptional camaraderie . . .” (Pe’ah 1:1.)

Apparently, G‑d takes greater offense at the badmouthing of His children than at the badmouthing of Himself!

In some ways, then, the gossiper is the worst sinner of all. As such, his “punishment” teaches us much about the nature of all the punishments prescribed by the Torah.

-Rabbi Mendel Kalmenson
“Spiritual Rehab”
Chabad.org

Commenting on this week’s Torah Portion Tazria–Metzora is a difficult task, at least if I don’t want to seem repetitive. After all, I’ve been “bashing” lashon hara or “evil speech” for a few days now as a problem I have with religious people and in how such speech destroys God’s reputation and all our lives.

It is thought in some circles of Judaism, that the cause of tzara’at in ancient times was evil or ill speech. The consequence was that, after the condition was confirmed by a Priest (with the cry of “Unclean!”), the metzora was set outside the camp. There was a period of waiting and then re-examination. If the metzora was declared clean, then he or she undertook a certain set of rituals and then could re-enter the camp. If not, then they had to wait some more and the process would repeat itself. Presumably, anyone who was a metzora would eventually be declared clean and then re-enter the camp of God.

But what if someone was never declared clean? What if the disease wouldn’t go away? I guess that would mean not only the symptoms would remain, the skin disease, but the underlying cause would keep hanging around: talking ill of your neighbor (and your neighbor ultimately could be anyone).

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

–Matthew 18:15-17

I suppose that’s the closest New Testament equivalent to the condition of the metzora who sinned against his or her neighbor by gossiping against them. Well, it’s not as if the metzora didn’t exist in the days when Jesus walked in Israel:

When he came down from the mountain, great crowds followed him. And behold, a leper came to him and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, if you will, you can make me clean.” And Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, “I will; be clean.” And immediately his leprosy was cleansed. And Jesus said to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a proof to them.”

–Matthew 8:1-4

The word rendered as “leper” in verse two is probably a rather poor translation or there was no Greek word that captured the Hebrew “metzora.” It seems that, in one fell swoop, Jesus forgave the metzora of his sin and cured his physical and spiritual ailments.

In some sense, it’s a shame we don’t suffer from tzara’at today. If our sins were as plain as the noses on our faces, perhaps we would be much more diligent in avoiding sin. Then again, to the degree that there was such a law that required the metzora be examined and isolated from the camp, I guess people under such a law weren’t able to avoid such a sin, even knowing the consequences.

Still, it seems cruel. Why isolate someone from the community if they’ve sinned? We see examples in both the Tanakh and in the Apostolic Scriptures. The metzora endured temporary (hopefully) exile, while the passage from Matthew 15 teaches that a person gets “three strikes” before they are “out.” Do they ever get back in? How did the metzora get back into the camp?

Rather than talk to others, he needed to talk to himself.

This wasn’t about revenge; it was about reflection.

He wasn’t being hurt because he’d hurt others in the past. He wasn’t even being isolated so that he wouldn’t come to socially isolate others in the future. He was simply being given the opportunity to get to know his present self.

People who hurt and isolate others are lonely and in pain themselves. Those who try to destroy other people’s security and happiness are themselves often sad and insecure.

The Torah—which is concerned with kindness, not power—sees the sinner as a victim, not an enemy, and therefore recognizes his need to be strengthened rather than weakened. This, the Torah perceives, cannot be done in the presence of others, but has to be done alone.

In the presence of others, he would see that which he lacked. Alone with himself, he was able to see that which he possessed.

-Rabbi Kalmenson

This isn’t hard to understand. Any parent who has put their child in “time out” understands what is happening. This is what parenting experts and educators call “logical consequences.” If you can’t get along with your community (your brother, mother, playmate), you don’t get to be with them for a certain period of time. If you sin against your brother (in Christ), and you don’t repent, you don’t get to be with your brother or any of your brothers, presumably until you are able to repent.

Then Peter came up and said to him, “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy-seven times.

–Matthew 18:21-22

Oh, yes. When they do repent, you take them back. That’s what happened to the recovered metzora and what was supposed to happen to the brother who sinned against you. When they repent, you take them back. Even if they sin against you later and then repent, and then sin against you later, and then repent, and then…

Gee, really? Is this like a sin and repent and forgive revolving door? I suppose there must be limits.

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

–1 Corinthians 6:9-10

That sounds pretty harsh, but then again, if someone is willfully and habitually sinning, are they really saved at all? Are they really members of Messiah’s “sheep pen?” Can we flaunt the will of God to His Face and still expect that He will write our names in His book of life?

Why are we sometimes exiled from the community of brothers?

And so, ultimately, this was a therapeutic time for the metzora, focused not on hurting him but on curing him. Rather than confine him, this procedure aimed to free him.

Could this be the reason that the Torah portion which describes the metzora’s impurity, likened in Jewish literature to spiritual death, (Talmud, Nedarim 64b.) is called Tazria, which means “conception,” or the beginning of new life? (see Likkutei Sichot, vol. 22, pp. 70ff.)

-Rabbi Kalmenson

I suppose there’s a certain merit in the idea of isolating yourself when you realize that you are living a double-minded life. Why wait to be publicly humiliated when you can stop it now, take a “time out,” and turn to God to get yourself straight. How that’s implemented depends on your sins. Are you a gossip? Are you a drunk? Are you into “inappropriate adult material?”

For some of that, you might not be able to deal with it alone and in fact, being alone might make it worse. Sometimes you have to withdraw from your usual social avenues and connect with a group or individual who is there specifically to help you out with your specific problem.

The closest ancient analogy is the Priest, who was responsible for the initial and subsequent examinations of the metzora. The metzora’s counselor during isolation was God. In modern times, we continue to need God, but sometimes he sends us additional, human help.

And there’s hope for life after “tzara’at.”

Life isn’t out to get you.

It’s out to be gotten by you.

And if and when in life you are forced to punish, do it like a pro.

Imitate G‑d.

Don’t hurt out of weakness; repair out of strength.

-Rabbi Kalmenson

A life under repair might not look pretty, at least in the beginning, but if the life is truly being repaired, that means productive work is being done. Give it time. Give God time to work with you (and me). Jesus told Peter to forgive repeatedly, over and over again, so that none should perish but everyone come to repentance.

Good Shabbos.

"When you awake in the morning, learn something to inspire you and mediate upon it, then plunge forward full of light with which to illuminate the darkness." -Rabbi Tzvi Freeman