Uncategorized

Debating Fulfillment Theology

141 Comments

This “logic” is plainly presented in Galatians 3. God had a very good reason to institute the Law of Moses and it has nothing to with “bait and switch.” It had to do with point and lead until the fulfillment of its goal. The emphasis of the salvation that was to come for all of mankind goes back to the promise made to Abraham.

-Eugene Adkins
in his January 27 comment on my blog post
The Lord’s Sabbath

This understanding of the function of a paidagogos clears up Galatians 3:23, where Paul says, “Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed” (Galatians 3:23). The paidagogos was the child’s guardian, not his jailer. When we understand that the paidagogos was responsible for protecting, supervising, and directing a child, then we have a better understanding of how the Greek text of Galatians 3:23 should be rendered in English. The Greek word which the English Standard Version translates as “held captive” has a different connotation. It can also be rendered as “protected,” “kept safe,” or “guarded.” The word should be understood as speaking about how a pedagogue kept a child safe and out of trouble. Similarly, the Greek word which the ESV translates as “imprisoned” (the same word appears in 3:22) can be rendered as “kept in” or “enclosed” in a positive sense. The word should be understood as speaking about how a pedagogue kept a child inside for his school lessons. He did not allow the child to run off and follow his friends into trouble. He kept him shut up inside for the purpose of education and protection.

-D. Thomas Lancaster
“Sermon Eighteen: The Pedagogue (Galatians 3:19-26), pg 182
The Holy Epistle to the Galatians
First Fruits of Zion
August 2011

Ziesler, “Role of the Tenth Commandment,” p. 50, makes the important observation in Rom. 8:4 of the use of the singular…(“requirement”) in Paul’s conclusion: “having talked in 7.1-6 about dying to the Law, Paul now in a notably bald statement appears to bring us back to life again in relation to the Law, if not under it. We died to the Law in order to keep it better.” He further suggests that this singular reference keeps the singular sin of covetousness in perspective (pp.50-51).

Snodgrass, “Spheres of Influence,” p. 107 states: “If the law is not involved in salvation, then sin is a victor because it defeated God’s law which was for life (7.12.10). But now the law is placed within the sphere of the Spirit (cf. 8.4), where it belongs (7.14). The law in the right sphere frees us from the tyranny of the law in the sphere of sin. I do not think we can ignore a reference to the OT law. It is through the law that Paul died to the law.”

Footnotes 55 and 56
from “Summary and Appendix I,” pp 365-66
in the Mark D. Nanos book
The Mystery of the Romans
Fortress Press (1996)

Important Note! Please read the first comment made by Eugene Adkins below, as he corrects some mistakes I made about his background and role. I apologize to Eugene and to everyone reading this for my errors.

I’ve been debating with Pastor Eugene Adkins in the comments section of my blog post The Lord’s Sabbath regarding what he refers to as “fulfillment theology” and what I consider supersessionism or “replacement theology” (see our series of comments on the aforementioned blog post for full details of this discussion and specifically Pastor Adkins’ comments submitted on Jan 27, 2012 @ 17:31 hours).

In response to some of Pastor Atkins’ points, I’ve quoted from both Lancaster’s recent Galatians book and the classic Nanos tome on Romans (or rather, some footnotes contained within the Nanos book). I’m doing this for several reasons. The first is that, unlike Pastor Adkins, I do not have a post-graduate degree in any form of religious studies (I assume as a Pastor that Adkins is so educated) and thus do not have skill sets equal to his own as far as debating the scriptures. In order to support my arguments, I must rely on the scholarship of external sources, namely the previously mentioned Lancaster and Nanos books.

Secondly, I want to introduce valid and scholarly sources that refute or at least bring into question the traditional Christian view that the Torah was only temporary for the Jewish people (and I have never said that the Law was intended to apply equally to the Jewish and Gentile disciples of Jesus in any equal fashion) and that once Christ lived, died, was resurrected, and ascended, that the Law became null and void (or “fulfilled” in the sense that its temporary purpose as completely satisfied and then ended), and wholly replaced by what Pastor Adkins refers to as Christ’s “international covenant” that applies uniformly to Jewish and non-Jewish disciples of Jesus. I’m trying to point out here that perhaps Pastor Adkins’ interpretation of scripture (which seems to be the interpretation of the church in general) is not the only possible way to understand what Paul was saying to the congregations of Rome and Galatia.

Finally, I want to be fair. There is a tremendous tendency for me to simply dig in my heels, say “you’re wrong,” and base my subsequent responses on my emotional states, particularly those that have to do with Christian supersessionism and its terrible (and often fatal) effect upon the Jewish people across 2,000 years of church history. But that’s not the right thing to do. I want to respond based not only on my spiritual “understanding” of God’s relationship with both Jews and Gentiles (which is completely subjective and therefore, unable to be objectively demonstrated) but on Biblical scholarship as well. The problem here is that I’m like Woody Allen trying to go a few rounds in the ring with Mike Tyson as far as our relative educational backgrounds go (well, probably not that bad).

I have two undergraduate degrees and a post-grad degree, but none of them are in subjects relevant to this conversation. Given my job, my book writing, and my family commitments, I don’t have the time or other resources to go back to school and take another degree, or to perform the necessary research to adequately respond to all of the specific points being brought up in this discussion in order to sufficiently represent my point of view. I believe I’m right based on everything I’ve learned thus far, but belief isn’t enough. I must have proof beyond what I have already demonstrated, both online and in print. Also, assuming that I can be wrong (and I know I can be), I need to either confirm or refute my current belief system using concrete evidence (or as “concrete” as anything gets in theological debates).

That’s where you, dear readers, come in. I’m calling for backup. Or I’m willing to be presented with irrefutable proof that the New Testament writings can be interpreted in one and only one, single manner, and that the one and only interpretation is held under lock and key by the 21st century evangelical Christian church. I personally don’t think it is, but like I said, I want to be fair.

I want to say to you personally Eugene, that I’m not writing this to try and be mean or unfeeling or offensive in any way. I know you are sincere and are representing the truth based on everything you’ve been taught and everything you believe, both intellectually and through your faith. I don’t have a problem with any of that. None of this is motivated by any dislike of or anger toward you. I respect your service to God and thank you for continuing to participate in our dialog rather than summarily “writing me off” as some sort of “religious nut.”

My problem with the traditional Christian position on supersessionism is that, even clothed in a pleasing and benign exterior, this “fulfillment theology” is a nearly 2,000 year old artifact that was first created when the schism between Jewish and non-Jewish believers began to develop and then exploded across the early history of the church, in order to artificially justify the ascension of the Gentiles over the Jews in Messiah, and to literally re-write the nature and character of Christian vs. Jewish “Messianism,” as we see in part here:

The destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE and the subsequent expulsion of the majority of Jews from what would be called Palestine marked a disastrous shift in the Jewish authority over the Messianic community. Up until that time, the head of the Jerusalem leadership of the Messianic community, otherwise referred to as “the bishop of the church”, had always been Jewish. Once the Jews were expelled from Jerusalem by Hadrian, for the first time a Gentile had to be elected into the role. As events moved forward from that point in time, the Gentile presence in the Messianic community grew dramatically while the Jewish leaders and worshipers of Yeshua struggled under the heartbreak of the loss of the Temple and the ejection from their land. Scant decades later, the failure of the Gentile “church” to support the Jewish revolt of Bar Koshba drove another significant wedge between the Jewish Messianic community and the body of Gentile believers.

With the Jewish population now scattered, humiliated, and fearing destruction at the hands of the Romans, the Gentile Messianics continued to secure their dominance and control of the worship of Yeshua. The self-identity of the Gentile Christians shifted from grafted-in to the root of Judaism through Abrahamic faith to the new inheritors of the Messiah, replacing Israel on a spiritual level. Origin of Alexandria and Justin Martyr were the earliest authors of this tradition and among the first to declare that the church had superseded Israel. Attached to this belief was the rise of Christian blame against the Jews for the murder of Jesus. The Jews became unworthy of their own Messiah and were pushed out of the worship of Yeshua by the Gentile disciples they had once taught and nurtured.

-James Pyles
Excerpt from “Origins of Supersessionism in the Church” (pp. 33-34)
Messiah Journal
Issue 109/Winter 2012

I previously said that I don’t have an advanced degree in religious studies, but as a published author, I do know how to do research, including delving into the history of how “the Way,” which started as a sect of Judaism inclusive of non-Jews but administered and guided by Jewish mentors who understood God and Messiah in a completely Jewish religious framework, into a newly created non-Jewish religion which found it necessary to eliminate any aspects of Judaism from its background.  In my review of the early church, I could see the early “church fathers” virtually reframe the letters of the early Jewish disciples, principally written by Paul, into words that would ultimately be used to discount and eventually all but exterminate the Jewish people.

I’m opening this blog post up for debate on the pros and cons of “fulfillment theology” and asking for those who are far wiser and much better educated and I in religious subjects to enter into the conversation. I do insist however, that this conversation remain polite and respectful. Disagreement is absolutely no excuse for undue emotionalism or any personalizing of conflict. Any apparent “attacks” on someone who differs from your point of view will not be tolerated and I, as the blog owner, reserve the right to edit or delete any offensive comments at my discretion.

This debate is specifically focused on the pros and cons of “supersessionism,” “replacement theology,” “fulfillment theology,” or whatever else you want to call it. It is NOT about One Law or Two House perspectives, so I am not inviting statements on those viewpoints to be presented here. If you find it necessary to disregard my wishes in this, your comments will be removed. Thank you.

With those disclaimers out of the way, please feel free to refer back to the full stream of comments on the “Sabbath” blog post, then return here and discuss how you support or refute my statements and Pastor Adkins’s statements. Please cite specific Biblical or other sources to support your arguments. I am asking for information, not unbridled passion.

One last thing before we begin. Eugene, you previously said:

How is lighting candles a confirmation of Jesus’ grace if that person doesn’t believe in Jesus to begin with?

Shabbat candlesI do have faith in Jesus, as you do Eugene. Watching the lighting the Shabbos candles is a beautiful and unique way of inviting him into my home and to experience something of a preview of his return to us, may it be soon and in our days. If perhaps, your comment were meant as a remark toward my wife who is Jewish but not a believer, I can only ask that you try to consider her with the same compassion and love that God has toward His am segulah; His “wondrous and treasured people” (Exodus 19:5). I can’t tell your attitude toward Jews and thus toward my wife and children through our “text-only” conversation, but if you cannot see them with the same compassion as God does, and believe God has discounted if not completely destroyed them, then I suppose my argument has already been made for me.

With that, I look forward to everyone’s contribution now and in the days ahead. I hope to learn a lot.

Uncategorized

Kosher Jesus Salad

5 Comments

The presence of even one whole bug, dead or alive, can render an entire vegetable treif — unkosher. On this matter, Orthodox rabbis are unequivocal.

“From a Torah perspective, eating a Big Mac or eating a salad with insects in it, the salad is worse,” Rabbi Eliezer Eidlitz, who runs the nonprofit Kosher Information Bureau, told me when I met him at his home office in Valley Village.

-Jonah Lowenfeld
“Can we afford kosher lettuce”
January 25, 2012
JewishJournal.com

I actually encountered this article by way of a completely different blog, in a story called How A Rabbinic Ban On Bugs May Have Led To The Creation Of Christianity. As one of the people who commented on the story said, the connection is a pretty big stretch, but the title alone was enough to get my attention.

The Failed Messiah blog is highly critical of Chasidic Judaism and the Chabad movement, which doesn’t exactly make the blog owner Shmarya Rosenberg endearing to many Jews, but he does provide a great deal of information, that would otherwise not be easily accessible, about what goes on in Crown Heights and other Chabad and Haredi communities. I usually take what he writes with a grain of salt, but was captivated with how he could say that a Rabbinic prohibition against eating bugs could possibly have lead to the creation of Christianity.

Let’s cut to the chase.

Din baria probably originated with Beit Shammai, the sometimes violent opponents of Hillel and his school, and whose children and grandchildren heavily populated the rank of the Sicarii and other zealots who spurred the war against Rome that led to the Temple’s destruction.

A student of one of Hillel’s students attacked these rabbis’ extremism: “You blind guides!” he said, “You strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!”

That student, fed up with the growing halakhic extremism that dominated Israel from the last few years of Hillel’s life until the Destruction, did what many other disgruntled Jews did with regard to the rabbis or to the Temple cult – they walked away and formed their own version of Judaism or joined one of the many sects that began at that time.

His sect, known in history as the Jerusalem Church, grew. An offshoot from it – one the student’s brother, who was then the sect’s leader, opposed – is Christianity.

Rosenberg, to the best of my knowledge, has no reason to be sympathetic toward Christianity or to want to create even the slightest link between oto ha’ish (an insulting term some Orthodox Jews use when referring to Jesus) and traditional or historic Judaism. And yet here he is referring to Jesus (though not by name) as a “student of one of Hillel’s students” and directly quoting from the New Testament (Matthew 23:24). Rosenberg even compares the “creation” of Christianity to “(forming) their own version of Judaism or (joining) one of the many sects that began at that time.”

When’s the last time you heard a (non-Messianic) Jewish person refer to Christianity as having begun as a Jewish sect? It makes me wonder just how much of an impact Rabbi Shmuley Boteach’s soon-to-be-published book Kosher Jesus may be having, even if that impact may not be conscious (OK, I’m probably stretching the connection beyond credibility, but let’s roll with it anyway).

Is Jesus starting to be mixed in with today’s kosher tossed salad among some Jews? Just thought I’d ask.

Uncategorized

Bo: When We Finally Leave Egypt

2 Comments

The command to confront Pharaoh and negate his influence is given to Moshe, representative of mankind, because the negation of selfishness is a fundamental dimension of man’s service. Man was given the mission of making this world a dwelling for G-d, and this is possible only when selfishness is nullified. Haughty self-interest prevents the Divine Presence from being manifest.

And yet, this nullification of self cannot be accomplished by man alone; it requires G-d’s power. For this reason, Moshe shrank at G-d’s command; he realized that the task was beyond him. That is why G-d instructed him: “Come to Pharaoh,” i.e., come with Me, and not “Go to Pharaoh.” G-d would confront Pharaoh together with Moshe.

-Rabbi Eli Touger
“Confronting Pharaoh”
Commentary on Torah Portion Bo
Adapted from
Likkutei Sichos, Vol. XXI, p. 48-49; Vol. XXXI, p. 32-33;
Sichos Shabbos Parshas Bo, 5733, 5751
Chabad.org

The primary function of the mitzvot is to enable man to permeate the world with goodness and holiness.

“Sanctifying Time”
Commentary on Torah Portion Bo
Adapted from the works of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, of righteous memory. (Likkutei Sichos Vol. XXVI, pp. 59-65.)
Chabad.org

And all the Israelites did so; as the Lord had commanded Moses and Aaron, so they did. That very day the Lord freed the Israelites from the land of Egypt, troop by troop. –Exodus 12:50-51 (JPS Tanakh)

As I wrote in last week’s Torah commentary Exodus: Challenge in Exile, one of the ways we can think of the exile of the Israelites in Egypt is as an “exile” into their own humanity and as a result, they were distanced from God. Yet, they could not release themselves from their own slavery without God’s intervention, thus God sent Moses as His agent to free the people, to lead them out of slavery, and to redeem them to Himself.

However, what did the Children of Israel have to surrender in order to be free?

I suppose that’s an odd question, since who wants to be a slave? What possible reason would a slave have for not “surrendering” their slavery in order to be free? What about all of the harmful things that enslave us? Pharaoh is a perfect example of this. After the terrible plagues that God had caused upon the land of Egypt, it was in Pharaoh’s best interest to release his slaves and allow them to leave. Even after the plague of the firstborn, when the Israelites finally looted Egypt and left, Pharaoh “strengthened” himself and sent his army to retrieve the Hebrews. As we see, even in the face of overwhelming adversity from God, Pharaoh found it impossible to surrender his “self” in order to protect his nation and his people. He reaped utter destruction as a result.

Is that how we sometimes destroy ourselves, even in the face of the living God who desires to redeem us? The Children of Israel were redeemed when they left Israel and they were saved from themselves. Pharaoh and Egypt could have been redeemed by just letting Israel go at God’s command. Rabbi Touger’s commentary concludes thus:

Penetrating and nullifying self-orientation makes possible the revelation of a positive dimension. And thus the Zohar refers to the House of Pharaoh as: “the place where all lights are revealed in an unrestrained manner.”

Carrying this concept further, the Exodus from Egypt is connected to the ultimate Redemption. Indeed, had the Jews merited, they would have entered Eretz Yisrael immediately after leaving Egypt.

As it is, the entire period from the Exodus until the final Redemption is referred to as “the days of your exodus from Egypt.” For nullifying the selfishness of Pharaoh and breaking through the limitations of Egypt began and begins for each of us as we relive the Exodus a self-reinforcing dynamic destined to take our nation beyond all natural limitations and lead to the Redemption.

And once redeemed, then what? Remember the true purpose of the mitzvot as I mentioned above:

The primary function of the mitzvot is to enable man to permeate the world with goodness and holiness.

The purpose of our redemption, our freedom, and our status as sons and daughters of the Most High is not to exalt ourselves but to “permeate the world with goodness and holiness.” The Master commanded us not to continually resist the insults of “one who is evil” but to turn the other cheek to him (Matthew 5:39). Jesus didn’t teach us to refuse to go a mile with someone by force, but instead, to go with him for two (Matthew 5:41). Yesterday, I tried to say that there are times we must stand resolute before evil as an iron wall against the storm, but there are also times we must bend and be supple like a reed before the wind.

The prophet Isaiah teaches:

a bruised reed he will not break, and a faintly burning wick he will not quench; he will faithfully bring forth justice. –Isaiah 42:3

Yet for all I’ve just said, we cannot free ourselves from ourselves alone. We must rely on God for that strength and that sense of direction which leads us out of our personal Egypt, across the desert, to the redemption promised to all who serve as disciples of the Messiah. If we refuse, even though we claim his name as Master, and continue on our own egotistical and self-destructive course, we’ll find our freedom is an illusion and discover that we never left Egypt at all.

When the time for redemption came, G-d did not keep them for even the blink of an eye

–Rashi’s commentary

In the Passover haggadah we say: “Had G-d not taken our forefathers out of Egypt, we, our children, and our children’s children would still be enslaved to Pharaoh.”

After two centuries of exile and subjugation there was little to differentiate the Jewish people from their idol-worshiping masters. So deeply had they sunk into the pagan depravity of Egypt that their redemption came at the very last possible moment, when they were but a hairsbreadth from spiritual annihilation.

–Nachmonides

Ironically, we don’t always find redemption when we ask or even beg for it. God waits until we are totally lost within our own worlds of self-indulgence and sin and when we’ve forgotten God completely. Then our redemption comes as Moses came for the unwilling children of Israel.

Said the Zeidehof Shpoli to the Almighty: “Master of the Universe! The sages of the Talmud pleaded before You to bring the Moshiach. You chose not to do so. The holy Ari begged You to bring Moshiach – again You were unwilling. We have reached the point where it is left to someone of my ilk to ask for the redeemer. Still You are holding out.

“Mark my words. There will come a generation who will have no interest in You or Your Moshiach. Then You will have no choice but to bring him.”

-Rabbi Yanki Tauber
“Mark My Words”
Commentary on Torah Portion Bo
Once Upon a Chasid
Chabad.org

This week, there have been many discussions on my “morning meditations” and they do not reflect well on we who claim the cause of Christ. As disciples of Jesus, we have lost our way and are like the Children of Israel in their Egyptian slavery. We say we belong to God but we act like we have completely forgotten Him. We stand up and demand our “rights” for this or that under God, and completely forget that the primary message of Jesus was not one of individual rights but rather, our responsibilities to God and to other people. Christ had the “right” to claim Kingship of the world and its people 2,000 years ago, but instead of standing up for his “rights” (and this is how the adversary tempted him), he submitted to the will of the Father, surrendering even to the horrible death on the cross. If he had “stood up for his rights”, humanity would have no hope. Only by Messiah’s humility and submission have we all been reconciled to God and saved by grace and mercy.

The message has been lost. We must take it back.

Good Shabbos.

Uncategorized

The Resolute and Supple Reed

16 Comments

“Who is wise? One who learns from every person.”
-Ben Zoma, Pirkei Avot (Ethics of the Fathers 4:1)

Throughout the existence of the Jewish people, we have long been enamored with intelligence. Just look at the disproportionate amount of Jews who have been awarded the Nobel Prize. However, intelligence by itself is not a supreme value; it can be used for either good or evil. Thus, the Talmud tells us, “The purpose of wisdom is to bring about repentance and good deeds” (Berachot 17a). In other words, if we’re not using our minds to try to become better people, our intelligence really doesn’t amount to much at all. Furthermore, Ben Zoma’s excerpt from Pirkei Avot alludes to the fact that while a person’s intellectual capacity is innately limited, wisdom can be attained by anyone. A wise person is not someone who graduated first in their class, but rather someone who is constantly trying to learn.

-Asher
“Who is Wise”
Lev Echad blog

I didn’t create this “morning meditation” blog to simply spew out answers but rather to ask hard questions. I don’t pretend to have some special insight into God or religion or faith. I only have my experience as I continue and grow in my relationship with God. I chronicle the developments of that relationship here in a variety of forms, including commentary on the Bible and occasionally reviews of related publications. I’m not really here to teach but to learn, and I learn from every person who talks to me in this blog. I think that’s how we all learn…by communicating.

It’s not always easy. As I’m sure you’ve discovered by participating in or just reading the comments on this blog, a lot of disagreement and sometimes heated debate happens. Occasionally, tempers flare, though I do my best to try and contain the “emotionalism” of our debates. The goal, as I see it, is not to try to prove who is right and who is wrong, but to pursue realization and truth. Truth, as I’ve said before, is not the same as fact, and thus truth can take on more than one form.

As Asher said in the quote I posted above, “A wise person is not someone who graduated first in their class, but rather someone who is constantly trying to learn.” He also said this:

Thus, the Talmud tells us, “The purpose of wisdom is to bring about repentance and good deeds” (Berachot 17a). In other words, if we’re not using our minds to try to become better people, our intelligence really doesn’t amount to much at all.

The goal Asher describes is similar to mine. The point of being intelligent isn’t to “be right” but to “bring about repentance and good deeds.” We’re supposed to study and explore and debate and discuss, not to exalt ourselves and to prove we’re the “smarter guy,” but to become better people through a greater understanding of our relationship with God. From a Jewish point of view, that also involves doing and not just thinking or saying, so “good deeds” are a vital part of that process as is repentance of our sins before man and God.

Does that mean a truly wise person is always a doormat who never takes a strong stand on a moral principle? Not at all.

On today’s daf we find that the Beis HaMikdash was purposely destroyed either before or after Shemittah, since bad things happen during times that are already difficult.

Keeping Shemittah in Israel was a big conflict not too long ago. Hardly anyone was doing it—even otherwise religious farmers—and those who were willing were often intimidated by their peers. The Chazon Ish, zt”l, wrote a beautiful letter of encouragement to those farmers who were willing to consider sacrificing what appeared to be their advantage in order to keep the letter of the law.

“I am a farmer who makes his living through the work of my hands. It is now almost Shemittah and a riveting thought has gotten into my head: I want to keep the laws of Shemittah with courage and boldness. I am alone and unaided, a joke to all of my neighbors. ‘How could it be?’ they asked when I began. ‘You won’t plant and you won’t harvest? You can’t fight against reality!’

“But my chutzpah stood me well and despite the indisputable fact that anyone with intelligence knows that it is physically impossible to keep these halachos unless one has a silo filled with grain for three years—since Shemittah is obviously impossible to fulfill in our times without enough grain before the seventh year. Now isn’t like it used to be, they say; you cannot rely on miracles. Yet the year is already halfway over and it looks like one can keep Shemittah after all. I planted everything before Rosh Hashannah, while it was still the sixth year, and during the seventh year I have not worked my field. I am careful to treat the produce which overlaps from the sixth year to the seventh with holiness and I hope to make peace with reality—or that reality should mete out what is good for me.

“My neighbors mock me—yet the weather mocks them. It works out to be good for one who planted early, but not for their crops planted during Shemittah. Only my early-planted crops have survived!”

Daf Yomi Digest
Stories Off the Daf
“A Time of Challenge”
Arachin 12

It seems obvious that if we are in the right in an argument or dispute, we should stand our ground, even against overwhelming odds, including that of “popular public opinion.” The question is, how can you know that you are always right? If you are a reasonable person and honest with yourself, you’ll have to admit that you can never be “always right”. That’s where learning from others comes in. Even a genius cannot know everything if that genius is in isolation. Only by discourse with the rest of the world, including a world that is fundamentally different from you, can real learning ever take place. The trick is to differentiate between being resolute in your principles and being mule-headed stubborn, even in the face of great evidence that discounts the validity of your arguments.

OK, I say that with the understanding that most people don’t change once they’ve made up their minds. But if change were impossible, then no one would come to realize that the God of Abraham is the Maker of the Universe. If we could not humble ourselves and admit that we were wrong, no one would come to faith in the Jewish Messiah, our Lord, Savior, and King.

But our greatest adversary doesn’t exist outside of us in some other group or church or synagogue or even in the supernatural realm. Our greatest enemy is who we are.

There are times you must be like a reed in the wind. And there are times you must face it like an iron wall.

When it comes to matters that lie at the surface, then “I hold like this” and “my opinion is like this” stand in the way of harmony and peace. Every such “I” is the very root and source of evil.

But when it comes to matters that touch your essence and core, the purpose for which you were placed in this world, then you must be an iron wall. Then you must say, “On this, I cannot budge.”

Liberated from its thick shell of ego, empowered and emboldened, the essential self breaks through the concrete, blossoms and flourishes.

-Rabbi Tzvi Freeman
“I Versus I”
Based on letters and talks of the Rebbe
Rabbi M. M. Schneerson
Chabad.org

Although “iron sharpens iron” (Proverbs 27:17), we must not “dull” ourselves by always seeking resistance. To “sharpen” a human being requires debate, disagreement, and discourse, and then an experience of contrition before God to help us understand when it is time to stand our ground like an iron wall, and when it is time to be supple like the reed before the wind.

In the midst of our human storms, we must never forget that what matters most is to seek His Face.

My heart, O God, is steadfast;
I will sing and make music with all my soul.
Awake, harp and lyre!
I will awaken the dawn.
I will praise you, LORD, among the nations;
I will sing of you among the peoples. –Psalm 108:1-3

Uncategorized

Review of “The Gentile Believer’s Obligation to the Torah of Moses”

43 Comments

At the same time, believers sometimes assume that HaShem’s Torah applies only to Jews and not to Gentile disciples at all. Nothing could be further from the truth. Despite the fact that the apostles “loosed” the Gentiles from these sign commandments, for the most part they are bound to the rest of the Torah’s mitzvot. It should be emphasized that Gentiles in Messiah have a status in the people of God and a responsibility to the Torah that far exceeds that of the God-fearer of the ancient synagogue and that of the modern-day Noachide (Son of Noah). Through Yeshua, believing Gentiles are been (sic) grafted in to the people of God and become members of the commonwealth of Israel. While membership has its privileges, it also has its obligations.

-by Toby Janicki
“The Gentile Believer’s Obligation to the Torah of Moses”
Messiah Journal
Issue 109/Winter 2012, pg 45
First Fruits of Zion (FFOZ)

Excuse me. What did you say?

A few days ago when I received the latest issue of Messiah Journal (MJ) in the mail, I commented that was looking forward to reading Toby’s article, but I wondered if what he was addressing was just a rehash of previous write ups on the same topic.

No, it’s not.

Toby does something I’ve never seen done before (not that somebody else couldn’t have written about this and I’m just not aware of it). He takes the four basic prohibitions outlined in the Acts 15 “Jerusalem Letter” and deconstructs them, expanding the specific details underlying the directives of James and the Council, and then tying them all back into the relevant portions of the traditional 613 commandments. Basically, Toby uses Acts 15 as the jumping off point to explain the nature and character of a non-Jewish disciple’s obligations (yes, I said “obligations”) to the Torah given at Sinai.

I did something similar over a year ago, but my jumping off point was Matthew 28:18-20, which is commonly referred to as “the Great Commission.”

To get the true flavor of what Toby is suggesting, let’s review the basics of “the letter:”

For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. –Acts 15:28-29

As Toby points out, on the surface, it seems as if the Gentile disciples of Jesus had very few responsibilities to God, but this is deceiving. As he points out in the subsequent pages of his article, each of these prohibitions has an amazing depth all its own that isn’t apparent until you dig into it. This is, as Toby muses, probably why James also said “from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues” (Acts 15:21). The Gentile disciples would need to attend the synagogues to learn and understand the many and subtle details involved in just complying with their responsibilities to these “simple” prohibitions.

I won’t go into those details because then, I’d have to recreate large portions of Toby’s article (and you’d be better off getting a copy of MJ 109 and reading the whole thing for yourself). However, Toby doesn’t limit himself to the “Jerusalem Letter.” He responds to some of the criticisms about Christians being limited to “the letter” by explaining some of the more obvious prohibitions against murder, theft, and coveting, which were not written down and were considered “Duh…obvious commandments” (quoting D. Thomas Lancaster from his book The Holy Epistle to the Galatians [pp 252-253]). These “Oh duh” commandments also include loving your neighbor, although I notice Toby did not cite the most apparent example found in the Master’s own teachings:

But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” –Matthew 22:34-40

Beyond that, Toby digs further and presents some commandments that apply to the Gentile disciples that are not “Oh duh” and not found in Acts 15:

They can rather be derived from a careful reading of the Apostolic Writings in light of Jewish thought. One such set of mitzvot is the Gentile’s responsibility of honoring the Temple.

-Janicki, pg 53

What? The Temple? Most people don’t realize that during the Second Temple period, a non-Jew actually could bring an acceptable sacrifice to Herod’s Temple and expect that it would be received.

While Gentiles were not to bring certain offerings at certain times such as guilt..or sin..offerings, they were permitted and encouraged to bring burnt (olah) and peace (shelamin) offerings. The priest would attend to these offerings just as if an Israelite offered them up, and Gentiles were required to follow the same standard requirements for the sacrifices, e.g., their sacrifices were to be unblemished (Leviticus 22:21) and from an animal seven days or older (Leviticus 22:27).

-Janicki pg 54

Toby goes on to describe how the laws regarding ritual purity relate to the Gentile, as well as the application of set times for prayer (see my article The Prayer of Cornelius for additional details) and mealtime blessings.

Toby’s article does restrict certain of the mitzvot to the descendents of the Hebrews such as the mitzvah of circumcision (brit milah). I had a brief phone conversation with Boaz Michael (founder of FFOZ) yesterday, and he mentioned how the picture of circumcision in Paul’s letters seems like such an obvious demarcation line in terms of those who are fully under the Torah’s yoke, with Titus and Timothy cited as the clearest examples. Yet even in this, Toby said something very surprising:

Gentiles are specifically enjoined not to be circumcised for the ritual covenantal status. We can assume that, like Maimonidies, the apostles would have no problem with Gentiles voluntarily being circumcised for the sake of the mitzvah, but to do so complete with expectation of covenantal status as Jews would be to “seek circumcision” in the Pauline sense.

-Janicki pg 58

I must admit that a lot of this took me by surprise. As I mentioned earlier, I’ve never seen the prohibitions in the Acts 15 letter expanded in terms of their scope and tied back into the Torah. I have seen the Seven Noahide Laws expanded into between 80 or 90 different sub-commandments, but traditional Judaism doesn’t generally connect these sub-commandments to the Torah of Sinai (even though they have many thematic and operational similarities). I have seen traditional Judaism confirm that, at least in the time of the Third Temple, that sacrifices of the Gentiles would be accepted, so that part wasn’t a stretch for me.

Has FFOZ changed it’s stance regarding Gentiles and the Torah? I’m not sure (I didn’t specifically query Toby before writing this review). On the one hand, it isn’t quite the same position as the viewpoint FFOZ has previously referred to as “Divine Invitation”. Being “invited” to take on board additional mitzvot beyond a Gentile’s obligation is voluntary and pretty much a “take it or leave it” approach. On the other hand, this article states that a significant portion of what we refer to as “Torah commandments” are obligations the Gentile disciples (Christians) must perform and to fail to do so constitutes a sin against God. It seems (and this is just a guess) that FFOZ is doing what I’m doing: continuing to explore and investigate God, the Bible, and a life of faith and allowing their understanding of each of these to evolve progressively.

Wow!

There are a couple of obvious concerns.

The first is that other Messianic Jewish organizations, such as the Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations (UMJC) may take exception to the idea that Gentiles have a greater Torah obligation than previously advertised. UMJC and similar “Jewish-oriented” groups, tend to take a more definitive stance on Gentile vs. Jewish distinctiveness in worship of the Messiah, with advocates such as Tsvi Sadan proposing a complete separation between Messianic Jewish and Christian/Gentile worship of the Jewish Messiah. The content of Mark Kinzer’s book Postmissionary Messianic Judaism: Redefining Christian Engagement with the Jewish People, which has gained a “foundational” status in the modern Messianic Jewish movement, likely operates in less then perfect accord to many of the points in Toby’s article as well.

The other concern is how all this applies to the church. It’s one thing to say that the Gentile Christian is “allowed but not commanded” to pray at fixed times (as Cornelius did), keep a “sort of” Shabbat,” and refrain from sexual relations with their wives during their menstrual periods, and another thing entirely to say these are all obligations. Once FFOZ states that there are aspects of the Acts 15 directives and other portions of the New Testament that actually obligate the Gentile believers to specific parts of Torah obedience, then we come to the realization that a very large part of the Christian world is (unknowingly) disobeying God.

OK, maybe I’m overstating the point, but Toby’s article seems to open up that can of worms and it also takes the One Law vs. Messianic Judaism debate to a whole new level. I’ve been actively participating in that debate (again) on this blog for the past several days (and I have the headaches to prove it) and I must admit, Toby’s article tosses some of the arguments presented into a cocked hat, so to speak.

As far as the debate regarding Gentile Christians, the Acts 15 letter, and the refactoring of Christian obligations to the Law are concerned (traditional Christians reading this blog cannot fail to be intrigued and maybe dismayed at this point), Toby Janicki’s article “The Gentile Believer’s Obligation to the Torah of Moses” may have put us into a whole new ballgame (please forgive the mixed metaphors). I highly recommend that you buy a copy of Messiah Journal, issue 109 for this article alone. Toby’s article is nothing less than landmark.

Uncategorized

Cloaked in Light

Leave a comment

Rav Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev, zt”l, offered a parable to understand why we do not say hallel on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. “This can be compared to a king who loves his children very much. Since they are close to the king they grasp his greatness and can sing his praises as is fitting.

After a while, these children left the king’s palace to a distant place. They went on a long and dark journey. Their expensive garments became soiled and torn. Any remnant of good they had taken from the king’s table was lost and they virtually forgot their noble lineage due to the difficult circumstances they were required to endure. After enduring much difficulty and pain, they returned to the gate of their father the king. Obviously they were filled with shame and at first they were certainly unable to praise the king as is fitting. How could they explain why they had left and strayed to such distant places? It was only after the king graciously forgave them and they were able to remove their soiled garments that they began to return to themselves. After spending some time in the presence of the king, partaking of the delicacies of the palace, they could once again praise the king as is fitting.”

Rav Levi Yitzchak explained, “Each year we are just like those princes. When Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur arrive, we feel so ashamed of our sins that we cannot possibly say hallel—fitting praise for the King. It is only after we are completely cleansed from all sins and have prepared for Sukkos that we can once again praise the King eight days as is fitting.”

Daf Yomi Digest
Stories Off the Daf
“The King’s Table
Arachin 10

Rema writes that one should attempt to begin reading about something good and finish reading about something good. Mishnah Berurah explains that Rema means that one should begin and end with something good about the Jewish People.

Mishna Berura Yomi Digest
Halacha Highlight
“Beginning and ending an aliyah with something good”
Rema Siman 138, Seif 1

The general custom during the traditional Torah readings on Shabbat, is to begin each Aliyah with something positive about the Jews and to end each aliyah in the same manner. It doesn’t always work out that way, but it is one of the reasons the portions of each aliyah are selected as they are. We can learn a general principle of life from this.

I once heard a high school teacher say that whenever he found it necessary to criticize a student, he would take the student to his office to avoid embarrassing him in front of the class, then he would begin the criticism by giving the student a compliment and, after delivering the “painful” portion of the rebuke, would end by delivering another compliment. In this manner, the student would not feel as if his relationship with the teacher was based solely on the child’s failure, and that there were other qualities of the student that the teacher recognized and admired.

In the Daf for Arachin 10, we see that the children of the King started life very well under his guidance but that life took a turn for the worse when they struck out on their own. Returning to their father, they were ashamed to the point of being unable even to praise the King as was his due. However, the King ended this period of failure in the lives of his children with the same goodness as it had begun, by removing the filth from upon them and returning them to a clean state. How like another parable that was told by the Master.

Our lives all begin in innocence at our birth but as is common with human beings, we turn to serve our own interests and to sin against other people and against God. Even people who are born in religious homes and who are raised by devout parents cannot maintain a life of pure innocence, and the “darkness” of our human natures begins to dampen the goodness of the image in which we were created.

BrillianceYet we have a King who is unwilling that we should begin but not end our lives in the same goodness, and like the parable of Rav Levi Yitzchak, all we need to do is return to our Father in humility and with a contrite heart, and He will remove that which is filth from upon our shoulders and clothe us in pure light.

Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. And the LORD said to Satan, “The LORD rebuke you, O Satan! The LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this a brand plucked from the fire?” Now Joshua was standing before the angel, clothed with filthy garments. And the angel said to those who were standing before him, “Remove the filthy garments from him.” And to him he said, “Behold, I have taken your iniquity away from you, and I will clothe you with pure vestments.” And I said, “Let them put a clean turban on his head.” So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him with garments. And the angel of the LORD was standing by.

And the angel of the LORD solemnly assured Joshua, “Thus says the LORD of hosts: If you will walk in my ways and keep my charge, then you shall rule my house and have charge of my courts, and I will give you the right of access among those who are standing here. –Zechariah 3:1-7

Bless the LORD, O my soul!
O LORD my God, you are very great!
You have donned majesty and splendor
cloaked in light as with a garment,
stretching out the heavens like a curtain. –Psalm 104:1-2

"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